Developing the evidence-base to inform policy on inclusive research design
- PMID: 40109939
- PMCID: PMC11919494
- DOI: 10.1098/rsos.241380
Developing the evidence-base to inform policy on inclusive research design
Abstract
Considering diversity when designing and conducting research is fundamental to the responsible conduct of research and ensures that outputs from scientific research are reproducible, minimize bias and enable everyone within society the opportunity to benefit. Therefore, health and biomedical research should include consideration of diversity and inclusion in the way studies are designed and conducted. An evaluation of health researchers' approaches to diversity was undertaken to generate evidence to inform research policy development by the UK Medical Research Council (MRC). Seven hundred and seventy-two researchers responded to an anonymized public survey about diversity and inclusion in research design and 590 applications for research funding were evaluated. Fifty per cent of survey respondents undertaking human participant research reported taking diversity, usually age and sex, into account. Although 43% of animal researchers reported using females and males, only 28% of grant applications demonstrated this. Our findings demonstrate that many researchers do not routinely consider diversity when designing research. Furthermore, we identified a gap between what animal researchers reported doing and what was evident in funding applications. Informed by this analysis, MRC implemented a new policy requiring researchers to demonstrate how they embed diversity and inclusion in research design. This survey provides a benchmark for evaluating policy impact.
Keywords: diversity; inclusion; research policy; responsible conduct of research.
© 2025 The Author(s).
Conflict of interest statement
All authors, except for Leah Li, were employees of the Medical Research Council (MRC) when the research was undertaken. The authors have no other competing interests to declare.
Similar articles
-
Evaluating a grant development public involvement funding scheme: a qualitative document analysis.Res Involv Engagem. 2024 Jun 10;10(1):57. doi: 10.1186/s40900-024-00588-w. Res Involv Engagem. 2024. PMID: 38858792 Free PMC article.
-
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12. Early Hum Dev. 2020. PMID: 33036834
-
Meta-research: justifying career disruption in funding applications, a survey of Australian researchers.Elife. 2022 Apr 4;11:e76123. doi: 10.7554/eLife.76123. Elife. 2022. PMID: 35373737 Free PMC article.
-
Routinely used interventions to improve attachment in infants and young children: a national survey and two systematic reviews.Health Technol Assess. 2023 Feb;27(2):1-226. doi: 10.3310/IVCN8847. Health Technol Assess. 2023. PMID: 36722615 Free PMC article.
-
Impact of summer programmes on the outcomes of disadvantaged or 'at risk' young people: A systematic review.Campbell Syst Rev. 2024 Jun 13;20(2):e1406. doi: 10.1002/cl2.1406. eCollection 2024 Jun. Campbell Syst Rev. 2024. PMID: 38873396 Free PMC article. Review.
References
-
- US Government Accountability Office (GAO) . 2024. Drug safety: most drugs withdrawn in recent years had greater health risks for women. Report GAO-01-286R. See https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-01-286r.
-
- Stanford University . 2024. Gendered innovations. See https://genderedinnovations.stanford.edu/ (accessed 2 March 2024).
-
- Buolamwini J, Gebru T. 2018. Gender shades: intersectional accuracy disparities in commercial gender classification. Proc. Mach. Learn. Res 81, 77–91. https://proceedings.mlr.press/v81/buolamwini18a
Associated data
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous