USER committee

The Stakeholders Research Strategy Review Committee (USER) was established in 2008, with the remit to advise our funding committees on the relevance and importance of the research proposals we receive.

USER is chaired by the Medical Director and comprises clinically active, but predominantly research inactive, health professionals and appropriately selected members of the public. 

The detailed membership is as follows:

  • 3 clinical rheumatologists
  • 2 orthopaedic surgeons
  • 1 allied health professional
  • 1 primary care physician
  • 6 patient/public members, who bring a broad range of perspectives

Members

Mr Stephen Cannon
Mr David Chandler
Mrs Trish Cornell
Dr Nicola Goodson
Mr Michael Green
Mrs Maureen Grossman
Dr John Halsey
Mr Matthew Homfray
Dr Robert Marshall
Mr Mark Ranson
Dr Jane Taylor
Mr Martin Eve

USER has the following tasks:

How USER reviews grants

USER contributes to the more formal scientific review of grant applications by advising on the relevance and priority of the research to stakeholders.  Prior to each committee meeting where grant funding is decided, USER meets and provides a written review, from their perspective on the proposed research, which will then form part of the materials used by our relevant funding committees in reaching their decisions.

At a practical level, USER members are pre-circulated with a lay case for support for each application, but members may have pre-meeting access to the full application if they wish. The lay summary is written in non-technical language, but should aim to provide sufficient insight for the non-specialist to understand the broad thrust of the planned research.

USER members will consider:

  • Strategic importance, including the need to encourage repeated applications to increase chances of success
  • Potential that the research either immediately, or in the future, could lead to clinical benefit
  • Any issues of practicality that are relevant to the patient or clinician

USER aims to reach a consensus view on these issues and provide a brief report which will be circulated to the relevant funding committee, who are expected to take this into account alongside the formal peer review process.

For some areas of basic research, which may be difficult for the non-expert to understand, USER can seek specific external opinion on the potential for future patient benefit, although this would be optimally obtained as part of the routine peer review process.

As an audit of this process, the results of USER’s input from their previous meeting into the research review process are being monitored. If there is evidence that USER opinion (for example, encouraging resubmission in an area of high strategic priority) has not appeared to influence the funding results, this will be identified and consideration given to what changes might be needed.

Annual research strategy review

USER meets with our Trustees and the members of our Scientific Strategy Committee for a full day once a year, with the purpose of reviewing our research activities as a whole and the achievements of our researchers, as well as outlining areas of potential unmet need. The view is both retrospective in documenting and reviewing research recently funded and completed, and prospective in identifying areas that we should be supporting.

The aims of the annual meeting are to:

  • Identify areas of research success with potential for patient benefit that should be considered for our funded research exploitation
  • Identify areas of research success in patient care (diagnosis, management or prevention) that require a process of implementation by health care providers
  • Identify areas of research deficiency

The results of these deliberations will inform the strategic thinking of our Medical Director, and will:

  • be fed back to research teams with encouragement to continue
  • be highlighted on our website as areas of research interest or
  • be used to influence the activity of healthcare providers such as the NHS
Share |