Research governance in England needs improvements to ensure participant and site confidentiality in healthcare workforce research

Abstract Sensitive healthcare workforce research relies on credible assurances of confidentiality for participating staff and organizations. Yet, National Health Service (NHS) research governance processes can compromise these assurances even before recruitment begins, particularly through processes such as site documentation, local principal investigator (PI) requirements, research passports, and portfolio reporting. These risks are especially important for studies examining organizationally sensitive topics such as bullying, speaking up, or patient safety issues, where perceived employer awareness may reduce participation or encourage self-censorship. From March 2026, the Health Research Authority introduced reforms for staff-only studies, including streamlined site set-up, reduced site visibility, and fewer requirements for local PIs or research passports in remote studies. However, further changes are needed to better balance transparency, oversight and confidentiality. Potential improvements include dedicated pathways for sensitive organizational research, restricted-access portfolio reporting, and more centralized governance documentation. Future changes should be co-designed with researchers and NHS research and development departments to protect confidentiality and improve research productivity, while maintaining ethical standards and accountability.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Health Research Policy and Systems
Published
2026-09-28
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-026-01538-6
Primary Topic
Ethics in Clinical Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

Research governance in England needs improvements to ensure participant and site confidentiality in healthcare workforce research

Esra Alkim Karaagac, Helen Bodenham-Chilton, Tommer Spence, Russell Mannion et al.
Health Research Policy and Systems
Ethics in Clinical Research
article

Research governance in England needs improvements to ensure participant and site confidentiality in healthcare workforce research

Esra Alkim Karaagac, Helen Bodenham-Chilton, Tommer Spence, Russell Mannion, Nathan Proudlove, Ashok Patnaik, Justin Aunger, Yingxi Zhao, Jill Maben, Kieran Walshe, Jane Ferguson
article en

Abstract

Abstract Sensitive healthcare workforce research relies on credible assurances of confidentiality for participating staff and organizations. Yet, National Health Service (NHS) research governance processes can compromise these assurances even before recruitment begins, particularly through processes such as site documentation, local principal investigator (PI) requirements, research passports, and portfolio reporting. These risks are especially important for studies examining organizationally sensitive topics such as bullying, speaking up, or patient safety issues, where perceived employer awareness may reduce participation or encourage self-censorship. From March 2026, the Health Research Authority introduced reforms for staff-only studies, including streamlined site set-up, reduced site visibility, and fewer requirements for local PIs or research passports in remote studies. However, further changes are needed to better balance transparency, oversight and confidentiality. Potential improvements include dedicated pathways for sensitive organizational research, restricted-access portfolio reporting, and more centralized governance documentation. Future changes should be co-designed with researchers and NHS research and development departments to protect confidentiality and improve research productivity, while maintaining ethical standards and accountability.

Health Research Policy and SystemsVol. 24(1)
University of Surrey (GB), University of Manchester (GB), University of Oxford (GB), NIHR Research Delivery Network (GB), NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre (GB), University of Birmingham (GB)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 9%
Ethics in Clinical Research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.