Objectives Gender inequity has persisted in academic medicine. Yet equity is vital for countries to achieve their full potential in terms of translational research and patient benefit. This study sought to understand how the gender equity programme, Athena SWAN, can be enabled and constrained by interactions between the programme and the context it is implemented into, and whether these interactions might produce unintended consequences. Design Multimethod qualitative case studies using a realist evaluation approach. Setting 5 departments from a university medical school hosting a Translational Research Organisation. Participants 25 hours of observations of gender equality committee meetings, 16 in-depth interviews with Heads of Departments, Committee Leads and key personnel involved in the initiative. 4 focus groups with 15 postdoctoral researchers, lecturers and senior lecturers. Results The implementation of Athena SWAN principles was reported to have created social space to address gender inequity and to have highlighted problematic practices to staff. However, a number of factors reduced the programme's potential to impact gender inequity. Gender inequity was reproduced in the programme's enactment as female staff was undertaking a disproportionate amount of Athena SWAN work, with potential negative impacts on individual women's career progression. Early career researchers experienced problems accessing Athena SWAN initiatives. Furthermore, the impact of the programme was perceived to be undermined by wider institutional practices, national policies and societal norms, which are beyond the programme's remit. Conclusions Gender equity programmes have the potential to address inequity. However, paradoxically, they can also unintentionally reproduce and reinforce gender inequity through their enactment. Potential programme impacts may be undermined by barriers to staff availing of career development and training initiatives, and by wider institutional practices, national policies and societal norms.

In the UK, the recruitment of patients into clinical research is a national health research and development policy priority. There has been limited investigation of how national level factors operate as barriers or facilitators to recruitment work, particularly from the perspective of staff undertaking patient recruitment work. The aim of this study is to identify and examine staff views of the key organisational barriers and facilitators to patient recruitment work in one clinical research group located in an NHS Academic Health Science Centre. A qualitative study utilizing in-depth, one-to-one semi-structured interviews with 11 purposively selected staff with particular responsibilities to recruit and retain patients as clinical research subjects. Thematic analysis classified interview data by recurring themes, concepts, and emergent categories for the purposes of establishing explanatory accounts. The findings highlight four key factors that staff perceived to be most significant for the successful recruitment and retention of patients in research and identify how staff located these factors within patients, studies, the research centre, the trust, and beyond the trust. Firstly, competition for research participants at an organisational and national level was perceived to undermine recruitment success. Secondly, the tension between clinical and clinical research workloads was seen to interrupt patient recruitment into studies, despite national funding arrangements to manage excess treatment costs. Thirdly, staff perceived an imbalance between personal patient burden and benefit. Ethical committee regulation, designed to protect patients, was perceived by some staff to detract from clarification and systematisation of incentivisation strategies. Finally, the structure and relationships within clinical research teams, in particular the low tacit status of recruitment skills, was seen as influential. The results of this case-study, conducted in an exemplary NHS academic research centre, highlight current systematic challenges to patient recruitment and retention in clinical studies more generally as seen from the perspective of staff at the 'sharp end’ of recruiting. Staff experience is that, beyond individual clinical research design and protocol factors, wider organisational and extra-organisational norms, structures, and processes operate as significant facilitators or hindrances in the recruitment of patients as research subjects.

Internationally, there has been increasing focus on creating health research systems. This article aims to investigate the challenges of implementing apparently simple strategies to support the development of a health research system. We focus on a case study of an English National Health Service Hospital Trust that sought to implement the national recommendation that health organisations should introduce a statement about research on all patient admission letters. We apply core concepts from complexity theory to the case study and undertake a documentary analysis of the email dialogue between staff involved in implementing this initiative. The process of implementing a research statement in patient admission letters in one clinical service took 1 year and 21 days. The length of time needed was influenced firstly by adaptive self-organisation, underpinned by competing interests. Secondly, it was influenced by the relationship between systems, rather than simply being a product of issues within those systems. The relationship between the health system and the research system was weaker than might have been expected. Responsibilities were unclear, leading to confusion and delayed action. Conventional ways of thinking about organisations suggest that change happens when leaders and managers change the strategic vision, structure or procedures in an organisation and then persuade others to rationally implement the strategy. However, health research systems are complex adaptive systems characterised by high levels of unpredictability due to self-organisation and systemic interactions, which give rise to ‘emergent’ properties. We argue for the need to study how micro-processes of organisational dynamics may give rise to macro patterns of behaviour and strategic organisational direction and for the use of systems approaches to investigate the emergent properties of health research systems.

Internationally, little is known about the experiences of the minority who have birthed both in hospital and at home. This group are in a unique position to provide experiential evidence regarding perceptions of care under each approach. Obstetric care within the hospital setting is the hegemonic approach to birth in western cultures. Homebirth is at least as safe as hospital birth for those with low-risk pregnancies, yet access is strictly regulated. To explore how those who have experienced both hospital and homebirth maternity care in Ireland perceived the care received, and experienced birth in each setting. 141 participants who birthed both in hospital and at home between 2011 and 2021 completed an online survey. Participants' overall experience scores were significantly higher for homebirth (9.7/10) than hospital birth (5.5/10). In hospital, midwifery-led care scored significantly higher (6.4/10) than consultant-led care (4.9/10). Qualitative data revealed four explanatory themes: 1) Regulation of birth; 2) Continuity of care and/or carer and establishing relationships; 3) Bodily integrity and informed consent; and 4) Lived experiences of labour and birth at home and in hospital. Homebirth was perceived far more positively than hospital birth experiences across all aspects of care surveyed. Findings suggest that those who have experienced both models of care have unique perspectives and aspirations about childbirth. This study provides evidence regarding the need for genuine choices for maternity care and reveals the importance of care which is respectful and responsive to divergent ideologies about birth.

Signs of Safety (SofS) is a popular framework for child protection social work practice, used in more than 200 jurisdictions worldwide. Although workers tend to find SofS tools easy to use, skilled application of the approach is challenging, and research has found that SofS is often not implemented as intended. This study aimed to deepen and inform the explanation (initial theory) of what key SofS tools and processes are expected to achieve in the family–worker interaction and why. A realist synthesis was used, involving a realist review of literature and focus groups with 22 international SofS experts. Using self‐determination theory, we detail how SofS can be conceptualized as aiming to support families to experience ‘autonomous’ rather than ‘controlled’ motivation by supporting basic human needs for ‘autonomy’ (feeling a sense of volition), ‘competence’ (feeling effective) and ‘relatedness’ (feeling cared for). This explanation can be used for training and evaluation purposes to better explain and test how SofS expects to engage families in the child protection process. More broadly, we suggest that self‐determination theory may contribute a mechanistic explanation of effective social work practice more generally and that this hypothesis should be empirically investigated.