Equality, diversity and inclusion strategies of NIHR biomedical research centres and clinical research facilities across England: a qualitative content analysis

Journal article

Objectives: The National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) has 20 Biomedical Research Centres (BRCs) and 28 Clinical Research Facilities (CRFs) that work with NHS organisations and universities to translate cutting-edge research into new interventions. As mandated by NIHR, all BRCs/CRFs have an Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) strategy which details how they will implement EDI through their practices, research and organisational systems. This UK-based study aimed to conduct a pilot qualitative analysis of EDI strategies to compare all 20 NIHR BRCs/CRFs, identify common priorities and improve inclusion across research infrastructures. The analysis was presented at the first in-person seminar for NIHR EDI professionals (Birmingham, October 2024). Design: Qualitative content analysis of publicly available EDI strategy documents. Setting: 48 research infrastructures (20 BRCs and 28 CRFs). Methods: EDI strategies were collated into NVivo and Microsoft Excel where inductive coding and content analysis was executed for objectives, action plans and success measures. Both quantitative and qualitative content analyses were conducted to analyse the prevalence of categories and similarities or differences between them. Logic models were developed to map the process of implementing EDI for each main category generated. Results: The most common main category across objectives was ‘Cultural change in workplaces’ for BRCs and ‘Leadership, governance and policy’ for CRFs. For action plans, codes for ‘Collaborations and Networks’ and ‘Research development and delivery’ were most prevalent for BRCs—for CRFs, it was ‘Workforce culture change’ and ‘Research development and delivery’. Success measures for both BRCs and CRFs most often related to ‘Summary reports, feedback, audits and monitoring’. Differences between BRCs and CRFs reflected their organisational roles and strategic maturity, with BRCs tending to have more comprehensive, measurable strategies. Conclusions: This study provides the first systematic analysis of EDI strategies across all NIHR BRCs and CRFs, offering a comprehensive mapping of how EDI priorities are articulated and operationalised across objectives, action plans and success measures. While both infrastructures align with NIHR’s inclusion goals, BRCs generally showed more strategic maturity than CRFs. As the analysis was based solely on publicly available strategy documents, it could not determine the extent to which any strategy had been implemented in practice. Future research is needed to examine implementation and impact. The contribution of this work lies in demonstrating systematically and for the first time the ways in which EDI commitments are framed across NIHR infrastructures and their varying levels of depth and maturity. Our findings support the development of more measurable EDI frameworks and highlight opportunities to strengthen inclusion across NIHR-funded research infrastructures.

Authors: Hua, P; Dawson, S; Phillips, H

• Publication status: Published
• Peer review status: Peer reviewed
• Publisher: BMJ Publishing Group
• Journal: BMJ Open
• Volume: 16
• Issue: 2
• Pages: e109321
• Article number: bmjopen-2025-109321
• Publication date: 2026-02-19
• Acceptance date: 2025-12-31
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2025-109321
• EISSN: 2044-6055
• ISSN: 2044-6055
• Language: English
• Keywords: HEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION & MANAGEMENT; Health Education; Education, Medical; Health Workforce; Health Equity