The evolution of a local R&D strategy: the experience of a service in the UK National Health Service (NHS)

Increasing concern about the state of health‐related research in the UK in the 80s and early 90s, led to an influential parliamentary review. The consequence of this was to strengthen health research through a programme that was fully integrated into the management structure of the NHS. No country had ever attempted such an ambitious approach ( Black, 1997 ). In 1994 a far‐reaching review, recommended further, revolutionary changes to the management of R&D in the UK National Health Service ( Culyer, 1994 ). Many of these were implemented in 1997 with the result that every UK health service at regional and local level has developed an infrastructure, and management arrangements for R&D activity. In most local areas, hospitals with significant involvement in R&D have been eligible to bid to the UK Department of Health for NHS R&D Support funds. In Nottingham, three Hospital Trusts and a community based service made bids to the Department of Health and received grants to support R&D. This paper focuses on one of the hospital Trusts ‐ the mental health service in Nottingham. Our experience will be of particular interest as the first bid that the mental health service made was spectacularly unsuccessful. The organisation was forced to consider dis‐investment in its existing research infrastructure and a potential negative impact on the provision of patient care. This led to a wide‐ranging consultation and evaluation of research and research‐related activity. A range of approaches and tools were deployed to develop the strategy and to ensure its successful implementation and evolution. The strategy reflected a balanced approach, taking into account historical and organisational research strengths, while recognising the need to build capacity and capability, enhance foresight capability and strengthen the knowledge base. The ability to contribute to, and influence policy and practice has been a key driver of the strategy. The result was a successful bid and the evolution of an R&D strategy that has been flexible in its response to policy changes, changing local circumstances and wider socio‐economic trends and technical innovations. Furthermore, R&D performance, measured through outputs, impacts and income, has continually improved and increased.     

Non‐linear Predictability of UK Stock Market Returns*

Linear predictability of stock market returns has been widely reported. However, recently developed theoretical research has suggested that due to the interaction of noise and arbitrage traders, stock returns are inherently non‐linear, whereby market dynamics differ between small and large returns. This paper examines whether an exponential smooth transition threshold model, which is capable of capturing this non‐linear behaviour, can provide a better characterization of UK stock market returns than either a linear model or an alternate non‐linear model. The results of both in‐sample and out‐of‐sample specification tests support the exponential smooth transition threshold model and hence the belief that investor behaviour does differ between large and small returns.     

Additive and Multiplicative Uncertainty Revisited: What Explains the Contrasting Biases?

above the certainty level while for additive uncertainty the price should be lower than the certainty level. This note gives an intuitive explanation for the result after first presenting a parsimonious review of the two models. We also discuss which, if either, of the two models is more realistic. Received December 14, 2001; revised version received July 16, 2002 Published online: April 30, 2003 We thank referees for helpful comments. Ciaran Driver would like to acknowledge the research facilities from ANU, Canberra for their help in writing this paper.