Fellowships

Fellowships Key Information

Five levels of NIHR Fellowship award are available (pre-doctoral, doctoral, advanced, professorship and development & skills enhancement award). Also available: the Integrated Clinical and Practitioner Academic Programme and the Local Authority Academic Fellowship Programme

Pre-Doctoral Fellowship (PDF)

• 1 year (between 50 and 100 WTE)
• aimed at getting necessary skills and experience required to undertake a PhD
• will only fund applications which address one of the named strategic themes:
  • medical statistics
  • health economics
  • clinical trial designs
  • operational research
  • modelling
  • bioinformatics
  • qualitative research
  • mixed methods
  • epidemiology
• applicants need to demonstrate commitment and potential to develop as a future leader in research relevant to NIHR
• covers individual's salary, training and development costs up to £5,000, conference related costs up to £1000 and supervision fees up to £1,000

Doctoral Research Fellowship (DRF)

• 3 years (between 50 and 100 WTE); clinical applicants can include up to 20% clinical time as part of the fellowship
• assessment looks for high-quality research proposal, sound training and development programme along with commitment and support arrangements from supervisory team
• covers full salary, PhD tuition fees, and full research, training and development costs

Advanced Fellowship (AF)

• 2-5 years (between 50 and 100 WTE); clinical applicants can request 20% time dedicated to clinical service/development (cost will be covered by the fellowship)
• assessment looks for high-quality research proposal, strong and appropriate training and development plan, high level of support from host organisation and mentoring team
• 1 WTE Support post can be included (max 3 year post), includes PhD fees & £3000 training budget for post
• can be awarded up to two Advanced Fellowships sequentially, not normally totalling more than 8 years WTE of funding
• covers full salary, full research, training and development costs and conference related costs up to £2,000 per year

NIHR Professorship

• aims to fund research leaders of the future to promote effective translation of research and to strengthen health, public health and care research leadership at the highest academic levels
• 5 year award with an extensive support package
• Applicants MUST be nominated by their host institution
• Funding includes three support posts, research costs and leadership and development programme costs
• By the end of the award must have established 2 international collaborations and demonstrate leadership at national level 

Development and Skills Enhancement Award

• • 1 year (between 50 and 100 WTE but max. duration is 1 year regardless of WTE)
  • must be a current member of the NIHR Academy
  • hold a relevant PhD or awarded before the start of the award
  • assessment looks for clear articulated plan for how the award will support an application for future funding and a list of skills and experience that will be gained with the award
  • researchers can receive several awards over the lifetime of career
  • host organisations will be expected to match the level of funding; award will cover the salary plus training and development costs up to £5,000, conference costs up to £1,000 and mentorship costs up to £1,000
  • The award runs three times a year – opening in January, May and September – and will support a mixture of researcher-led applications and applications from areas of strategic importance. The current themes are:
    • health data science
    • clinical trials
    • entrepreneurship and working with industry

Summary of Panel Observation Tips

• Candidates can apply a maximum of two times for the same fellowship (applications deemed fundable but below the funding cut off will not count towards the maximum of 2 application attempts)
• Applicants can select any percentage option between 50 and 100% WTE

Doctoral Fellowship

Strengths:

• Well-developed PPI: Applicants who involved the RDS had better developed PPI details on methodologies were sometimes light in both qualitative and quantitative research.
• Clear and logical career journey: Candidates who had a clear and logical career journey, with a strong understanding of the methodologies needed during the fellowship, were viewed favorably.
• Appropriate training and supervision: Candidates who had access to appropriate training and supervision, including methodological and clinical expertise, were more likely to be successful.
• Realistic projects: Projects that were realistic in terms of timeline, on a trajectory for patient benefit, and logical in terms of the order of the work packages were viewed favorably.
• Strong interview performance: A strong performance at the interview could compensate for a weaker project.

Weaknesses:

• Underdeveloped PPI: PPI was often underdeveloped, unrealistic in terms of costing, and there was confusion amongst some candidates on the difference between public involvement and qualitative research.
• Lack of methodological skills: Details on methodologies were sometimes light in both qualitative and quantitative research.
• Unrealistic timescales: Some candidates proposed unrealistic/overambitious timescales, such as completing two systematic reviews in a short timeframe without undertaking a scoping review first.
• Lack of appropriate training and supervision: The place and supervisory team were often an afterthought, with methodologists and clinical expertise sometimes missing from the supervisory team.
• Overstating research impact: The panel picked up on candidates overstating the impact of their research given the stage it was at.

Emerging Trends:

• Emphasis on training and development: There was an emphasis on having personal development in the training plan (as well as developing research skills).
• Increased importance of PPI: The plan for the future is that PPI will be incorporated into the overall mark and so will have more influence on the ranking of the candidates.

Other Key Issues:

• Concerns about the level of statistics support: The panel wondered if there is a capacity issue for applicants accessing statistics support at the moment.
• Concerns about the level of support from supervisory teams: The panel wondered if the supervisors had even read the application.

Additional Notes:

• The scoring system used by the panel is a 5-point scoring system (1 = poor to 5 = excellent) to score three components of the application (Applicant; Research Project; Training).
• The panel noted whether the support needs of public contributors were appropriate as sometimes the PPI did seem burdensome.
• The training plan should include a placement elsewhere in other centers of excellence as part of the scientific/training plan. International placements were viewed favorably.

Advanced Fellowships

Weaknesses included:

• • Unrealistic or poorly defined project milestones.
  • Tokenistic Patient and Public Involvement (PPI).
  • Lack of Clinical Trials Unit (CTU) involvement for trials.
  • Unclear commercial partner involvement.
  • Poorly developed training and development plans.
  • Naïve ideas about support and research approach.
  • Failure to incorporate existing knowledge.
  • Monofocus on own institution, lack of national/international engagement.

Strengths and Preferences:

• Strong applications demonstrated a clear and plausible path to patient benefit.
• The panel was willing to consider applications using existing biomarkers and those around medical education.
• The award emphasizes investing in the person, not just the project.
• No set standard for the number of grants or publications; assessed individually based on career level.
• The training plan is crucial and should be well-integrated with the project.
• Community-based co-productive efforts in research design were seen as novel and important.

Key Learning Points:

• The importance of a robust training and development plan.
• The need for a clear and well-justified research approach.
• The value of engaging with national and international experts.
• The significance of genuine EDI considerations.
• The necessity for robust qualitative research methods.

Additional Notes:

• The panel was receptive to various research areas and did not express specific concerns.

Funding Deadlines