Programme Grants for Applied Research

PGfAR Key Information

Director: Professor Marian Knight

Aim: To support collaborative, multidisciplinary programmes of applied research (not single projects) leading to clear and identifiable patient benefit, typically through promotion of health, prevention of ill health, and optimal disease management, including safety and quality.

Funding: Only researcher-led calls. Funding is not fixed (average £2.5m).

Summary of Panel Observation Tips

• Looking for more creative, innovative projects that address future health challenges
• Needs complementary interweaving of work packages
• If possible, studies should take advantage of natural experiments and/or use existing healthcare data
• Programme Development Grants (PDGs) of up to £150k are available for research teams to carry out targeted preparatory work to develop PGfAR applications

The key observations from the PGfAR panel observations are as follows:

Overall Quality of Applications:

• Clarity: Applications should be well-written, avoid excessive acronyms, and be understandable to a non-expert audience.
• Remit: The proposed research must align with the PGfAR remit, and all workstreams should be interconnected and contribute to a cohesive program of work.
• Study Team: The research team should possess a diverse skill mix, including relevant individuals from practice, lay people, and academics.
• Relevance: The research should address national priorities and demonstrate a clear link to patient need.
• EDI: Equality, diversity, and inclusion should be considered throughout the application, including the research team, project design, and capacity building.
• PPI: Meaningful involvement of the public and patients is crucial, with consideration given to creative approaches and the inclusion of lay co-applicants.
• Impact and Scalability: The potential impact of the research on practice and/or policy should be clearly articulated, with a focus on real-world applicability and scalability.
• Interventions: Interventions should be evidence-based and linked to appropriate outcomes.
• Co-production: If co-production is included, it should be authentic and involve appropriate expertise and terminology.
• FTE: The allocation of FTE (full-time equivalent) for applicants should be justified and realistic.
• Innovative Methodologies: Innovative methods are encouraged but must be well-justified and demonstrate the potential to provide valuable information.
• Study Populations: The scope of the study population should be carefully considered, including potential subgroups and their impact on the project.
• Pragmatism: The research should be pragmatic and consider real-world constraints such as time, resources, and capacity.
• Awareness of Current State of Play: Applicants should be aware of existing research in their field and articulate how their proposed program distinguishes itself or builds upon previous work.
• Stage 1 Limitations: Stage 1 applications are expected to provide sufficient detail to demonstrate the importance, methodological rigor, and potential impact of the research, while adhering to word count limitations.

Strengths and Weaknesses:

• Strengths: The panel praised applications with strong IDE strategies, stakeholder engagement, clear plain English summaries, experienced research teams, and innovative dissemination strategies.
• Weaknesses: The panel raised concerns about applications with methodological weaknesses, unrealistic timelines, poor justification of sample size, and dissemination strategies that may not be inclusive of underserved populations.

Emerging Trends:

• The panel is supportive of research in priority areas such as social care.
• There is a focus on wider measures of benefit beyond narrow clinical measures.
• Innovative methods and non-RCT designs are encouraged where appropriate.
• Strong PPI and impact/wider benefit of the research are essential.

Additional Guidance:

• New funding schemes may be introduced to support specific research areas or approaches.
• PGfAR grants offer flexibility for potential changes in research over time, with funding provided in phases.
• Stage 1 reviewers focus on the strength of the research team, the importance of the proposal, the methodological rigor, the potential impact, and the value for money.

Funding Deadlines

PGfAR Example

Developing a novel system of care targeting risk factors for five manifestations of frailty to maintain the independence of older people in hospital and post-discharge

Funding: £100k, 2019-2020

Aim: To reduce post-discharge loss of independence for older people hospitalised with acute illness through modification of in-patient risk factors for manifestations of frailty.

Other PGfAR Examples

• Improving diagnosis and treatment of cognitive problems after stroke
• PREparing for Improving the use of NHS primary care services and Antibiotics for Children with respiratory Tract infections (Pre-INACT)
• Improving threat detection and quality surveillance: tools for infection management
• Expanding the role of NHS Direct in the management of long-term conditions
• Stem Cells and Immunotherapies: Improving Bone Marrow Transplantation Outcomes