Policy Research Programme

Key issues raised:

• Deviation from the brief
• Lack of clarity in methods
• Lack of clarity of elements of the brief
• Lack of transferability/generalisability (need for local models/theories of change to demonstrate transferability/generalisability)
• Plain English summaries that are not plain English
• Lack of resources for applicants
• Concerns about appropriate/adequate representation of individuals who don’t currently engage with statutory services
• Unrealistic timeline/ Gantt chart not being provided
• Lack of justification on sample size for qualitative studies
• Lack of additional detail in terms methodology, project management and delivery of work packages, compared to the previous round and not everything in the brief was covered
• Change in team members, even lead members
• Lack of dissemination plan
• Data sourcing to ensure appropriate local and national data linkage
• Outputs need to include perspectives of service users

Key strengths noted:

• Co-applicants had relevant experience/extensive expertise in order to conduct the project.
• Outlines plan to ensure recruitment includes under-represented groups.
• Addressing peer review comments from previous round very well.
• Inclusion of health economics assessment with a health economist.
• Use of existing surveys and toolkits.
• Addresses call briefing/an important research question.
• The panel were reassured when the applicants were an experienced team with a strong track record.

Guidance information:

• The panel chair noted that of 16 calls released in the last 12 months, 3 received no applications and several received a very small number. There was a feeling among the panel that the quality of applications received had also diminished.
• The programme is looking for ways to increase the appeal of their calls.
• There was a discussion of potential reasons for the low number of applications. It was suggested it could be related to the short timescales – noted that this doesn’t allow for good PPI to be done.
• It was also noted that often PRP calls are not pure, traditional health research and therefore they need to get them out to the right audiences and this involves going into new areas. It was also felt that some briefs are too prescriptive/over-specified and leave little room for academic input and that perhaps people are put off applying because of the difficulties associated with accessing data (often sensitive data, held externally). Researchers are perhaps unsure how to work with the data and with data owners.
• There was discussion of the potential to make awards to ECRs for smaller, cheaper short term projects to enable them to build experience.