Research for Patient Benefit

RfPB Key Information

Director: Professor Kevin Munro

Aim: To support applied health and social care research for the benefit of users of the NHS

Funding: There are 3 levels of funding (only researcher-led calls):

• Awards of up to £500,000 over a period of up to 36 months
• Awards for feasibility studies up to £300,000
• Awards of up to £200,000 for higher risk projects

Process: Two-stage process (shortened application form for Stage 1) to one of the 10 regional funding panels. The process takes about 10 months.

Success rate: 50% success rate at second stage

Summary of Panel Observation Tips

• Relatively inexperienced investigators can lead but strong mentorship must be in place
• RfPB will not fund pilot studies (only feasibility studies)

Strengths and Weaknesses in Applications:

Strengths:

• • Strong PPI (Patient and Public Involvement) input was essential, with well-defined roles and active involvement throughout the research process.
  • Clear articulation of patient benefit and the trajectory towards achieving it, especially for interventions intended for HTA (Health Technology Assessment) trials.
  • Realistic timelines and appropriate FTE (Full-Time Equivalent) allocation for team members.
  • Strong research teams with diverse expertise and a track record of collaboration.
  • Applications targeting high-prevalence/high-burden issues or rare diseases with significant patient impact.
  • Preliminary work and evidence of team cohesion.

Weaknesses:

• • Poor PPI, including tokenistic involvement or lack of diversity in PPI groups.
  • Unrealistic timelines, lack of clarity in patient benefit trajectory, and inadequate consideration of EDI (Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion).
  • Underspecified methodologies or lack of clarity in research aims, unsuitable outcome measures, and insufficient detail on ethics.
  • Lack of originality or awareness of existing literature.
  • Concerns about the feasibility of delivering the project, including recruitment targets and intervention implementation.

Emerging Trends and Panel Preferences:

• The panel actively sought to fund ECRs (Early Career Researchers) but emphasized the need for suitable support.
• There was an increasing emphasis on implementation, dissemination, and next steps in research.
• The panel supported new and innovative approaches but required a thorough consideration of risks and mitigation strategies.
• EDI considerations were crucial, with panels attuned to vague or inadequate EDI plans.
• The panel acknowledged the importance of methodological research and welcomed applications from under-represented disciplines.
• Regional prevalence: The panel will now consider the relevance of the topic based on regional prevalence, suggesting that research addressing health issues prevalent in the specific region may be prioritised.

RfPB Example

Enhancing the efficacy of non-invasive ventilation for patients with motor neurone disease: synthesising the evidence, mapping the services and translating the evidence into clinical practice

Funding: £217k, 2018-2020

Aim: To identify the best ways to provide non-invasive ventilation services to people with motor neurone disease and to use this information to develop resources to ensure patients get the best service possible.

Other RfPB Examples

• Co-production of best practice recommendations for local authority reviews of double-handed homecare packages
• WISE (Wrist Injury Strengthening Exercise): a randomised multicentre feasibility study of resistance exercise versus usual care for optimising function after distal radius fracture in adults aged 50 years or over
• Preventing psychosis in young people at ultra-high-risk attending NHS mental health services: a feasibility study of a novel intervention target
• Quantifying and implementing patient preferences for the treatment of high-risk rectal cancer, including the new strategy of organ preservation: PrefCoRe project