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.
• Committee's support for revisions: The committee was supportive and tried to invite as many Stage 1 applications as possible to Stage 2, suggesting a willingness to provide feedback and encourage revisions.
• Detailed examples of feedback: The observations provide specific examples of the feedback given to applicants, including minor and major fixable faults, and reasons for not funding applications.

Summary of feedback

across 12 outcome letters - RDS database from 1 June 2022

Common themes

1. Rationale and justification:
• Many proposals lacked a clear rationale or justification for the need for the research.
• Proposals often failed to adequately demonstrate the added value of their research in the context of existing knowledge, guidelines, or similar studies.
2. Methodology:
• Methodological issues were frequently cited, including insufficient detail and clarity.
• Specific concerns included:
• Feasibility of timelines and budgets.
• Justification of sample sizes and intervention time points.
• Lack of robust evaluation
3. Patient and Public Involvement:
• Most proposals were criticized for under-developed PPI plans, insufficient representation, or lack of clarity on the role of PPI representatives.
• Proposals were encouraged to engage diverse and appropriate groups, including children, young people, and carers.
4. Recruitment and Inclusion:
• Recruitment strategies and inclusion criteria were questioned for feasibility and equity.
• Concerns about potential biases in participant selection and representation were noted.
5. Plain English Summaries:
• Several proposals were asked to rewrite their PES to eliminate jargon and ensure accessibility to non-specialist audiences.

Key takeaways for future applications

• Strengthen Rationale: Clearly articulate the need for the research and its added value compared to existing knowledge and practices.
• Enhance Methodological Detail: Provide robust, detailed methodologies, including feasibility studies, safety assurances, and recruitment plans.
• Improve PPI Engagement: Expand and diversify PPI representation and clarify their roles throughout the research.
• Simplify PES: Ensure plain English summaries are free of jargon and accessible to lay audiences.
• Address Feasibility Concerns: Realistically align project goals, timelines, and budgets to ensure deliverability.

Application-specific highlights

1: Criticized for insufficient articulation of research value and under-developed PPI.

2: Raised concerns about methodological gaps, feasibility, and health economic evaluation.

3: Highlighted strong co-production but raised concerns about unclear social care trajectory and potential biases in recruitment.

4: Identified issues with justification, online meeting inclusion, and inadequately described outcomes and timelines.

5: Emphasized unclear study rationale and under-developed PPI.

6: Highlighted insufficient methodological detail and lack of a statistician on the team.

7: Noted concerns with self-medication risks, withdrawal protocols, and unclear NHS integration.

8: Questioned the added value, subpopulation analysis, and limited PPI involvement.

9: Identified unrealistic aims and recruitment challenges.

10: Requested clarity on feasibility, methodology, and mitigation of NHS delays.

11: Requested refinements to methodology, including clarity on instrument design and systematic review.

12: Praised for EDI focus but criticized for unclear study rationale and insufficient time commitment from team members.

Funding Deadlines

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