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

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

HTA Key Information

Director: Professor Andrew Farmer (from June Professor Anthony Gordon)

Aim: To determine the effectiveness, costs and broader impact of healthcare treatments and tests in a real life NHS settings. The purpose of an HTA study is to establish the clinical and cost-effectiveness of technologies in comparison with the current best alternative(s). “Technologies” include procedures, drugs, devices, diagnostic tests, settings of care and screening programmes.

Funding:  Commissioned and researcher-led. No fixed limits on duration or funding (can be several £million).

Summary of Panel Observation Tips

• Applicants need to provide evidence for the likely effectiveness of the intervention
• Quality of life indicators are very important especially where there are co-morbidities
• HTA is the largest of the NIHR programmes and the last stage in the translational pathway

Funding Deadlines

HTA Examples

StudY of Mirtazapine or carBamazepine for Agitation in Dementia (SYMBAD)

Funding: £2.1m, 2015-2020

Aim: To assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of mirtazapine or carbamazepine (all with usual care) on agitated behaviours in dementia through a pragmatic multi-centre double-blind placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial.

Other HTA Examples

• Evaluation of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of art therapy for people with non-psychotic mental disorders
•  
• A pragmatic adaptive sequential placebo controlled randomised trial to determine the effectiveness of Glyceryl trinitrate for retained placenta (Got-it trial)
•  
• A randomised comparison of the Fenix® magnetic anal sphincter versus sacral nerve stimulation for adult faecal incontinence
•  
• A multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing laparoscopic supra-cervical hysterectomy with second generation endometrial ablation for the treatment of heavy menstrual bleeding (HEALTH)

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

i4i Key Information

Director: Professor Mike Lewis

Aim: To accelerate the development and use of new treatments and devices in the NHS. The programme supports projects from  prototype through commercial development up until it is ready for clinical evaluation.

Funding:  Commissioned and researcher-led. Awards vary depending on the project and no official upper limit:

• Product Development Award (3 years)
• Challenge Awards (5 years)
• i4i Connect (for SMEs, £50-£100k over 6-12 months)

Process: All shortlisted teams are invited to sell their product idea at a 'Dragon’s Den’-type presentation and interview.

Summary of Panel Observation Tips

• Collaboration is key so teams need at least two partners from academic, commercial and/or the NHS
• i4i have a signposting service: enabling industry to connect with investigators
• Researchers can submit a pre-submission engagement form for early feedback on their ideas

Summary of Feedback

Across 10 outcome letters - RDS database from 1 June 2022

Common themes

1. Clinical need and innovation
• Committees acknowledged unmet needs and the innovative potential of several projects. However, more robust cases for the clinical and economic impact were often requested, along with better descriptions of competing technologies and existing standards of care.
• Projects involving personalised solutions (e.g., nutrition, mental health apps) lacked sufficient proof of concept, with innovation levels sometimes seen as incremental rather than transformative.
2. Commercialisation and economic justification
• Many projects needed clearer commercialisation strategies, including Intellectual Property (IP) management, market pathways, and competitive analyses.
• Economic evaluations were often incomplete, with insufficient justification for cost-effectiveness or details on value for money.
3. Proof of concept and data gaps
• Several proposals were flagged for lacking robust proof of concept or sufficient preliminary data to justify the proposed work. Committees sought more information on study designs, evidence plans, and validation processes.
4. Risk management and feasibility
• Risk mitigation strategies were frequently underdeveloped, particularly in relation to regulatory compliance, post-market surveillance, and technical feasibility.
5. Public and patient involvement (PPIE)
• PPIE was generally well-received but could often be expanded. Suggestions included:
• Greater inclusion of lived-experience representatives in design, management, and decision-making.
• Ensuring under-represented groups are engaged and supported, especially for remote participation.
6. Team expertise and workload
• Recommendations included strengthening project teams with specific expertise (e.g., clinical, regulatory, data management). Concerns were raised about disproportionate time commitments or insufficient team capacity for large, complex projects.

Key takeaways for future applications

• Strengthen proof-of-concept data and economic justifications early on.
• Clearly outline commercialisation plans, competitive analyses, and risk mitigation strategies.
• Expand and integrate meaningful PPIE, ensuring inclusivity and representation.
• Enhance project teams with domain-specific expertise and ensure realistic workload distributions.
• Provide plain English summaries with clear definitions of technical terms for accessibility.

Application specific highlights

1: Personalised intervention lacked a clear health economic case, and proof-of-concept data were insufficient. Risk mitigation strategies and competing technologies were not addressed.

2: Commended for ERP trial data and PPIE efforts. Concerns about commercialisation pathways and market positioning were raised.

3: Personalised treatment app was seen as incremental, with limited evaluation data and insufficient justification for cost-effectiveness.

4: Innovative software lacked proof of concept and economic benefit details. Concerns about duplicating existing solutions and needing a better commercialisation plan.

5: Mental health solution was commended for addressing waiting lists but needed stronger economic justification, competitive analysis, and better integration of PPIE feedback.

6: Antibiotic susceptibility solution was praised for innovation but needed broader use cases, a stronger commercial strategy, and mentorship for the lead applicant.

7: Commended for addressing unmet needs and integrating feedback. Suggestions included clarifying study designs and involving multiple lived-experience representatives.

8: Supported for detailed planning but flagged for needing stronger NHS compliance expertise and justification for clinical evaluation duration.

9: Technology needed more proof-of-concept data, competitor analysis, and regulatory planning. PPIE inclusivity and under-represented group engagement were highlighted.

10(connect): Welcomed for innovation and response to prior feedback. Stage 2 recommendations included IP arrangements, clinical expertise, and competitive analysis.

Funding Deadlines

i4i Example

Development of a novel stretcher for emergency and critical care patients

Funding: £761k, 2019-2022

Aim: To develop a novel stretcher for emergency and critical care patient transfer which features include: active warming, padding, X-ray transparency, foldability and a single-use cover. 

Other i4i Examples

• Novel multielement of coil for MR imaging of hyperpolarised helium and xenon
• Development of a novel rapid intravascular PO2 sensor
• Development of a minaturised, low-cost, optical eNO sensor for asthma monitoring
• Head up: The development of a novel cervical orthosis to support neck weakness due to neurological disease.
• Flushable Sustainable Devices for Active Continence Management (SUSUROL)

EME Key Information

Director: Professor John Simpson

Aim: To evaluate interventions with potential to make a step-change in promoting health, treating disease and improving care. EME supports clinical trials and other robustly designed studies that test the efficacy of interventions and the mechanisms of diseases and treatments. EME is a partnership between the MRC and NIHR.

Funding: Commissioned and researcher-led, no fixed limits on duration or funding.

Process: Two-stage process.

Summary of Panel Observation Tips

• EME funds research that is earlier in the development pathway than HTA
• The EME committee will look for detailed recruitment plans as few trials recruit > 50% of eligible patients
• Designs involving routinely collected digital data and/or novel methodologies are strongly encouraged

Key panel observations:

• Sample size: This includes issues such as sample size calculation justification, consideration of dropout rates, and ensuring the sample size is adequately powered.
• Clarity and presentation: Applications should have a clear research question, benefit, and impact. They should also be well-written and easy to read.
• PPI (Patient and Public Involvement): The level and detail of PPI involvement in the study design and execution are often scrutinized.
• Precision medicine: When applicable, applications should clearly define how precision medicine principles are being applied.
• Platform trials: For platform trials, common issues include a lack of clarity regarding the interventions and a lack of succession planning for the platform design.

Other issues that arise include the clarity of the primary outcome, the appropriateness of the control group, the robustness of the proof of concept, and the reliance on self-report measures.

Funding Deadlines

EME Example

A randomised placebo-controlled study examining the role of anti-IgE in severe recalcitrant paediatric atopic eczema

Funding: £479k, 2014-2018

Aim: To determine if the drug anti-IgE (omalizumab) can reduce levels of IgE in children with eczema and improve their symptoms.

Other EME Examples

• Gene therapy for choroideremia - a Phase II clinical trial
• Paclitaxel assisted balloon Angioplasty of Venous stenosis in haEmodialysis access: The PAVE Trial. A multicentre double-blind randomised controlled trial in haemodialysis patients with a stenosis in a native arteriovenous fistula.
• PAX-D: Randomised placebo-controlled trial evaluating the efficacy and mechanism of pramipexole as add-on treatment for people with treatment resistant depression
• STudy Of Prevention by Aspirin anD EPA; kNowledge Of Mechanism of Action (STOP-ADENOMA)

HSDR Key Information

Director: Professor Kathy Rowan

Aim: To improve the quality, accessibility and organisation of health services, looking at different models of care. The goal is to produce evidence for service users, managers, commissioners and clinical leaders.

Funding:  Commissioned and researcher-led, no fixed limits on duration or funding

Process: Two-stage process which takes 7 months

Success rate: There is a large drop-out rate of bids at the short listing stage, where only potential 'winners' are selected to go forward. It is vital that short listed projects address the feedback and advice given at this stage.

Summary of Panel Observation Tips

• Commissioned workstream focuses on evaluating models of service delivery and intervention. Researcher-led workstream focuses on research into the quality, equity and patient experience.
• Key criteria is durability and continued relevance (3-4 years time)
• HSDR looks for ambitious large-scale studies of national importance that are solution based!

Key observations from the HSDR panel observations include:

• Clarity and completeness of applications: The panel frequently raised concerns about the readability, clarity, and completeness of applications. This included issues such as lack of white space, unclear connections between work packages, and not directly addressing Stage 1 feedback.
• Detail and specificity: Applications often lacked sufficient detail and specificity, particularly regarding research methods, data management plans, and timelines.
• Patient and Public Involvement (PPI): The panel emphasized the importance of meaningful PPI throughout the research process, including co-design, dissemination, and implementation.
• Diversity and Equity Inclusion (EDI): EDI considerations were deemed crucial, with the panel seeking clear plans for how EDI would be incorporated into the research.
• Data management: The panel highlighted the need for realistic data management plans, including data transfer, linkage, and potential risks associated with these processes.
• Health economics: Distributional cost-effectiveness analysis was welcomed, aligning with the strong interest in EDI.
• Research team expertise: The panel emphasized the importance of a credible research team with appropriate expertise and time allocations.
• Dissemination and impact: Clear and innovative dissemination strategies were encouraged, linking research outputs to implementation and impact.
• Value for money: The panel assessed the value for money of projects, ensuring that proposed costs were justified and realistic.
• Ethics: Ethical considerations, including those related to PPI contributors and research participants, were emphasized.
• Generalisability: The panel considered the generalisability of research findings beyond the study context.
• Timelines: Realistic and well-justified timelines were expected, with the use of Gantt charts encouraged.
• Diversity and inclusivity: The panel emphasized the importance of addressing diversity and inclusivity beyond age and gender, considering factors such as ethnicity, culture, and accessibility.
• Written style: Clear and accessible writing style was appreciated, with the use of plain English summaries encouraged.

Funding Deadlines

HSDR Example

Engaging General Practitioners in Service Development and Quality Improvement in Care Homes: a Realist Synthesis of the Published Evidence

Funding: £165,631.25 2019-2020

Aim: to understand the role which GPs have been demonstrated to play, as part of a wider multidisciplinary team, in development, implementation and improvement of healthcare in care homes, in order to shape recommendations about when they need to be involved, and how to get them involved, in QI in the sector.

Other HSDR Examples

• A Multi-Centre Randomised Controlled Trial to Compare the Effectiveness of Admission Avoidance Hospital at Home with Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment versus Inpatient Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment on the Number of Frail Older People 'Living at Home’
• How best to deliver Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment in a cost-effective way
• Accessibility and implementation in UK services of an effective depression relapse prevention programme: mindfulness based cognitive therapy
• Impact of closing Emergency Departments in England (closED)

PHR Key Information

Director: Professor Brian Ferguson (from July Dr Adam Briggs)

Aim: To evaluate practical interventions where the primary outcome is health related and helps reduce health inequalities.

Funding:  Commissioned and researcher-led, no fixed limits on duration or funding, but all costs need to be justified and demonstrate value for money.

Process: Two-stage process. The process takes 7 months.

Success rate: There is a high drop-out rate; 30% not in remit, 38% get shortlisted and of those 40% are funded.

Summary of Panel Observation Tips

• Looking for large scale studies that cover issues of major strategic importance and will likely lead to changes in practice.
• Study should provide new knowledge on the benefits, costs, acceptability and wider impacts of the intervention.

Funding Deadlines

PHR Example

A multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a school-based peer-led drug prevention intervention (The FRANK friends study)

Funding: £1,465,055.20 2019-2022

Aim: to introduce and evaluate FRANK friends (the intervention) which is a school-based peer-led drug prevention intervention. In each school, students in UK year 9 (aged 13-14) will be asked to nominate fellow students who they think are influential. Students in receipt of the top 17.5% of nominations are asked to become peer supporters.

Other PHR Examples

• Does active design increase walking and cycling? Evaluation of a natural experiment examining whether moving into housing in East Village increases family levels of physical activity, particularly walking and cycling
• Assessing the impact and cost-effectiveness of needle/syringe provision on hepatitis C transmission among people who inject drugs: an analysis of pooled datasets and economic modelling
• EXploring the Impact of alcohol Licensing in ENgland and Scotland (EXILENS): A mixed-method, natural experiment evaluation of public health engagement in alcohol premises licensing and impact on alcohol-related harms

PRP Key Information

Director: Professor Karen Bloor (from March Professor Kathryn Oliver)

Aim: To provide the evidence base for policy development on key public health and social care issues for the DHSC and other policy-makers. Findings should inform policy development and implementation by evaluating existing policies and pilot schemes, and/or providing evidence for longer term planning.

Funding: The amount of funding available and duration are not set. PRP research is commissioned.

Summary of Panel Observation Tips

• Experience of meaningful engagement with policy makers is often a pre-requisite for funding
• Need to demonstrate the potential for translation into policy and practice
• Applications should address health equity and equality
• PRP delivers evidence to ministers and other policy makers

Funding Deadlines

PRP Example

Representativeness of adult social care surveys

Funding: £196k, 2019-2022

Aim: To review the representativeness of two surveys of adult social care (ASCS and SACE) and to identify ways in which the views of under-represented groups could be captured by local authorities. A parallel aim is to review best practice for collecting views of people with high needs to allow DHSC to take a view on the ways in which local authorities can capture the experiences of users and carers.

Other PRP Examples

• Identifying effective and sustainable interventions to improve the oral health and related behaviours of adults with severe and multiple disadvantage: evidence synthesis and qualitative stakeholder research
• Tobacco controls and the changing profile of smokers
• General practice workload and intensity: analysis for NHS England from 2007-2014
• Evaluation of medical examiners’ review to identify potentially avoidable deaths due to problems in care

RPSC Key Information

Director: Professor Martin Knapp

Aim: r

Summary of Panel Observation Tips

Key Issues:

• Team Composition: The panel emphasised the need for teams to include social care expertise, relevant stakeholders, and links with local authorities.
• Clarity and Detail: Applications often lacked clear research questions, detailed descriptions of research methods, and convincing arguments for the research.
• Feasibility Studies: Some studies labeled as feasibility studies appeared to be small trials, lacking clear progression criteria.
• Qualitative Research: Qualitative research proposals often lacked detail and clarity, particularly in sampling strategies and data analysis plans.
• Outcomes and Outputs: Uncertainty existed around appropriate outcome measures, with a focus on health outcomes rather than social care outcomes. Details of project outputs were not always clear.
• Impact and Implementation: Applications often lacked a clear pathway to impact, including considerations of cost, delivery, and scalability.
• Plain English Summary (PIS): PISs were frequently criticized for being too academic, vague, and unclear.

Positive Trends:

• Openness to Diverse Approaches: The panel was open to various research methods and approaches, encouraging applicants to propose innovative solutions.
• Support for Capacity Building: The panel aimed to support less experienced applicants and encourage diverse voices, including early career researchers and non-academic collaborations.
• Emphasis on Strong Partnerships: Strong, authentic partnerships and good research questions were highly valued.
• Focus on Important Topics: Topics such as safeguarding adults, peer support, and carers were considered important.
• Positive View of Previous Work: Projects that built on previous work, had pilot data, or were additions to a trial were viewed favorably.
• Value of Diverse Teams: Diverse teams with appropriate skills, experience, and co-applicants with lived experience were seen positively.
• Emphasis on EDI: The panel welcomed projects with comprehensive plans for equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI).
• Clarity and Economic Measurement: Clear writing and the inclusion of economic measurement were welcomed.

Funding Deadlines