Top Tips - HTA

Funds research into the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and impact of healthcare treatments, tests, and other interventions

Funds diverse studies, including existing practices
Operates across the UK; proposals should address broader national interests.
Big grant – the average award is approximately £1.5 million, focused on significant studies.

Researcher-led calls: Researchers propose studies to address identified healthcare problems.
Commissioned calls: Target specific research questions identified by the HTA.
Rolling calls: Related to priorities from the James Lind Alliance and research needs from NICE.

There is a reasonable chance that the intervention will be effective
It has already been tested in a typical NHS or social care setting
There is a reasonable chance it will be used across the NHS if shown to be effective

Applications should focus on effectiveness rather than efficacy in language and presentation.

Diverse and justified expertise is essential (with enough time to support the study); avoid teams that lack relevant experience.
Involve and work with a Clinical Trials Unit (CTU)
Consider having co-CI if necessary
Clarify differences between co-applicants and collaborators

Robust PPI is vital; it should be integrated throughout the study, not just as an afterthought.
Include involvement and contribution to date as well as plans for future contributions
Needs to be appropriately resourced
Both lived experiences and professional representatives can be included in proposals though lived experience is more important.

Include details on the practical issues, who will do what, if the timings are realistic, and evidence for the recruitment estimates
Proposals must include internal pilots and milestones to assess progress.

Good value (not the same as cheap) means justifying the importance of the work and the necessity of all elements included
Cutting costs excessively may raise concerns about feasibility.
Avoid extraneous data collection that does not directly contribute to answering the research question.
Costs for research inclusion can be added in order to gain a diverse research sample

Resource justification should be clear, balanced, and well-supported with assumptions.
Linked to the study design and planned analysis, and able to answer the research question to ensure confidence in changing practice.
Should address generalisability across the NHS or social care
Sample size calculations are required for most studies with full justification of parameters either from feasibility work or literature.

Outcomes should be relevant to both patients and clinicians
The primary outcome should be health- or social-care-related.
Utilise validated measures and ensure outcomes align with the original hypothesis.
Consider the burden of data collection on participants.

HTA emphasises thoughtful diversity and inclusion in studies, addressing specific questions about the applicability of trial results to different populations.
Address questions like the following:

Who are the results going to apply to?
Are they likely to respond to the intervention in different ways?
Will the intervention make it harder for them to respond?
Will the trial design make it harder for them to take part or remain in the trial?

The HTA is open to funding novel trial designs, provided they are justified by the study question.
Clearly explain and validate unfamiliar designs to gain panel confidence.

Opportunities exist for additional funding for studies within trials, aimed at reducing redundancy and increasing efficiency.

Ensure coherence and clarity throughout the proposal, avoiding generic sections and jargon.
Provide a good theoretical justification as to why the intervention is a good fit for the group/disease.
Get your work peer-reviewed to check for clarity and consistency.
Peer review happens before panel evaluation; proposals may be rejected at this stage if they don't fit.

Stage 1 focuses on summarising all aspects of the study; balanced detail is crucial.
In Stage 2, responses to reviewer comments provide an opportunity to clarify and strengthen the proposal.
Expect potential changes to funding agreements based on panel feedback.

Most applications are rejected at Stage 1; key issues may include the importance of the question, major design flaws, or accumulation of many things.
At Stage 2, outcomes are typically to reject or fund with changes; ongoing discussions about modifications are common.
Get in touch with the Research Support Service (RSS) to get advice on addressing or responding to the funding panel’s feedback comments.

Comprehensive summary: Provide a clear overview of all aspects of the study.
Importance of the question: Clearly demonstrate the significance of the research question and the ability to answer it.
Alignment with HTA remit: Ensure the proposal is relevant and fits within the HTA's focus areas.
Cost considerations: Even if only summary figures are provided, show that practical needs have been carefully considered.
Patient and Public Involvement (PPI): Recognise the importance of PPI and address how it is integrated into the study.

Opportunities:

Avoid:

Being argumentative: Do not dispute reviewer comments aggressively, even if you disagree.
Agreeing to all changes: Resist the temptation to simply accept every suggested modification without careful consideration.
Fundamental changes: Avoid altering your core research question in response to feedback.
Unfunded additions: Don’t include new elements in your proposal that exceed your budget or resources.

Detailed description: Provide a thorough overview of all aspects of the study.
Scientific capability: Demonstrate that you can answer the research question effectively, highlighting the strengths of your team.
Justification of costs and resources: Clearly justify the budget and resources required for the study.
Importance of PPI: Emphasize the role of Patient and Public Involvement as essential to the study.
Risk management: Identify potential risks to the study and outline strategies for mitigating them.
Response to Stage 1 feedback: Show how you have addressed and incorporated feedback received during Stage 1.
Thoughtful engagement: Provide a reflective and considered response to all major points raised by reviewers.

Author: Doyo Enki Created: March 2021 Last Updated: November 2024