What makes a good grant application Dr Catriona McDaid Senior Research Fellow, YTU catriona.mcdaid@york.ac.uk BOA Orthopaedic Surgery Research Centre

Fundable proposal Good science Feasibility Right team Timing Important question Evidence gap Timing Feasibility Good science Right team Public involvement Right cost Presentation

Importance of the research question Commissioned call – importance has already been established – need to sell how you are delivering the brief Researcher led – you need to establish the importance

The research question Who cares? Is it a high priority question for patients, healthcare professionals, service providers What contribution are the findings of the research likely to make to patients, NHS, policy Bear in mind the panel may know nothing about the topic need to be explicit about the burden, potential impact etc.

Evidence gap Has anyone already done this? Systematic review Ongoing trials Overlap with other research

Is the timing right? Is it a rapidly changing area? Will the context have changed by the time the trial is finished e.g. NHS, care pathway, technology? Will your intervention still be relevant? Will equipoise shift? Timing of ongoing trials

Feasibility Can you actually do what you say you will do? Is there good awareness of the reality of the environment you will be working in? Will you be able to find centres and patients to participate? Pre-application surveys of centres to establish level of interest, volume of eligible patients Internal and external pilot studies

Good science Right design to answer the question Clear and detailed account – use an appropriate checklist so you don’t miss something important

Peer reviewers consider ... Is the study design appropriate? Are the methods robust? Are the plans for data collection and analysis sufficiently detailed? What assumptions are made and are they reasonable? Are the interventions adequately described and appropriate?

Are the outcome measures appropriate and relevant to the study purpose? Is there a clear explanation and justification for the sample size and recruitment rates? Is the sample size based on a believable effect size?

Right team Needs to cover the methods in the proposal e.g. statistician, economist, qualitative researcher Needs to cover key stakeholders who know the topic area(e.g. professional groups and practitioners in the clinical area) Experience and track record– if relatively inexperienced show how you will be supported by someone Not just about names – what will they do

Public involvement Were patients and the public actively involved in identifying the research topic, prioritising the research questions or in preparing the application? Indicate the ways in which patients and the public will be actively involved in the proposed research

Right cost Value for money Avoid under-costing as well as over-costing!

Presentation Plain English - write for people who are not specialists in the particular clinical topic Think of it as a story – this is the problem, this is the evidence gap, this is how we will address it, this is how it will make a difference Clear headings, white space, diagrams Proof-read carefully to avoid inconsistencies

A view from the Board -10 common reasons why full applications to NIHR HTA Commissioning Board can fail 1. Over ambitious recruitment 2. Study too small 3. Lack of clear writing and inconsistencies 4. Not having all the right people in the team 5. Drifting off the commissioning brief 6. Lack of openness about problems and how they will be addressed

7. Lack of clinical equipoise 8 7. Lack of clinical equipoise 8. Unconvincing depth of understanding of the clinical problem 9. Not responding fully to Board feedback 10. Application not good value for money