Programme Grants for Applied Research and Programme Development Grants Programmes Supporting a successful application September 2014

Outline Full Programmes: – Context: selection criteria, typical programmes, stage1 and stage2 panels – Key issues in supporting applications Brief outline of key issues for Programme Development Grants (PDGs)

Selection Criteria: o Track record and skills mix of the team o Relevance and importance to the needs of the NHS o Likelihood of significant benefit to patients and the NHS within 3 – 5 years of the programmes end o Quality of the proposed research o Value for money Patient and public involvement also important consideration Programme Grants

‘Typical’ Programmes Component studies forming a coherent, linked package of work Systematic review (quantitative/qualitative) Applied epidemiology: development/validation of prediction rules for diagnosis, prognosis; routine data modelling; survey work Qualitative work: 1:1, focus, ethnographic (development of intervention, +/- parallel to any intervention study, implementation) DCE Intervention: Feasibility/Fully powered trials; CBA; ITS – often involve behaviour change at an individual and or organisational level (health psychology; sociology) Health Economics (within trial, broader modelling; +/- DCE as above) ?Implementation (roadshows; qualitative work; trials) Etc….. Particular ‘niche’: development and trialling of complex interventions

Stage 1: Generalist/methodological review 10+ panel members: – 8 Methodologists (Stats, HE, Behavioural) or clinical academics (not content experts), 4 sub-panel chairs, Programme Director Core reviewing: 2 DBMs, Stage 1 panel chair (one of sub-panel chairs who rotates), Programme Director review each application. – Well argued case for particular methodology and sufficient detail (e.g. sample sizes well justified) – Well argued case for problem and particular questions Feedback: based on comments from core reviewing team plus more detailed methodology review (stats, HE, behavioural)

Stage 2 Sub-Panel Addresses applications in a wide range of topic areas –Content referee reports (often 5-10) Around members but including the stage1 reviewers: –Chair and Programme Director –2 PPI representatives –2-4Generalists/Applied Health methodologists/clinicians –1-2 Qualitative methodologists –1-2 Health psychologists/behavioural scientists –2 Health Economists –2 Statisticians

Programme Grants Supporting a successful application Team Demonstrate PI is appropriate and appropriately costed time if more junior clear costed support/input from senior co-PI Ensure team has the required range of skills Content expertise; Stats; HE; Qual; Behavioural Make sure all named applicants make appropriate costed input to the proposal (particularly for methodological support (stats, qual, HE) detail track record and roles Multicentre often necessary Linkage with CTU (often appropriate) Relevance and Importance Make a good case for relevance and importance (e.g. burden of disease, impact on service / population, gaps in the knowledge identified and how this research will address these gaps)

Programme Grants Supporting a successful application Clarity Avoid acronyms/jargon (methodologists will not be content experts!) Sufficient detail in Plain English Summary - will be read most thoroughly Clear aims and objectives with focused research plan related to each Feedback and peer review Clearly respond to feedback on 1 st stage application (where possible doing what the Board suggests, or making it very clear why this is not possible) Ensure care over the response to peer reviewers’ comments

Programme Grants Supporting a successful application Research Plans Ensure the methods are as detailed as possible (both stage1 and stage2) and relate to and are able to answer the aims and objectives Choose rigorous methods, justify them, and give details (e.g. explain why focus groups with users but interviews with HCPs. How will data be reconciled?) Ensure feasibility is detailed (e.g. recruitment/attrition rates, plausibility of effect sizes, burden on service users) Bear in mind membership of the sub-panels: stage1 and stage 2 generalist clinicians and methodologists (content expertise comes from the reviewers) Sell the idea and methods etc to persuade both methodologists and content area specialists Ensure ambition but not over-ambition! Costings Ensure that the research is realistically costed and offers value-for-money

Programme Grants Supporting a successful application Patient and Public Involvement Ensure Patient and Public involvement influence the research plans and be costed in the budget Patients and public will be involved at all stages of the assessment process (referees, panel members) More broadly Getting someone to proof-read the application

Programme Grants Common pitfalls Inconsistent accounts of planned research Insufficient rationale for the idea or methods lack of acknowledgment of current or related work Insufficient or muddled methodological detail e.g. Power calculations cannot be replicated and/or lack of justification for sample sizes or approaches to be adopted Gaps in the expertise of the research team, even after panel feedback Failure to address feedback provided at Stage 1 Programme too ambitious Insufficient thought to costing, e.g. Just asking for £2m or £1,999,999 Coherence lacking – work packages disparate

Programme Grants Characteristics of a successful application A strong team with an excellent track record in applied health research Necessary breadth and depth in team Important topic area Identifiable deliverables within 3 – 5 years of the end of the programme Ambitious and coherent proposal Identifies and addresses major challenges Promises excellent value for money Well written and clearly presented

Programme Development Grants Selection criteria: The relevance and importance of the research to be funded via any future Programme Grant award to the priorities and needs of the NHS The quality of the proposed future Programme, including the likelihood of its potential to deliver significant benefit to the NHS and patients within 3 – 5 years of the end of the funding period The strength of the research team (either now, or as augmented through Programme Development Grant funding), including the relevant expertise and track record of the team in conducting high quality applied research The strength of the work plan for the development phase, particularly the extent to which the proposed preparatory work will enable the applicants to reach the point where they will be able to submit a competitive application to the Programme Grants for Applied Research funding scheme Value for money PPI also very important

Programme Development Grants Supporting a good application: Ensure proposal from a (potentially) strong team with appropriate depth and breadth to deliver a future programme of applied research Ensure sufficiently well developed future programme Insufficient methods, insufficient rationale for methods (very common!) Ensure applicants identify the current limitations of the future programme and clearly describes how these will be addressed by the development work Ensure a compelling case for the proposed work, including likely benefits for the NHS and patients within 3 – 5 years of the end of the future programme.

UCL & Partners 23 rd February