1. Successful Grant Applications
Professor David Armstrong
Dr Angie Borzychowski Research for Patient Benefit Programme
10 November 2014
8th Annual NIHR Trainees Meeting

2. Successful grant applications
NIHR Research for Patient Benefit programme
Things to keep in mind when preparing an application for funding
Application and assessment process
Common areas of feedback to applicants
Opportunities for trainees
Design a research study

3. The central role of NIHR research in the innovation pathway
INVENTION
EVALUATION
ADOPTION
DIFFUSION
Medical
Research
Council
Basic Research
Development Pathway Funding
Efficacy & Mechanism Evaluation
Invention for Innovation
Biomedical Research Centres
Biomedical Research Units
This pathway covers the full range of interventions - pharmaceuticals, biologicals, biotechnologies, procedures, therapies and practices - for the full range of health and health care delivery - prevention, detection, diagnosis, prognosis, treatment, care.
Patient Safety Translational Research Centres
Clinical Research Facilities
Experimental Cancer Medicine Centres
Research Schools
Research for Patient Benefit
National Institute for Health Research
Public Health Research
Programme Grants for Applied Research
Health Services and Delivery Research
Health Technology Assessment
Centre for Surgical Reconstruction & Microbiology
Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health
Research and Care
Horizon Scanning Centre
Centre for Reviews & Dissemination, Cochrane, TARs
NHS Supply Chain
Support for Procurement
National Institute for Health & Clinical Excellence
Guidance on Health & Healthcare
NHS Evidence
Access to Evidence
Academic Health Science Networks
Innovation
NHS Commissioning Board and Clinical Commissioning Groups
Commissioning
Providers of NHS Services
Patient Care

4. Applying for research funding - Know your target
What are the aims of the funding scheme?
Am I eligible for support?
How will the application be assessed?
Who will assess the application?
When will the application be assessed?
What is the scale of a typical award?
Who has received previous awards?

5. Research for Patient Benefit
Supports high quality investigator-led research projects that address issues of importance to the NHS
Supports qualitative or quantitative research that could:
Study the way NHS services are provided and used
Evaluate whether interventions are effective and provide value for money
Examine whether alternative means for providing healthcare would be more effective
Formally assess innovations and developments in healthcare
Assess feasibility of projects requiring major applications to other funders

6. Research for Patient Benefit
Response-mode funding programme for small grants
Maximum award £350,000 for up to three years
Awards made to NHS bodies and other providers of NHS services in England
Collaboration with academic partners welcome
Ten Regional Advisory Committees and a national Programme Director
Three funding competitions per year
Single stage application process
> 650 awards totalling over £120 million
Links with Research Design Services 6

7. Research for Patient Benefit Spend across health category (2013-2014)
Stroke %
Cancer %
Cardiovascular %
Renal and Urogenital %
Generic Health Relevance %
Oral and Gastrointestinal %
Neurological 7%
Mental Health 20%

8. RfPB funded research information8

9. Things to keep in mind
All project costs are scrutinised by CCF – particular attention should be paid to NHS support, treatment and excess treatment costs
Patient and public involvement must be adequately thought through and planned as part of design
Plain English summary should be reviewed by a patient/public representative
Relevance to patients and NHS is important
Read the guidance and website resources
Guidance available for feasibility studies
All deadlines are at 1pm exactly so don’t leave it to the last minute

10. The costs of R&D in the NHS
Research Costs are the costs of the R&D itself; data collection, analysis and other activities needed to answer the research questions.
Research Costs will be met by the research funder (i.e. RfPB)
NHS Support Costs include the additional patient-related care costs associated with the research, which would end once the R&D activity in question had stopped, even if the patient care service involved continued to be provided.
NHS Support Costs will be met by NHS R&D Support Funding (i.e. Networks)
Treatment Costs are the patient care costs which would continue to be incurred if the patient care service in question continued to be provided after the R&D activity had stopped. Excess Treatment cost is the difference between the total Treatment Costs and the costs of the standard treatment currently provided.
NHS Treatment Costs will be met through commissioning arrangements for patient care (i.e. NHS/contracting organisation)
Guidance: Attributing the costs of health and social care Research & Development (AcoRD) – updated 4 May 2012

11. Plain English Summary New INVOLVE guidance for NIHR funded research
NIHR application form guidance has been updated
Additional resources to support researchers
Plain English summary is assessed by external reviewers and advisory panel members
Good plain English summary is now a requirement for funded research
Does the summary give a clear (and accurate) explanation of the research?
If funded, summary published on a variety of websites

12. Feasibility studies in RfPB
Feasibility studies are welcome in RfPB
Represent small scale studies at relatively low cost that reduce the risk of undertaking a more costly definitive trial where feasibility evidence is not supportive
Small spend: We expect most feasibility studies to cost up to £250,000 unless there is a good justification for additional costs
To facilitate feasibility study transition to definitive trials, RfPB receives Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme comment on feasibility study applications

13. RfPB guidance and resources
Funding limits for various research types, in relation to risk and proximity to patient benefit:
£350,000 – research that has a clear and close trajectory to patient benefit (e.g. Clinical trials)
£250,000 – feasibility study applications
£150,000 – higher risk studies/further from patient benefit
Observational studies
Developing and refining interventions
Developing new scales or outcome measures
Exploratory studies (e.g. using qualitative methods)
Additional follow up of patients in a completed trial
Post-market surveillance for unknown side-effects
Systematic reviews

14. RfPB Application Process
12 weeks to submit
Online submission and validation, declarations
Preliminary scrutiny assessment for scope/ admininstrative rules
Notification
External peer/public review
Assessment by full Regional Committee
Outcome to applicants

15. Standard Application Form

16. Common areas for feedback
Detail in the methodology lacking or appropriateness of the design questioned
Overall lack of clarity and focus of the application
Inappropriate outcome measures
Particular areas of expertise lacking in the research team
Insufficient quality of the patient and public involvement
Justification or detail of the intervention lacking
Insufficient detail provided in the background information
Inappropriate statistics or health economics analysis
Concerns with the recruitment, sampling and overall feasibility
Questions regarding project impact, timescales, generalisability or dissemination 16

17. Feedback to applicants

18. Possible reasons for failure
Failure to meet basic eligibility criteria
Submitting an application which is out of scope
Failure to demonstrate importance of topic
Omission of critical literature references
Failure to demonstrate likelihood of patient benefit
Research question is ill-defined, unfocused or unsupported by preliminary data
Research team lacks relevant experience
Methodology unsuitable or flawed and unlikely to yield results

19. Possible reasons for failure
Insufficient methodological detail to convince reviewers that the team knows what it is doing
Overambitious research plan
Insufficient recognition of potential problems
Limited access to appropriate patient population
Research team has too little time to devote to project
Lack of appropriate patient and public involvement
Lack of a convincing dissemination plan
Failure to justify resources

20. 20

21. Opportunities for Trainees
RfPB welcomes applications from junior researchers, supported by strong team
Ways to better understand the application and assessment process:
Taking part in peer review for RfPB (and other funding programmes)
Opportunities to observe RfPB regional advisory committee meetings

22. Further support available
Resources available: or
enquires:
CCF helpline:
NIHR Research Design Services (RDS) in ten regions across England
Funding opportunities leaflet – for research and career development
22/09/2018

23. Questions?
22/09/2018

24. Design a research study
Everyone:
Write down two areas of research interest

25. Design a research study
Everyone:
Now write down up to two research questions for each area
They should be in the form of questions
They should be answerable
They should be ‘original’, if possible

26. Design a research study
In trios:
Share your questions
Identify the ‘best’ for going forward
Describe an appropriate method:
Design (if standard); population; sampling method; intervention (if any); measures; (statistical powering); analysis plan

27. Design a research study
In trios: e.g. Design: clinical trial Population: patients with Type II diabetes Sampling: attending surgeries in Leeds Intervention: 75mg aspirin daily v placebo Measures: HbA1c at 6 months (Statistical powering): Analysis plan: compare HbA1c levels in both arms

28. Assessing research applications
Main assessment:
Is the question worth answering?
Will the methods provide an (unbiased) answer?
Can the team deliver?
Is it value-for-money?
Are patients/public appropriately involved?

29. Assessing research applications
Is the question worth answering?
Is it ‘timely’?
The results from the research might not emerge for 4-5 years
Then they might be synthesised with other results
Will the new knowledge still be wanted?

30. Assessing research applications
Is the question worth answering?
Is it ‘original’?
Research questions can be too original
Effect of moon phases on arthritis; presence of bug in stomach wall; etc
b) Research questions can be too derivative
Effect of insulin on diabetes in women age in Leeds

31. Assessing research applications
Is the question worth answering?
Is it ‘plausible’?
The answer to research question may not be plausible, especially in terms of the effect size
The effect of counselling for depression is unlikely to be 80% better than anti-depressants

32. Assessing research applications
2. Will the methods provide an (unbiased) answer?
The highest risk is a project that will not answer the question or provide a ‘wrong’ answer
Guard against this by good design (control group, randomisation, etc)
Ensure there are sufficient numbers to identify the specified effect size
Provide evidence that patients can be recruited

33. Assessing research applications
3. Can the team deliver?
Does the team cover the skills necessary to deliver the project?
Do team members have appropriate time allocations?

34. Assessing research applications
4. Is it value-for-money?
Cost your project:
Staff: who and how much time each?
[Prof £80-100k; SL £60k; Lect £40k; RA £30k pa
Add 30% for NI/pension, etc; then add 50% for FEC]
Equipment (e.g. computer):
Consumables:
Travel:
Conferences:

35. Assessing research applications
4. Is it value-for-money?
Does total cost look reasonable?
Are there any ‘extravagances’ in costs?
Is it worth paying this amount to answer the question……?

36. Assessing research applications
5. Are patients appropriately involved?
Many funders expect patient involvement
Patient and public involvement (PPI) can improve your application
Many funding committees have public review and PPI members whose views will be counted

37. Assessing research applications
The funding decision
All committee members receive application form and reviewers’ comments
Two members present the application including strengths and weaknesses
Committee members score after discussion
Highest scores funded
Usually conditional funding

38. Completing the application form
Abstract: should there be a plain English AND scientific abstract? Aims/objectives: clear, numbered, corresponding to numbering in methods Background: stress timeliness, originality and plausibility Method: Clear steps, addressing aims/objectives; remember power calculation to justify numbers (is the effect size plausible?) Finances: well justified

39. Guidance documents and FAQs NIHR Research Design Services (RDS)
Resources available:
Guidance documents and FAQs
NIHR Research Design Services (RDS)
CCF helpline:
22/09/2018