Presentation on theme: "What makes a good NIHR application? 9 February 2012 Professor Jonathan Michaels."— Presentation transcript:
What makes a good NIHR application? 9 February 2012 Professor Jonathan Michaels
Is the research question in remit? Is the research question within the remit of the themed call, and; Is the research question within the remit of the specific NIHR programme being applied to? Talk to the programmes concerned or consult the NETSCC or CCF web pages: or for advice
Is the question important? The need for the research –How much will patients or the NHS benefit from the proposed research or healthcare technologies. –Is there a clear trajectory into patient benefit. –Has the research question been explained clearly and the importance of topic made (e.g. burden of disease, impact on service / population, gaps in the knowledge identified and how this research will address these gaps)
Is the research feasible? Is the presentation and/or methods appropriate for the research question? Design complexity Recruitment rate Centres Eligible patients Patient consents Patient follow-up Expectations of service providers / patients Experience, track record of research team
The science Sample size Effect size Outcomes Must be appropriate for programme applied to e.g. HTA patient centred, i4i healthcare technologies Composite measures (e.g. QALYs) or surrogates depending on programmes Useful to look at completed or on-going research on the programme websites
The science Stage of development of technologies Especially for complex interventions Some programmes support developmental or exploratory studies where there is a clear path to the evaluation Some programmes supports pilot or feasibility studies leading to major applications to other NIHR funding streams (e.g RfPB) Development of innovative medical devices or technologies that address unmet clinical needs (e.g i4i) Can include qualitative or quantitative research Comparators Best alternative, treatment as usual, placebos
Infrastructure and Support Research team – appropriately multi-disciplinary and sufficiently experienced. Roles and responsibilities of each member clearly described. Involvement with an RDS / CTU from an appropriate stage in the research development Involvement with appropriate research networks INVOLVE
Costings Is the research realistically costed and does it offer value-for-money? Is it costed within the limits of the proposed programme e.g. RfPB up to £250K over 36 months. Is the cost to address the disease / health issue in question justified, and does the topic clearly account for the cost requested?
Other advice English for mixed audience –Clinical, methodologists, patient and public –Tell the story well for the non - expert –Plain English summary –Follow the application guidance notes. Visible headings –(e.g. sample size, outcomes, technologies) White space – there should be some (use paragraphs) Flow diagrams PROOF-READ SUBMISSIONS CAREFULLY!
Feedback from funding boards/committees Feedback from funding boards at all stages is meant to be helpful to the applicants Applicants should respond to all areas highlighted as necessary by the funding board
Common pitfalls Inconsistent accounts of planned research Incorrect or inconsistent numbers e.g. sample size calculations or missing entirely. Apparent lack of awareness of major or related work in train Insufficient detail, or muddled detail particularly in the methodology sections – even at full proposal Gaps in expertise on the research team – even after feedback from funding board
Common pitfalls Inadequate detail given on the health issue or demonstrations of benefit to patients Inadequate detail given on the intervention to be evaluated or the medical device or technology to be developed. Application has not stuck to programme remit and/or the call Application has not paid enough attention to board feedback between outline and full proposal Unrealistic / inaccurate costings (both under and over- costing) Submissions have not been proof-read
Patient and Public Involvement Patient and public involvement is of key importance Researchers need to involve patients and the public during the development and delivery of the research project Patients and public will be involved at all stages of the assessment process (referees, board members) Funding boards will explicitly look for evidence of appropriate patient and public involvement