RDS EM Funder Focus Seminar 21 May Health Services and Delivery Research Programme (HS&DR) Kevin Campbell (NIHR Senior Research Manager)

To cover: Overview of the HS&DR programme - remit, eligibility and end to end process Selection criteria and tips for applicants

NIHR Programmes Systematic Reviews Programme ____________________________ Systematic reviews identify, evaluate, combine and summarise the findings of all relevant individual studies… More

HS&DR - remit and eligibility The HS&DR programme funds research to produce evidence on the quality, accessibility and organisation of health and social care services, including evaluations of how the NHS and social care services might improve delivery of services. The audience for this research is the public, service users, clinicians, professionals and managers. The NIHR HS&DR programme is funded by the NIHR, with contributions from NISCHR in Wales, the HSC R&D Division, Public Health Agency in Northern Ireland, and case by case contributions from the CSO in Scotland. Programme Budget: £18.5M

Principles The programme aims to support a range of types of research including evidence synthesis and primary research and is keen to support a variety of ambitious evaluative research to improve health services, on topics of national importance. This means primary research projects which: address an issue of major strategic importance to the NHS, with the cost in line with the significance of the problem to be investigated are likely to lead to changes in practice that will have a significant impact on a large number of patients across the UK have the potential for findings to be applied to other conditions or situations outside the immediate area of research bring together a team with strong expertise and track record across the full range of relevant disciplines There is no cap on the cost of projects (VFM)

The HS&DR Programme will support research into any aspect of health and social care service quality, accessibility and effectiveness, as long as its importance to the NHS and social care can be clearly demonstrated any methodology as long as it is appropriate, proportionate and likely to answer the research questions – which must relate to health service and social care issues trials, pilot and feasibility studies on relevant topics, with the involvement of a Clinical Trials Unit if required. In the case of a trial, adequate preparatory work must be completed in order to justify need and feasibility.

The HS&DR Programme will not support research for which there is not a strong and well demonstrated case for importance to the NHS research in a single site which is not likely to be generally applicable to other settings or patient groups the testing of new health technologies or diagnostic techniques – these may fall within the remit of the HTA Programme the establishment of a database, as an end in itself. All studies must include specific research questions, and all data collection must directly contribute to answering these questions proposals which are solely or mainly service developments, audits or needs assessments Evaluations of DH Policy

HS&DR workstreams The HS&DR programme has two workstreams: The commissioned workstream issues calls on specific topics that have been identified as high priority for health and social care. This workstream accepts stage 1 applications and focuses on evaluating models of service delivery and interventions which have the potential to improve service effectiveness, efficiency and productivity. There are three rounds, with up to nine (or more) separate call topics per year. The researcher-led workstream accepts stage 1 applications from researchers on any question that is within the programme’s remit (the workstream also operates a one stage straight to stage 2 applications for ES).

Funding cycle Commissioned workstream - Panel and Board Types of Research Who defines the question? Frequency Per year Commissioned Primary research Evidence synthesis 3 calls per year (9+ topics) HS&DR HS&DR HS&DR Researcher-led Primary research Evidence synthesis Researcher 3 calls per year Commissioned workstream - Panel and Board Researcher-led workstream - Panel and Board

Application assessment process 2 Stage (generally) Stage 1 proposals: Remit and competitiveness check (pre-panel) Panel assessment primarily for need and importance to the NHS Shortlist/Reject/Resubmit Stage 2 proposals: External review / Applicants response Board assessment primarily for scientific quality, value for money Fund/Fund With Changes/Reject/Resubmit Rapid ES Commissioning (1 stage)

Application process Approx 11 months Approx 3 – 8 months Applicant Initial (Stage 1) application (approx. 12 weeks) Remit check Panel for shortlisting (Need & Importance) Feedback & invite Stage 2 application Stage 2 application (8 weeks) External review Reviewer questions to applicants Funding board (Science & Methods) Fund / Fund With Changes Changes agreed Contract Applicant HS&DR Applicant HS&DR Applicant HS&DR Approx 11 months Approx 3 – 8 months

Selection criteria and Tips for applicants

Selection criteria Need and Importance of the Research Adherence to the advertised commissioning brief or call specification Health need Expressed need PPI Sustained interest Capacity to generate new knowledge Actionable findings and prospects for change Health Need: There will be benefits in terms of improving health for patients and carers.  This covers the potential for preventing avoidable mortality and morbidity, improving quality of life and considerations of disease prevention. For example research in this area is likely to identify new ways of working that enhance opportunities for health promotion or quality and safety of care. Benefits may also arise from improving the acceptability and effectiveness of care, cost effectiveness to the NHS, better targeting of services or equity of access to care.   Expressed need: The existence of an expressed need for the research in the NHS management community, and evidence that it is or will be highly relevant and important to the needs of the NHS. Sustained interest and intent: Evidence that the issue or area is one in which there will be sustained interest in the future, such that the results of research once commissioned and undertaken will remain highly relevant and important to the needs of the NHS in the future. Capacity to generate new knowledge: The existence of uncertainty or “knowledge gaps” which cannot be addressed by the existing body of research in this area and which require new research. Actionable findings and prospects for change: Research in this area is likely to produce findings of value to the NHS management community, which NHS organisations are likely to be able to use in their decision making in ways that bring about change and improvement. Building on existing work: Research contributes to building a coherent body of knowledge in the area, and may build on previous research commissioned by the HS&DR programme.

Selection criteria Research Quality Scientific quality / methodological robustness Links with knowledge users and where appropriate, integration of knowledge users in the knowledge production process Service user / PPI involvement Make up of team and project management Value for money / accurately costed and justified The Board will consider the scientific merit, rigour and quality, and value for money of proposals taking into account the following: • The clarity of the stated research objectives • Whether the proposed study design will achieve the stated objectives in an appropriate, feasible and ethical manner • Whether the successful completion of the study would lead to a reduction in uncertainty in that area of service delivery, organisation or health services research • Whether the proposed project would result in greater clarity of health-related outcomes which may affect patients or systems, and/or other benefits for the wider NHS community • Whether the proposed team is capable of undertaking the suggested research • Whether the requested costs and timescales are justified

Tips for applicants Help the reviewing panel / board Aim - make your study easy to read and stand out Good quality, Plain English Summary Embedded PPI Structure your application well – signposts / headings Get the essentials of the application outlined right at the start: What is the question? Why is it critically important? Why are you competent to do it? For commissioned – how you meet the requirements of the brief

Common Pitfalls Inconsistent accounts of planned research Incorrect or inconsistent numbers e.g. Sample size calculations Apparent lack of awareness of major or related work in train Too many acronyms Insufficient detail, or muddled detail particularly in the methodology sections Gaps in expertise on the research team Not enough detail on the health issue Not enough detail on the intervention Poorly presented/not proof-read

Avoiding the pitfalls Check remit of the programme Justify your choice of methodology and the call Make case for importance to Clear “plain english summary”, avoid jargon throughout NHS/public health Identify the problem clearly, Strong, multidisciplinary team including patient and public contributors review all relevant literature Identify all possible data sources, carry out preliminary Project management research if necessary Provide a clear flow diagram Proof-read, explain, keep it simple Evidence of meaningful PPI Early work with a CTU Clearly define your research questions

Tips for applicants (Cont) Avoid the “banana skins” Address the changes suggested by the Panel at stage 1 Constructively address (or refute) referees comments Proof read your application! Common bugbears Acronyms – esPEciAlly Contrived onEs – PEACE Overuse of abbreviations Use of jargon Use of trendy methods just for the sake of it Lack of relevant expertise on the team

For further information about the programmes and funding opportunities, please visit: http://www.nihr.ac.uk/funding-opportunities/