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

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

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

4. 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

5. 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)

6. 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.

7. 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

8. 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).

9. 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

10. 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)

11. 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

12. Selection criteria and Tips for applicants

13. 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.

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. For further information about the programmes and funding opportunities, please visit: