An overview of the RfPB Programme: observations of a new appointee - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

An overview of the RfPB Programme:

• bservations of a new appointee to the Regional

Funding Committee ALISON WEARDEN RfPB Regional Funding Committee North West

• Very brief overview of purpose of RfPB
• The procedure for judging applications
• My experiences on the funding committee –

what we do and how we do it

The RfPB Programme

• Response-mode funding programme
• National budget about £25 million per year;

regional budgets proportional to population

• Grants may be:
• Up to 36 months in duration
• Up to £250k
• Three funding competitions per year
• Ten Regional Funding Committees

Aim of programme is to support projects in health services and public health research, e.g. those that....

...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 ...pilot or assess feasibility of projects requiring major applications to other funders

The Programme will not fund

• Laboratory-based research or basic

science

• Setting up or maintaining research units
• Proposals which are solely service

developments

• Proposals which are solely audits,

surveys, needs assessment, technology developments

Selection Criteria and Eligibility

• Applications judged on:

– the quality of the research proposed – the significance and potential benefit of the research to the NHS

• All researchers in the NHS in England can

apply

• For joint NHS/university applications,

funding is awarded to the NHS partner

The Application Process

• Applications made via website
• Full application received by deadline
• Preliminary scrutiny and administrative sift
• External peer and lay review
• Full committee assessment
• Final ratification
• Notification of outcome
• http://www.ccf.nihr.ac.uk/RfPB/Pages/home.aspx/

The Preliminary Scrutiny Stage

Four potential questions will be asked:

• 1. Is the proposal in scope?
• 2. Is there potential for patient benefit?
• 3. Are the details of the proposal within the

rules of the Programme?

• 4. Is the design (on the face of it) sound and

appropriate?

Is the proposal in scope?

• Applied research - not basic knowledge generation
• Findings capable of improving how the NHS works

for the health and wellbeing of patients.

• In case of a pilot study a clear trajectory into the

definitive study.

• Not solely developing or testing measurement tools
• r new kind of analysis or methodology
• Applications that emerge from the interaction with

patients and public are explicitly welcomed.

Is there a convincing patient benefit?

• When will benefit occur?
• Evidence of benefit in stated outcomes
• Direct involvement in local practice not just national

policy

• Dissemination- won’t solely enhance research

portfolio but lead to NHS improvement as well

• Resources- any resources needed for acting on the

findings?

Are the research design and the methods well enough described to allow peer review?

• Are there obvious faults in the research

design?

• Is it absolutely clear what will be done?

Have the administrative rules been met?

• >250K – automatic rejection
• >3 years – automatic rejection
• No declaration and signatures – automatic

rejection

• No NHS involvement – automatic rejection

Peer review process

• At least three peer reviewers are sought –
• ften up to six
• Researcher in same/similar field
• Practitioner in same/similar field
• Public/patient

Regional funding committee

• About 20 people round table (names on RfPB

website)*

• Meeting will be told how much money is

available, how many applications can be funded, whether to have a “reserve list”

• Meeting lasts about 5 hours
• Papers sent out one month in advance
• Considers 8-12 applications
• Care re conflict of interest
• *including NIHR staff and observers

Regional funding committee

• Each member will be lead assessor on 1 or 2

applications which s/he will study in detail

• Each member will read all other applications
• Lead assessor 1 (LA1)

– Summarises research – Gives overview and assessment of reviewers’ comments – Integrates and provides preliminary view

• Lead assessor 2 (LA2)

– Notes and summarises discussion for feedback

Fundamental flaws

• Not taken account of current state of evidence

in field

• Similar research already underway
• Research design is not capable of answering

research question

• Too many fixable faults >4

Fixable faults

• Changes necessary but would not need a

wholesale redesign of the project

• Need a statistician on the team
• Timetable too tight
• Need more detailed reasoning regarding
• utcomes
• How might results be disseminated to impact

practice?

Common problems that I have seen

• Research questions not clear
• Methods not appropriate to answer research

question

• Qualitative research (particularly) not well

enough specified

• Team does not contain all the necessary

expertise

Regional funding committee

• 15 minutes discussion per project after LA1

and LA2 summaries

• Consensus sought
• Each member rates each application

individually

• At end of all discussion, mean rating for each

application is calculated

• Further discussion to ensure that members

are happy with ranking

Regional funding committee meeting decisions

• Meeting will be told how much money is

available, how many applications can be funded, whether to have a “reserve list”

• Fund
• Fund subject to conditions
• Put on a “reserve list”
• Reject with encouragement to prepare a new

application

• Reject

When applying:

• Allow yourself sufficient time
• Describe clearly how the research will benefit

patients

• Ensure your team has all necessary skills
• Make contact with your local RDS for support
• Ensure you have convincing and appropriate

lay/public involvement

• Seek peer review

Your application needs to be:

• Clear
• Concise
• Coherent
• Convincing

• RfPB Competition 16 deadlines:

– Application Deadline 23 September 2011, – Declaration and Signatures deadline 30 September 2011 – All deadlines are at 5pm! – Outcome Late March 2012

• Thank you for listening
• Do you have any questions?