How Does the Coronavirus Lockdown Affect Funding Applications?

Most funders are aiming to keep open
for business as usual - so get typing.
(Photo by Patrick Fore on Unsplash)

Every part of our lives has been affected by the current lockdown to tackle the Covid-19 outbreak, and the world of research funding is no exception. Some funders are postponing the deadlines for some or all of their schemes, while others are trying to continue as normal. Here we summarise what we know so far.

Dude, Who's Got My Twitter?

@NIHR, apparently. Or possibly a forgotten Britpop band

It's a fast moving world in the Twittersphere, and you have to be quick to bag the Twitter handle that is, well, your birthright. Some, such as @BBSRC, were super sharp and got theirs [shame they won't be around much longer - Ed], although that might be more down to the implausibility of any other person/organisation having that acronym. But what about others who were - um - a bit slower or have common arconyms? Dude, who's got my Twitter?

Involving End Users in Your Research

Involving the end users in the design and management of research projects has become increasingly important . It is no longer acceptable to run projects in which participants don’t have a voice. But how does this work? How do you identify potential users? What are the potential pitfalls or problems, and what benefits can you expect? The latest Grants Factory session took two very different case studies and looked at the difficulties –but also the significant benefits – of involving users in research.

Case Study One: Research for Patient Benefit

Annette King

The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) has been a strong advocate for ‘patient and public involvement’ (PPI), and has established an advisory group, INVOLVE, to advocate greater participation. Users should be engaged at all stages of a project as ‘active partners’, and not just as ‘subjects’. This engagement can range from ‘consultation’, to ‘collaboration’, to ‘user-led’, where the service users themselves set the research agenda.

Annette King described a ‘collaborative’ project funded by the NIHR’s Research for Patient Benefit scheme. The project, led by Eve Hutton of Canterbury Christ Church, was a study into the effectiveness of an education programme for parents and teachers responsible for the postural care needs of disabled children. This had been developed with users, including the parents and children themselves. One such was Judi Mortimore, who had helped the project team in identifying the research questions, had been active in the management of the project, had developed participant information resources and techniques, and had helped to disseminate the findings.

With her input, the team had been far more effective at engaging with those who would benefit from the research. Neither Annette nor Judi shied away from the fact that, at times, the relationship had been difficult: there had been misunderstandings and differences of opinion. Nevertheless, the research was stronger and more robust as a result, and the findings more useful and applicable.

Case Study Two: Age Discrimination

Dr Hannah Swift

The second case study looked at a different kind of user: those who commission and use the research. Dr Hannah Swift, a Research Associate working with Prof Dominic Abrams, explained how a small, straightforward piece of research commissioned by Age Concern a decade ago had led to a broad portfolio of interrelated projects for Age UK, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the European Social Survey, and the Department for Work and Pensions. This portfolio had been incredibly fruitful for both the academics and the users of the research.

Prof Dominic Abrams

Throughout the process, Prof Abrams and his team had to be both reactive and proactive. On the one hand, they had to react to specific requests from external bodies, and consider the benefit (and dangers) of working with them.  On the other, they had to make contact with organisations that might be interested in their work, finding the most appropriate people, and making the links.

Whilst their experience had been positive, Abrams and Swift highlighted some issues that need to be considered before entering into collaborations with external users:

• What do they want to get out of the relationship?
•  What do you want to get from it? Access to data? Or further opportunities?
•  Make sure you protect your intellectual property.
• Make sure that you get all necessary ethical approvals.
• What is the timeframe? Deadlines are often tighter than you may be used to.
• How will you deal with any conflict outcomes? In other words, what will you do if the research doesn’t tell the ‘story’ that the user was hoping for?
• How will you get the research into a ‘useable’ form? The user will probably want the findings in a more accessible and useable form than an academic article.
• What will happen if the research is not used? The organisation might be happy with your work, but the report may be shelved for political or other reasons. What will you do?
• What will happen after the report is written and the relationship is formally finished?
• Make sure you have more than one contact within the organisation. People move on, and you don’t want the relationship to dwindle when they do.

Above all, for both of these case studies, it was clear that good communication, openness and honesty were key. Expectations should be managed, and both sides need to be clear about what can and can’t be done.

Slides from the session will be available on the Research Services website shortly.

Captain Bloctopus

Captain Bloctopus, with 'the Robotrons' and 'Laptopics'

It's been a busy month for the National Institute of Health Research. As if running the research budget of the NHS wasn't enough, they've spent January holding a fabulous CBeebies-style 'name the cartoon character' competition.

The cartoon character in question is the somewhat prosaic NIHR Collaboration Platform. Looking at the website, it appears to be a blue octopus pinned down by laptops and robots. Nothing much happens. To be honest, it makes the Teletubbies look like Scorsese. Even the opening episode ('Oops! We have recently learnt that there has been some confusion around the new collaboration platform') is a bit - um - uninvolving.

I don't think it will catch on.

Things aren't helped by the winning name: 'Hub'. You're never going to get bums on seats with a name like that. A blue octopus should have a name like - I don't know - Bloctopus, or something. Maybe Captain Bloctopus.

They're promising a series of roadshows for the new character. I do hope Captain Bloctopus himself will make an appearance, along with his arch enemy the Robotrons and Laptopics. It's the only way they're going to win over the kidz. And do, please, drop that 'Hub' nonsense.

Grants Factory: Involving End Users in your Research

12 Feb, 2-4pm

Keynes Seminar Room 4

Annette King

Prof Dominic Abrams

Involving the end users or beneficiaries of research in its design and management has become increasingly important recently. It is no longer acceptable, in projects that involve human participants, to run projects in which those participants don’t have a voice. Health funders in particular, such as the NIHR, specify that the public and patients be fully involved in the projects. In other areas, too, ‘participatory design’ should be seen as best practice.

But how does this work? How do you identify potential participants? What are the potential pitfalls or problems, and what benefits can you expect? This session will hear from two people with a strong track record in working productively with the public: Prof Dominic Abrams (Psychology) is the Director of the Centre for the Study of Group Processes, and has led a number of externally funded projects looking at issues of ageing and inclusiveness, and Annette King works for the NIHR’s Research Design Service, working on public health and health service studies, and advising academics on the design of projects. 

The session is free, open to all staff, and tea/coffee will be available. Do let me know if you intend to come so that I can get a sense of numbers.

Tips on Applying to the NIHR

Dr Gail Gilchrist

One of the highlights - for me - of last week's NIHR Information Day was the talk given by the University of Greenwich's Dr Gail Gilchrist. She was refreshingly frank about her experience of applying to the Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) scheme, and gave us a really useful overview of the benefits, the essential elements of a good application, the issues faced, and the differences between RfPB and other research programmes.

Benefits of RfPB

For Gilchrist, the benefits of RfPB were that it was 'responsive mode', i.e. it wasn't restricted to specific topics, unlike some other areas of NIHR funding. Moreover, it encouraged proposals for a wide range of areas, including social care and new interventions. She also thought - anecdotally - that it was a necessary first step to getting larger funding from the NIHR.

Essential Elements of a Good Application

Gilchrist prefaced this by stating that she was still waiting to hear back on the outcome of her application, so that whilst she believed that her application had the essential elements, there was no guarantee of success. She deferred to Prof Chris Salisbury (Bristol) who clearly set out the three key factors of good NIHR applications:



As with many other funders, applicants need to make sure:

• That the research question is important;
• That getting an answer is feasible;
• That the methodology for answering the question is sound and appropriate;
• That it can be understood by both clinicians, methodologists, patients and the public;
• That the team is appropriate, multidisciplinary, and sufficiently experienced.

Issues

Gilchrist made it clear that applying to the RfPB was no walk in the park. She had faced a number of issues, including:

• The challenge of building an appropriate, multidisciplinary team;
• Ensuring access to NHS sites;
• Meaningfully engaging with service users;
• Developing local partnerships/steering committees/advisory groups;
• Estimating the numbers of participants necessary;
• Deciding on the most appropriate form of dissemination.

Lessons Learnt

She came out of the process older and wiser. For those about to start, she suggested the following:

• Get all relevant people on board before writing. It takes time to get all the people registered, with the necessary CVs uploaded and approved. Remember, public and patient involvement (PPI) is crucial, but it can be time consuming. In addition, working with large NHS organisations isn't always straightforward, which leads on to the second point:
• Don't leave it until the last minute. 
• Be aware of word count, and make sure to save your draft application regularly.
• Review and revise. Peer and lay review is incredibly helpful. 

Differences between NIHR and other Funders

Finally, she rounded off her session by highlighting some key differences between NIHR and other forms of funding:

• PPI is crucial;
• Research should have strong impact or translation potential;
• Awards are made to the NHS, not the university;
• NIHR Networks need to be involved. 

Applying to the NIHR - Info Day - 11 April

The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) funds NHS-related research, including social care and public health. Last year it gave out over £200m of research grants through a range of programmes. 

This event will provide an overview of the NIHR and will offer help and advice on key elements of an NIHR proposal. A range of experienced academics, managers and administrators will be on hand to discuss your proposal, including members of the NIHR, the Research Design Service SE and Kent’s Research Services.

The event is free but places are limited, so please book early via the Eventbrite page: bit.ly/nihrday

10.00-10.15 Registration and coffee

10.15-10.30 Welcome 

                    Bridget Carpenter (Co-director NIHR Research Design Service South East)

10.30-10.45 Overview of NIHR Funding 

                    Annette King (Academic Lead RDS SE)

                    What is the NIHR and what are its funding programmes?

10.45-11.20 Designing an Effective Project 

                     Dr Gail Gilchrist (University of Greenwich)

                    What issues do you face when designing a study for funding?

11.20-12.00 Costing a Proposal 

                     (tbc)

                    What research funders will and won’t pay out.

12.00-12.30 Incorporating Statistics 

                    Dr Eryl Bassett (Statistician RDS SE)

                   What to include in a proposal and examples of how to do it.

12.30-13.30 Lunch

13.30-14.00 Involving Patients and the Public 

                    Amanda Bates & Ferhana Hashem (RDS SE)

                    What it means and why it’s more than ticking a box.

14.00-14.30 A Researcher’s Experience 

                    Dr Kate Hamilton-West (University of Kent)

                    Securing funding for, and running, NIHR studies.

14.30-15.10 The Other Side of the Fence: the view from  the Advisory Board 

                    Prof Ray Fitzpatrick (HS&DR Programme Director) & Prof Stephen Peckham (Director CHSS)

                    Common mistakes in grant applications and tips for success.

from 15.30 RDS Clinic

                   RDS Advisors, Statisticians and Patient and Public Involvement Officers will be available to discuss your proposal. For more information about the clinic, please contact Ferhana Hashem (F.Hashem@kent.ac.uk)

ESRC & NIHR Call for 'Oven-Ready' Dementia Interventions

The ESRC and NIHR whetted the sector's appetite for their forthcoming Dementia Initiative by holding a workshop for prospective applicants on Tuesday. The Call Specification is now on the ESRC's website, but there were some interesting points that came out of the workshop :

• Stakeholder involvement is key;
• Projects need to be ambitious and bold;
• They are especially interested in looking at 'oven-ready' interventions that change behaviour and can prevent dementia;
• Social care research is seen as a particularly rich seam that has been under-researched;
• They would welcome the wider involvement of social sciences. 

We're planning to hold a meeting in a couple of weeks time to discuss this call. If you want more information about it, or are considering putting in a bid, drop me or Brian Lingley a line.

Patient & Public Involvement

At the NIHR Day last week Amanda Bates (Research Design Service South East) and Alison Ford (NIHR Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre) gave an overview of why patients and the public should be involved in the design and management of a research project.

Why involve patients and the public?
Whilst it's an integral and necessary part of any NIHR application, involving those who will be affected by the research has considerable benefits, and you shouldn't see it as just a box-ticking exercise. Patient and public involvement (PPI) could provide different perspectives on the research, and demonstrate the relevance of your research to lives of those affected. It may give you privileged access to valuable experience and expertise, and would demonstrate your willingness to be transparent in your research.

So who are they?
Patients or the public could be anyone; we are all fit into this category. It depends on the focus of your research, of course, but could include:

• people who provide unpaid care or support;
• parents or guardians;
• people who use health and social care services;
• people with disabilities;
• members of the public who might be targeted by health promotion, public health or social care;
• groups asking for research because they believe that they have been exposed to potentially harmful substances or products;
• organisations that represent people who use health and social care services.

So how do I involve them?
PPI can happen at any time of the research process, from planning (even right at the beginning, when you're identifying the research topic, through to the prioritisation process or designing the project), to conducting the research, collecting the data, analysing it, reporting and disseminating the findings. In terms of getting external people on board, there are a number of ways of identifying those who might be interested:

• asking patients in clinics, or finding a clinician who will ask for you;
• using 'word of mouth' amongst colleagues; 
• via patient or user groups at local GP practices;
• holding an open event;
• finding local support groups, charities etc;
• via the RDS SE (see below).

You should make sure that they know what is expected of them, and that they are properly reimbursed for their time. You should allow time for positive working relationships to develop, and should ensure that the research environment is physically - and intellectually - accessible. For example, make sure that those with physical disabilities can access meetings, and that you avoid or explain any specific language or jargon.

If you want to explore PPI further, you should get in touch with RDS SE. You can even apply for a small award (£350) that will help with the costs of involving people in the design of a study at an early stage.

Tips on Applying to Two NIHR Schemes

Following on from my last post, I wanted to pass on some tips from Angie Borzychowski (of the Central Commissioning Facility) on making a good application to the Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) programme, and the Programme Grants for Applied Research.

RfPB awards are for £350k, and the total funding for the programme is £25m pa. They are distributed through 10 regional Advisory Committees, and there are three funding rounds per year. In the South East, this Committee is led by Prof Ann Moore, and last year approved 36 awards from 206 applications, giving a 23% success rate. She suggested that one of the key points for the RfPB was to make sure that you consult and involve others. This includes the crucial input from the Research Design Service (RDS), but also the involvement of patients and the public - more on this in a later post. You should also keep the decision criteria in mind, and make sure that your design is coherent and convincing, explaining the context of your study and how the research will benefit the patients. However, you should also be clear about the specific outcomes for the NHS: it's great that your work will benefit patients, but how are you going to make sure that this actually happens?

Programme Grants for Applied Research are much bigger beasts than RfPB. They have three times as much money to distribute, some £75m pa, and offer grants of up to £2m for up to 5 years. With such large amounts at stake, the NIHR wants to make sure that both the person and project are right. Your profile has to fit: you have to be at the right stage of your career and ready to take on the challenge of these programme grants. However, the research has to be 'right', too: it has to be ambitious, coherent, and important, but also addressing major identified challenges. And, as ever with public funding, you need to demonstrate value for money.

If you're planning to apply to the NIHR contact the RDS, who can provide crucial input to the design of your project and application.

Taming the Hydra: Understanding the NIHR

To many the NIHR can seem like a fearsome hydra: many headed, terrifying and difficult to believe in. However, at an all day event last week this scary dragon was discussed and explained, demystified and domesticated. By the end it felt like a logical, tolerant, well trained hound, acceptable in all the finest (research) establishments.

Ann Deehan (Dept of Health) began by sketching out the shape of the beast. Essentially, it has at its heart patients and the public. These are nestled inside NHS Trusts which are, in turn, supported by universities in gathering information and undertaking research. The NIHR supports this relationship by feeding into it in four ways:

• ‘Faculty’: provides training and fellowship funding;
• ‘Research’: provides funding for projects and institutes;
• ‘Systems’: provides support for processes and procedures;
• ‘Infrastructure’: provides support for networks, centres, facilities and units.

Dawn Biram (Trainees Coordinating Centre – TCC) outlined the work of the NIHR Faculty. NIHR offers a number of fellowships for both clinicians and academics, at all stages of their career. They generally offer a salary for between 3 – 5 years, full tuition fees (for PhD students), research costs, and full support for training and development. If the fellowship is based in the NHS it covers 100% of the costs; if it’s in a university, it’s 80% - in line with the funding offered by the Research Councils.

Angie Borzychowski (Central Commissioning Facility – CFF) and Alison Ford (NIHR Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre – NETSCC) outlined different parts of the NIHR’s Research arm. Alison summed up the difference between the MRC and two of the NIHR’s schemes quite neatly: the MRC funds research to see if a particular intervention is scientifically possible; the Efficacy and MechanismEvaluation Programme (EME) funds research to see if it really does work in practice; and the Health Technology Assessment Programme (HTA) funds research to see if it’s worth it. Can it work; does it work; is it worth it.

Angie, by contrast, looked at funding from the Research for Patient Benefit Scheme (RfPB) and Programme Grants for AppliedResearch (PGAR). These fund projects based in the NHS, but with academic input. They are intended to fund research which will have implications for patients. RfPB funds relatively small scale projects (up to £250k), whereas the PGAR awards are huge: £2m for up to five years. More specific advice on these will be given in later posts, but it’s worth bearing in mind that ‘patient and public involvement’ is crucial, that costs and value for money and examined thoroughly, and that the deadline for submissions will be switching from 5pm to 1pm, so don’t be caught out.

Finally Ian Akers (Comprehensive Local Research Network –CLRN) outlined the work of NIHR Infrastructure. The CLRN grew out of previous, disease-specific networks, such as the National Cancer Research Network (NCRN). It provides help and support for researchers in the NHS, reducing red tape, funding additional people, and advising researchers on how to make their studies work in the NHS. It had had considerable success meeting the particular challenges in Kent and Medway, and had seen a large increase in participation in research over the past four years.

If you want more advice on the NIHR, or help with putting together an application to it, get in touch with the Research Design ServiceSouth East, which is funded by the NIHR to help applicants. Based at the Universities of Kent, Surrey and Sussex, there is help available on your doorstep. 

Understanding and Applying to The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), 10 May

We will be running an introduction to the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) on 10 May. Lunch and refreshments will be provided.

A draft programme for the day is given below. You are welcome to come along to the whole day, or drop in for part of it. It will be taking place in the Senate Building at the University of Kent's Canterbury Campus. The event is open to academics at both Kent and Christ Church, as well as clinicians working in the NHS. However, I would appreciate it if you could let me know if you intend to come so that I can get an idea of the numbers attending.

What is the NIHR?

Government funding for health-related research is distributed through two main routes: the Medical Research Council (MRC), and the NIHR. The MRC deals with more fundamental research, the NIHR with research that will affect the NHS, including social care and public health research. Its role is to develop research evidence to support decision making by professionals, policy makers and patients.

Last year it gave out £210.5m of research grants through a range of programmes. This event will be a chance to understand how these differ and fit together, and to hear from those who have had experience of working for or with the NIHR.

Programme

10:00 Registration and Coffee

10:30 Introduction
Prof Peter Jeffries (Director of KentHealth) & Bridget Carpenter (Co-Director Business, NIHR Research Design Service South East)

10:45 Decoding the Acronyms: What is the NIHR?
Moderated by Phil Ward (Research Funding Manager, University of Kent)

An Overview of the NIHR

Ann Deehan (Infrastructure Workforce Senior Lead, Dept of Health)

Central Commissioning Facility (CCF)

Angie Borzychowski (Assistant Director, Research for Patient Benefit)

11:30-11:45 Tea & Coffee

NIHR Evaluation, Trials & Studies Coordinating Centre (NETSCC)
Liz Tremain (Senior Programme Manager, NETSCC)
Trainees Coordinating Centre (TCC)
Dawn Biram (Information & Evaluation Manager, TCC)
Comprehensive Local Research Network (CLRN)
Ian Akers (Portfolio Manager, CLRN Kent & Medway)

12:45 Case Study: Applying for and Managing an NIHR Grant
A ‘warts and all’ experience of an NIHR-funded project by its Principal Investigator

13:15-14:00 Lunch

14:00 Getting Down to Business: Issues to Consider when Applying
Six parallel sessions on preparing a good proposal

Essential Elements
-Patient & Public Involvement
-Governance & Sponsorship

Adding Value
-Strengthening your proposal through health economic evaluation

-Considering statistical issues

15:30-15:45 Tea & Coffee

Framing it Right
-Using the right language
-Calculating costs

16:30 Close & Application Clinic
The formal programme will close at 16:30, but the RDS SE team of research advisors will be available to provide individual advice on proposals. Booking is essential: please contact Annette King if you would like to book a slot.

Getting Involved with Funders

A number of funders are inviting people to become involved in their decision making. These include the following:

• AHRC - Peer Review College
• BBSRC - Council
• EPSRC - Council
• ESRC – Council
• MRC – Council
• STFC – Council
• NIHR - Programme Advisory Board & Refereeing

Do consider putting yourself forward for these vacancies. Being involved with funders raises your profile, but also gives you the opportunity to influence their policy and direction.

Finally! Some Good News

It took me a while, but amidst the debris that littered the landscape following the nuclear explosion of the CSR, I've found a little good news. In the Research Design Service South East Newsletter, the Department of Health (through the NIHR and the DH Policy Research Programme) has pledged to increase spending on health research in real-terms over the period of the Comprehensive Spending Review.

Finally! Some good news. Professor Dame Sally Davies, the Director General for R&D at the Department of Health, welcomed the news. "This is a great settlement. The Government has again confirmed its support for health research in the strongest way possible.' She went on:‘This is an explicit recognition of the key role played by health research in driving improvements in the health of the population and in the economic growth of our country. It is also a ringing endorsement of the place that NIHR now occupies in the landscape of the UK.’

Good news. Not so good for non-health research admittedly ('you want funding to study medieval manuscripts? Isn't there a 'medival manuscripts for patient benefit' angle that you can exploit?'), but in today's world, you take your solace where you can.

NIHR Seeks Panel Members

The National Institutes of Health Research Trainees Coordination Centre (NIHR TCC) manages a number of different programmes, predominantly for individuals and aimed at applied research with relevance to the NHS. They are seeking members for their Panel, which assesses applications.

I've said it before and doubtless I'll say it again, but I'd encourage anyone with relevant experience to get involved. Being part of the peer review process, and seeing how a funder works, is invaluable for when it comes to writing your own application. It gives you a real insight into the issues, the problems, the choices that have to be faced by the panel members and the funders.

So have a look at their website and complete the Expressions of Interest (EOI) form if you're interested. If you have any questions about the EOI process please contact Dawn Biram or Dawn Burgess by email at comms@nihrtcc.org.uk

Research for Patient Benefit Workshop

The Research Design Service (RDS), which provides help and advice on those applying to the NHS, is running another Research for Patient Benefit Funding Workshop.

The workshop will be helpful to those considering developing a research project in an applied health and social care setting and will describe the RfPB funding stream, such as who can apply, what types of research are covered by the scheme, the value of the grant, and the application process itself.

It will be on 29 Sept 2010 starting at 9:30am. Contact Sylvia Francis if you want to take part.

MRC Move to Swindon - Sort Of

It's been announced that the bulk of the MRC's operations will move to Swindon to join its sister councils in Polaris House. However, it's reluctant to abandon London completely, and, whilst it will move out of its Portland Place residence, it will find alternative accommodation in the capital for 90 or so staff dealing with 'science strategy and policy, high-level management of the council's portfolio and funding partnerships.'

The MRC has justified this split by saying that it needs a London base 'to bouild on our collaboration with our partners such as the National Institute for Health Research, as well as providing a London location for use across the research councils.'

Reviewers Wanted by NIHR

Following on from the last post, the National Insitutes for Health Research (NIHR) are also advertising for participation, this time as reviewers. Here's what to do if you want to get involved:

Go to their website here

• Click on the "registration" icon on the left hand side of the screen


• Enter the institution postcode and click on the "find institution" button


• Select the address if it is there by clicking in the box and then click on the "use selected address" button


• If the address is not there, scroll down the page and click on the "continue" button


• Complete all the mandatory boxes


• Click the "submit" button at the bottom of the page.

You'll then be sent a confirmation email.

Health Research Suggestions Sought

The National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR) are asking the public what issues they would like to see researched. 'We're not just talking about healthy eating, how to stop smoking or how to prevent the spread of diseases like 'flu', they say on their website. 'Your idea could be to do with air quality, public transport, urban design - anything at all that could help to make people healthier.'

It's open to all; to take part go to the NIHR site.

Help with Health Applications

The National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR) has issued a raft of recent health funding opportunities. If you want to take advantage of these it would be worth contacting the Research Design Service South East. A collaboration between the Universities of Brighton, Kent and Surrey, the Service provides free support to develop research proposals for NIHR programmes.