1 / 11

The National Prevention Research Initiative NPRI

The National Prevention Research Initiative NPRI. Roger Wilson Chair – NCRI Consumer Liaison Group. Background. NCRI Strategic Analysis 2002 2% of spend on prevention Compares with 9% in USA NCRI Planning Group analysis Proposed ongoing funding Multi-disciplinary, intervention focus

fathia
Download Presentation

The National Prevention Research Initiative NPRI

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The National Prevention Research InitiativeNPRI Roger Wilson Chair – NCRI Consumer Liaison Group

  2. Background • NCRI Strategic Analysis 2002 • 2% of spend on prevention • Compares with 9% in USA • NCRI Planning Group analysis • Proposed ongoing funding • Multi-disciplinary, intervention focus • UKCRC Strategic Analysis 2005 • 2.5%of spend on prevention

  3. Committing £11.7m over 5 years

  4. Structure • Programme Board • Funders • One lay representative • Scientific committee • Chair – Prof Ray Fitzpatrick • 24 members – international expertise • Of which 6 lay representatives • Management by MRC

  5. Progress • First call – late 2004 • 248 outline proposals • Reviewed April 2005 • 48 invited to apply – reviewed October 2005 • 45 submitted full proposals • 26 projects funded from April 2006 • 70% of initial funding allocated • Second call in preparation for late 2006

  6. Reviewing the Applications • External review – up to 3 respondents • Two scientific members – detailed review • Good science • Quality of project team • Appropriate costs • One lay member – detailed review • Public value • Public/patient involvement

  7. Process • Secretariat ensured equality of status • Chair encouraged open discussion • Started cautiously keeping to boundaries • Overlaps started with science issues commented on by lay representatives • Then cautious discussion of public value issues by scientists • No cliques at lunch time • Ended up with ethical positions taken by scientists when lay people were happy

  8. Results • Real multi-disciplinary projects • 24 interventions – leading to pilot stages • Methodology – one study • Clinical trial – one study • Word got round about involvement • Those that scored well on involvement usually also did well scientifically • Recommendations on involvement added by scientific committee where weak

  9. Outcome • Final selections possibly no different BUT • Decisions are more valid • There is more user involvement in projects than there would have been • Returning greater value (assuming promises are lived up to) • Wider ownership of results • In the whole initiative • In the communities studied • Readier political will to fund interventions

  10. Conclusions • Principle of involvement from outset • Useful to have experience within organisation • Helped by having one person on the Board • A clear role is very valuable • Lay representatives • Experience adds value • Confidence to challenge and discuss • Know when to listen and stay quiet • A facilitative chair is crucial to success

  11. Roger Wilson roger@dflair.demon.co.uk

More Related