NIHR Workshop on Research into Primary Care Interventions

1. NIHR Workshop on Research into Primary Care Interventions 12 February 2013

2. Session Two: Developing Primary Care Research Projects 12 February 2013

3. What makes a good NIHR application? Professor Chris Salisbury University of Bristol 12 February 2013

4. The ‘so what’ question Does the NHS need to know the answer? How will patients or the NHS benefit? Is there a clear trajectory into patient benefit? Has the research question and its importance been explained well burden of disease, impact on service / population, gaps in knowledge, how this research will address these gaps ‘Is the Question Important?’

5. Is the research question within the remit of the themed call Is the research question within the remit of the specific NIHR programme being applied to? Consult the NIHR web pages for advice Read the briefing document ‘Is the Research Question in Remit?’

6. The right method for the question Both in terms of obtaining robust answers and being feasible Combining qualitative and quantitative methods Assessing cost-effectiveness ‘Is it the Right Method?’

7. Design Complexity and challenge Recruitment rate Centres Eligible patients Patient consents Patient follow-up Interest/expectations/incentives for service providers & patients The NHS context Timing ‘Is the Research Feasible?’

8. Use checklists e.g. CONSORT, SPIRIT, EQUATOR Use headings Clear, simple, succinct, logical Cover all the essential elements relevant to the design e.g. Participants Setting Intervention and control Outcomes Sample size and power Analysis ‘The Science’

9. Is it easy to follow for a non-specialist? Clinical, methodologists, patient and public Plain English summary Is there an inexorable logic in the links between: The problem The research question and objectives The method(s) The outcomes ‘Is it Clear, Logical and Persuasive?’

10. Research team appropriately multi-disciplinary, sufficiently experienced Roles/responsibilities of each member described the right size management arrangements Involvement with a CTU from an appropriate stage in the research development where appropriate Research Design Service Involvement with appropriate research networks ‘The Team and Support’

11. Patient and public involvement is of key importance Researchers need to involve patients and the public during development and delivery of the project Patients and public will be involved at all stages of the assessment process (referees, board members) Funding boards will explicitly look for evidence of appropriate patient and public involvement Allow for costs, training, support of PPI members ‘Patient and Public Involvement’

12. How will your research really make a difference? How will people know about it? Plan and cost for dissemination at the outset. Think imaginatively ‘Dissemination’

13. Is the research realistically costed and does it offer value-for-money? Is the cost to address the disease / health issue in question justified, and does the topic clearly account for the cost requested? Is it costed within the limits of the proposed programme e.g. RfPB up to £350K over 36 months. ‘Costings’

14. Follow the application guidance notes Visible headings (e.g. sample size, outcomes) White space – there should be some (use paragraphs) Flow diagrams Be aware of the idiosyncrasies of the online form Do as much editing as possible on the Word form Don’t leave it to the last minute before the deadline! ‘Other Tips’

15. Feedback from funding boards at all stages is meant to be helpful to the applicants Applicants should respond to all areas highlighted as necessary by the funding board ‘Feedback from Funding Boards / Committees’

16. Apparent lack of awareness of major related work The method won’t answer the question Insufficient detail: ‘ poorly specified’ Muddled detail particularly in the methodology sections – even at full proposal Not responding to feedback from funding board ‘Common Pitfalls’

17. Gaps in expertise on the research team Unrealistic plans or costings Incorrect or inconsistent numbers Submissions have not been proof-read ‘Common Pitfalls’

18. Good Luck! 12 February 2013