59
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    8
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Features of successful bids for funding of applied health research: a cohort study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The literature suggests that research funding decisions may be influenced by criteria such as gender or institution of the principal investigator (PI). The aim of this study was to investigate the association between characteristics of funding applications and success when considered by a research funding board.

          Methods

          We selected a retrospective cohort of 296 outline applications for primary research (mainly pragmatic clinical trials) submitted to the commissioning board of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme between January 1 st 2006 and December 31 st 2009. We selected proposals submitted to the commissioned NIHR HTA work stream as they addressed issues which the programme already deemed to be important, hence the priority of the research question was not considered as one of the selection criteria for success or failure. Main outcome measures were success or failure at short-listing and in obtaining research funding.

          Results

          The characteristics of applications associated with success at shortlisting and funding were multi-disciplinarity of the team (OR 19.94 [5.13, 77.50], P <0.0001), particularly inclusion of a statistician (OR 3.76 [2.21, 6.37], P <0.0001), and the completion of a pilot/feasibility study (OR 4.11 [1.24, 13.62], P = 0.0209). The gender of the PI was not associated with success or failure at either stage. The PI’s affiliation institution was not associated with success or failure at shortlisting.

          Conclusions

          The gender of the PI was not associated with success or failure. The characteristics of research applications most strongly associated with success were related to the range of expertise in the team and the completion of a pilot or feasibility study.

          Related collections

          Most cited references39

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Funding grant proposals for scientific research: retrospective analysis of scores by members of grant review panel

          Objective To quantify randomness and cost when choosing health and medical research projects for funding. Design Retrospective analysis. Setting Grant review panels of the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. Participants Panel members’ scores for grant proposals submitted in 2009. Main outcome measures The proportion of grant proposals that were always, sometimes, and never funded after accounting for random variability arising from differences in panel members’ scores, and the cost effectiveness of different size assessment panels. Results 59% of 620 funded grants were sometimes not funded when random variability was taken into account. Only 9% (n=255) of grant proposals were always funded, 61% (n=1662) never funded, and 29% (n=788) sometimes funded. The extra cost per grant effectively funded from the most effective system was $A18 541 (£11 848; €13 482; $19 343). Conclusions Allocating funding for scientific research in health and medicine is costly and somewhat random. There are many useful research questions to be addressed that could improve current processes.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Using knowledge brokering to promote evidence-based policy-making: The need for support structures.

            Knowledge brokering is a promising strategy to close the "know-do gap" and foster greater use of research findings and evidence in policy-making. It focuses on organizing the interactive process between the producers and users of knowledge so that they can co-produce feasible and research-informed policy options. We describe a recent successful experience with this novel approach in the Netherlands and discuss the requirements for effective institutionalization of knowledge brokering. We also discuss the potential of this approach to assist health policy development in low-income countries based on the experience of developing the Regional East-African Health (REACH)-Policy Initiative. We believe that intermediary organizations, such as regional networks, dedicated institutional mechanisms and funding agencies, can play key roles in supporting knowledge brokering. We recommend the need to support and learn from the brokerage approach to strengthen the relationship between the research and policy communities and hence move towards a stronger culture of evidence-based policy and policy-relevant research.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Gender differences in research grant applications and funding outcomes for medical school faculty.

              To evaluate whether there were differences in acquisition of research grant support between male and female faculty at eight Harvard Medical School-affiliated institutions.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                s.turner@soton.ac.uk
                p.davidson@soton.ac.uk
                l.stanton@soton.ac.uk
                v.cawdeary@soton.ac.uk
                Journal
                Health Res Policy Syst
                Health Res Policy Syst
                Health Research Policy and Systems
                BioMed Central (London )
                1478-4505
                22 September 2014
                22 September 2014
                2014
                : 12
                : 1
                : 54
                Affiliations
                [ ]Wessex Institute, University of Southampton, Alpha House, Enterprise Road, Southampton, SO16 7NS UK
                [ ]University of Southampton Clinical Trials Unit, Southampton, SO16 6YD UK
                Article
                351
                10.1186/1478-4505-12-54
                4180128
                25245823
                4a795bea-630c-492b-870d-335a56031341
                © Turner et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014

                This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 18 February 2014
                : 8 September 2014
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2014

                Health & Social care
                funding applications,health technology assessment,primary research,research funding

                Comments

                Comment on this article