Introduction
The Doctoral Clinical and Practitioner Academic Fellowship (DCAF) scheme constitutes the doctoral tier of the NIHR Integrated Clinical Academic Programme and exists to support future clinical academic leaders with immediate aspirations for PhD study. The DCAF scheme, which is a successor to the Clinical Doctoral Research Fellowship (CDRF), is a bi-annual two-rounds competition which launches in April and September. The first round of the DCAF competition launched in April 2022.
The scheme is open to clinical/practitioner professions (excluding doctors and dentists). These include but are not limited to Allied Health Professionals (AHPs), non-medical public health, nursing and midwifery, pharmacy, social work and dental-related professionals registered with the ICA Approved Regulatory Bodies.
This document captures the key observations of the chairing team of the fourth round DCAF competition launched on 14th September 2023 and for which interviews were held between 16th and 17th April 2024 held at the DoubleTree Hotel in Leeds. DCAF interviews are hybrid in nature; candidates participate through zoom with an in-person panel.
Key facts of the DCAF Round 4
Thirty-six (36) applications were received for this round with thirty-four (34) deemed eligible for consideration. The Selection Committee shortlisted twenty-eight (28) applicants and all attended the interview. Nineteen applicants (19) were deemed by the Selection Committee to lie within the fundable range; a fifty-three percent (53%) success rate.
| DCAF Round 4 | Overall | Previous NIHR Pre-docs |
|---|---|---|
| Applied | 36 (34 eligible) | 17 |
| Interviewed | 28 | 12 |
| Awarded | 19 | 11 |
| Success rate | 53% | 58% |
The applications in this round came from the following professions; physiotherapists (6), healthcare scientists (4), practitioner psychologist (4), nurses (3), pharmacists (3), dieticians (3) social workers (3), occupational therapists (2), radiographer (diagnostic) (2), speech and language therapists (2), radiographer (therapeutic) (1), midwives (1), non-medical public health (1), and paramedic (1).
Round 4 DCAF Application and success rates of professions*
| Professional background | Applied | Shortlisted | Interviewed | Recommended for funding |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dietitian | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Healthcare scientist | 4 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Midwife | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Non-medical public health | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Nurse | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| Occupational therapist | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Paramedic | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Pharmacist | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Physiotherapist | 6 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| Practitioner psychologist | 4 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
| Radiographer (diagnostic) | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Radiographer (therapeutic) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Social worker | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| Speech and language therapist | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
Regional participation in this Round (4) of the DCAF Scheme include applications from London (12), Northwest (9), South Central, West Midlands and Southwest with (3) each, East Midlands (2), East of England (2), Yorkshire and the Humber (1), and Southeast Coast (1).
As usual, this round received a good number of applications from previous NIHR pre-doctoral level awards. Out of a total of thirty-eight applications considered in this round, seventeen (17) applications (47%) were previous pre-doctoral NIHR award holders, of which thirteen were shortlisted for interview and eleven recommended for funding. In other words, fifty-eight percent (58%) of successful candidates in this round came from previous NIHR pre-doctoral level awardees.
*If in doubt of whether your profession is eligible for the DCAF or any ICA schemes, please email to: academy-awards@nihr.ac.uk
Selection committee
The DCAF scheme, like all personal awards managed by the NIHR, is assessed by a selection committee that is composed of experienced and well-established academics in the relevant fields covered by the scheme and drawn from across the United Kingdom. These are joined by a number of experienced members of the public known as Public Contributors, who together undertake the assessment of applications and interview of applicants. Round 4 of the DCAF scheme involved a total of thirty-five members of the selection committee (twenty-nine academic and six public contributors). See a list of the current DCAF selection committee members.
The Chairs' observations
The chairing team of the DCAF Scheme observed the following during Round 4 of the DCAF Competition:
- The chairs continue to be impressed with the quality of candidates and the originality of their research. Candidates were generally well prepared at the interviews and with a growing number of these coming through the pre-doctoral schemes, the panel cannot overstate the importance of preparation.
- It is important for candidates to make sure their applications are thoroughly reviewed by their supervisors before submission and where possible undertake a mock interview.
- The quality of the presentations continues to be of high standard although it is important to emphasise the need for time management. Candidates must be able to finish their presentation within 5 minutes to avoid being stopped by the panel chair.
- The DCAF is a clinical academic award and therefore candidates are expected to articulate how they will progress their career clinically. On some occasions candidates were not able to articulate clearly their proposed clinical/practitioner trajectory.
- This round of the DCAF witnessed a good number of applications with good patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) activities fully integrated in their research design and delivery. However, candidates must ensure that PPIE is appropriately costed into their studies.
- Candidates will need to demonstrate clarity and good understanding of the different research methods and be able to justify why such choices are important to their research. There is still some confusion over pilot and feasibility studies.
- The DCAF emphasises professional development as a key component of the award. Panels would like to see candidates consider the skills needed to deliver their research and demonstrate how their proposed training and development plan will contribute to enhancing their academic and career development.
- The supervision team and how these will be managed form a key part of the consideration of the panels. It is important for candidates to have a diversity of relevant expertise within their supervision team and be clear about what each of them brings to the research. Candidates should also check that their lead supervisors should have supervised at least one PhD previously to completion.
- Candidates need to be clear about the role of their practice supervisor and how they will contribute to their clinical and professional development.
Other general observations
Support from the NIHR Research Support Service (RSS)
Applicants need to be aware of and take advantage of NIHR Research Support Services across the country. RSS staff are experienced and sometimes observe Selection Committee meetings and they are well placed to provide free and confidential advice, and helpful feedback on applications prior to submission. For more information on RSS, what they offer and where they are based, please follow the link below:
Plain English Summaries
The Plain English summary submitted is part of the application assessment process undertaken by the Selection Committee. If the summary does not provide a clear explanation of the proposed research to clinicians and researchers who do not have specialist knowledge of your field, as well as to members of the public, this will impact on the competitiveness of the application. Applicants are advised to use the support available from the Research Support Service in the development of their Plain English summaries.
Frequent weaknesses in the Plain English Summaries include:
- Poor structure with large blocks of text and a lack of headings
- Poor explanations of terminology
- Too many unexplained acronyms
Further guidance on writing in plain English is available via the NIHR webpages.
The cost of the project, including any NHS support and treatment costs
Applicants are required to provide a fully costed application. While costs can be amended with the support of the NIHR during the subsequent contracting process, they are noted by the Selection Committee during assessment. Poorly costed plans, particularly if relating to NHS support and treatment costs or PPI, can give a negative impression to the Selection Committee.
The need for strong statements of support from the hosting organisations
The supporting statement submitted by an applicant’s proposed hosting organisation is an important part of the application process. Sometimes supporting statements that are weak and generic which fail to convey a reassuring level of support for, and understanding of, the proposal and the aspirations of the applicant can undermine the competitiveness of the application. Strong supporting statements convey a deeper insight into the candidate’s professional aspirations, an understanding of the benefits of the proposal to the organisation and the extent to which the organisation may be prepared to support the candidate’s professional aspirations. This is one aspect considered closely by the Selection Committee who fully expect these statements to clearly articulate an ongoing and post-award commitment to the applicant’s academic career.
Using training awards to plug skills gaps in your career.
Applicants to research training awards are encouraged to take advantage of the opportunity to gain experience in key areas that will improve their clinical and academic development such as research methodologies, and new clinical approaches that they have not used previously. The training plan should incorporate sufficient support and training to ensure expertise will be demonstrable at the end of the award as they commence the next steps towards being an independent researcher.
Whether to propose a part-time or full-time award
There is a tendency for applicants to propose part-time awards in order to continue within their existing clinical posts. These awards all contain protected clinical elements, and so it is not necessary for applicants to make such a concession in order to maintain professional practice. Applicants proposing a part-time award purely to undertake additional clinical activity should consider the potential impact of this on their academic career trajectory, although they may have justifiable reasons why they would want such an arrangement. This is not, obviously, a consideration that individuals proposing a part-time award for any other reason are expected to make. Applicants who, for personal reasons, already work part-time (or, indeed, anticipate working part-time in the near future) are more than welcome to propose a part-time award.
The need for advanced planning and proposal development
It usually takes between 6 months and a year to develop a competitive application. Successful proposals have at the very least, been under development for a couple of months prior to the competition launch. During which time they should have had the support of their supervisory team members, prospective host organisations, clinical supervisors, and mentors.
Changing an Employer for the Purpose of Applying for the DCAF
Candidates need to carefully consider the decision of changing an employer for the purpose of applying for the DCAF. The NIHR is offering flexible options in this regard, but candidates should always ensure that whatever options they choose, it should be to enhance their professional and academic experience and not result in any loss of benefits or opportunities. For further information please see NIHR Guidance.
Annex – A- Regional Participation in the DCAF Scheme
| Round 3 | Total | Region | |||||||||
| East Midlands | East of England | London | North East | North West | South Central | South East Coast | South West | West Midlands | Yorkshire and the Humber | ||
| Applications | 36 | 2 | 2 | 12 | 0 | 9 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 |
| Shortlisted | 28 | 2 | 1 | 11 | 0 | 7 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Interviewed | 28 | 2 | 1 | 11 | 0 | 7 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Recommended for funding by the selection committee | 19 | 1 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| % success rate (per application) | 53 | 2.8 | - | 22.2 | - | 11.1 | 8.3 | 5.6 | 5.6 | 2.8 | - |
Useful Resources
The Selection Committees have identified a variety of resources that prospective applicants might find useful in relation to some of the weaknesses identified above.
- NIHR Nursing and Midwifery
- Mixed Methods Study Designs: Prospective applicants are advised to consider the article, and particularly the 10 resources highlighted within it.
- NIHR Clinical Trials Guide: The NIHR has produced a Clinical Trials Guide and recommends that prospective applicants intending to propose a trial consult it at the earliest opportunity.
- Guidance on Applying for Feasibility Studies
- See also: Whitehead AL, Sully BG, Campbell MJ. Pilot and feasibility studies: is there a difference from each other and from a randomised controlled trial? Contemp Clin Trials. 2014 May; 38(1): 130-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2014.04.001
- MRC Guidance on the Development and Evaluation of Complex Interventions:
This study has updated the MRC's framework in the light of developments in complex intervention research since 2006, adopting a pluralist approach and encouraging the consideration and use of diverse research perspectives. - Patient Reported Outcomes: The University of Birmingham’s Centre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research has a freely available NIHR funded information resource on PROs of potential use to prospective applicants, and more broadly, to those involved in PROs.