Programme Grants for Applied Research - Stage 2 Committee scoring instructions

Applications are assessed at Stage 2 sub-committee meetings and recommendations are made about which should be funded to assist the main selection committee. The scoring system should be viewed as an aid for decision-making and prioritisation. Scores should always be considered in light of the discussion on strengths and weaknesses. Average scores and their distributions will help in identifying where further discussion is needed.

Stage 2 selection criteria

In assigning individual scores committee members should take into account the overall selection criteria:

• the relevant range of applicants’ expertise in conducting high quality applied health research
• the importance and relevance of the proposed research to the priorities and needs of the NHS, public health, social care, patients/service users, carers or the wider public and population
• the likelihood of significant benefit to the NHS, public health, social care, patients/service users, carers or public throughout the programme
• the quality of the research planned
• the quality of involvement and engagement of patients, service users, carers (PPIE) in developing and supporting the research
• evidence of attention to issues or equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI)
• the value for money provided by the application.

Attributes of fundable proposals

• Fundable - no faults or no more than a modest number of minor fixable faults.
• Proposal that is fully grounded in the relevant literature and addresses a very important area highly relevant to the needs of the NHS, public health, social care, DHSC, patients/service users, carers and the wider public with very good consideration of unmet need and passes the ‘so what?’ test.
• Very good articulation of patient/service user, carer benefits.
• Research is highly likely to produce important findings that could influence practice and/or significant interventions that could be implemented in the NHS, public health or social care to substantially improve outcomes for patients/service users, carers and the public.
• The research design is very good quality and highly likely to answer the research question without significant revisions. Ambition is very good, with realistic timescales.
• Excellent team with the appropriate complement of specialists and track record of delivering high-quality applied health research to deliver the outcomes. Any plans for increasing research career capacity through the provision of training and development are highly relevant.
• The approach to PPIE is likely to lead to user-informed outcomes with active involvement and influence of service users at all relevant stages of the project.
• The project has a robust and relevant EDI strategy that will improve the likelihood of inclusion and/or tackling unmet needs.
• Excellent value for money and use of public funds. Costed appropriately to deliver outcomes.

Attributes of fundable proposals with minor weaknesses/concerns

• Fundable – a few major fixable faults or a several of minor fixable faults.
• Proposal that is grounded in the majority of the relevant literature and addresses an important area relevant to the NHS, public health, social care, DHSC, patients/service users, carers and the wider public with reasonable consideration of unmet need and passes the ‘so what?’ test.
• Good articulation of patient/service user, carer benefits.
• Research is likely to produce important findings that could influence practice and/or significant interventions that could be implemented in the NHS, public health or social care, and improve outcomes for patients/service users, carers and the public.
• The research design is good quality and has the potential to answer the research question. Ambition is good, with realistic timescales. Concerns about the research approach can be readily revised.
• Good team with largely the right complement of specialists and track record of delivering high-quality applied health research to deliver the outcomes; expertise gaps to deliver outcomes are addressable. Any plans for increasing research career capacity through the provision of training and development are appropriate and relevant.
• Well planned PPIE that is likely to lead to user-informed outcomes but might be developed further.
• Relevant EDI aspects have been considered.
• Good value for money and use of public funds. Costed properly to deliver outcomes.

Attributes of unfundable proposals with moderate weaknesses/concerns

• Not competitive – reasonably important research question and/or modest research plans containing some elements of merit but proposal has too many major fixable faults/concerns.
• Proposal that is moderately grounded in the relevant literature and addresses a reasonably important area relevant to the needs of the NHS, public health and social care, DHSC, patients/service users, carers and the wider public with modest good consideration of unmet need. Modest in respect of passing the ‘so what’ test.
• Modest articulation of patient/service user, carer benefits.
• Research has a modest expectation of producing important findings that could influence practice and/or significant interventions that could be implemented in the NHS, public health or social care, and improve outcomes for patients/service users, carers and the public.
• The research design is of modest quality or is underspecified. The major concerns about the research are unlikely to be fixed. The expectation of successful delivery is moderate.
• Modest team with a reasonable track record of delivering high-quality applied health research to deliver the outcomes. Any plans for increasing research career capacity through the provision of training and development would be of modest relevance.
• Some appropriate elements of PPIE and EDI but would require further integration
• Reasonable value for money and use of public funds.

Attributes of unfundable proposals with significant weaknesses/concerns

• Not fundable – Questionable potential to lead to benefits for patients/service users and/or the wider public. Proposal has major concerns that are unlikely to be addressable.
• Proposal with limited grounding in the relevant literature and addresses a somewhat moderately important area relevant to the needs of the NHS, public health and social care, DHSC, patients/service users, carers and the wider public with limited consideration of unmet need. Unconvincing in respect of passing the ‘so what’ test.
• Mediocre articulation of patient/service user, carer benefits.
• Research has a limited expectation of producing important findings that could influence practice and/or significant interventions that could be implemented in the NHS, public health or social care, and improve outcomes for patients/service users, carers and the public.
• The research design is weak, poorly aligned with the research question(s) and the expectation of success is limited. The major concerns about the design are unlikely to be fixed.
• Mediocre team and track record of delivering high-quality applied health research to deliver the outcomes. Key skills are missing from the research team. Any plans for increasing research career capacity through the provision of training and development would not be appropriate.
• The approach to PPIE and EDI are of questionable quality.
• Questionable value for money and an inappropriate use of public funds.

Attributes of unfundable proposals with severe weaknesses/concerns

• Not fundable - highly unlikely to lead to benefits for patients/service users and/or the wider public, and the research proposal is fundamentally flawed.
• Proposal that is not grounded in the relevant literature and does not address an important research area relevant to the needs of the NHS, public health and social care, DHSC, patients/service users, carers and the wider public with no focus on unmet need. Does not pass the ‘so what’ test.
• Poorly articulated patient/service user, carer benefits.
• Research is highly unlikely to produce important findings that could influence practice and/or significant interventions that could be implemented in the NHS, public health or social care, and improve outcomes for patients/service users, carers and the public.
• The research design is poor or flawed with serious scientific concerns. The feasibility of delivering the research proposed is questioned.
• The team lacks relevant research expertise with a poor track record of delivering high-quality applied health research to deliver the outcomes. Any plans for increasing research career capacity through the provision of training and development would be inappropriate.
• The approach to PPIE and EDI are not well integrated and are of questionable quality.
• Represents poor value for money and an inappropriate use of public funds.

Scoring grid

Score	Definition	Description
6	Fundable	Excellent
5	Fundable	Good
4	Fundable	Minor weaknesses/concerns
3	Not fundable	Moderate weaknesses/concerns
2	Not fundable	Significant weaknesses/concerns
1	Not fundable	Severe weaknesses/concerns