Explore the vast range of titles available.

ObjectivesInnovations resulting from research have both national and global impact, so selecting the most promising research studies to fund is crucial. Peer review of research funding applications is part of the selection process, and requires considerable resources. This study aimed to elicit stakeholder opinions about which factors contribute to and influence effective peer review of funding applications to the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), and to identify possible minor improvements to current processes and any major changes or potential innovations to achieve a more efficient peer review process.DesignQualitative interviews with 30 stakeholders involved in the peer review process.ParticipantsParticipants were drawn from three NIHR coordinating centres and represented four types of stakeholders: board members with responsibility for making funding decisions, applicants, external peer reviewers and NIHR staff.MethodsAll interviews were conducted by telephone apart from three that were face to face with NIHR staff. Data were analysed using a thematic template method.ResultsThe responses from NIHR staff, board members and reviewers differed from those received from applicants. The first three groups focused on how well the process of peer review did or did not function. The applicants mentioned these points but in addition often reflected on how their personal application was assessed. Process improvements suggested included: developing a more proportionate review process; providing greater guidance, feedback, training, acknowledgement or incentives for peer reviewers; reducing the time commitment and amount of paperwork; and asking reviewers to comment on the importance, strengths and weaknesses of applications and flaws which are potentially ‘fixable’.ConclusionsOverall, participants were supportive of the need for peer review in evaluating applications for research funding. This study revealed which parts of the process are working well and are valued, and barriers, difficulties and potential areas for improvement and development.

Background Despite the problem of inadequate recruitment to randomised trials, there is little evidence to guide researchers on decisions about how people are effectively recruited to take part in trials. The PRioRiTy study aimed to identify and prioritise important unanswered trial recruitment questions for research. The PRioRiTy study - Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) included members of the public approached to take part in a randomised trial or who have represented participants on randomised trial steering committees, health professionals and research staff with experience of recruiting to randomised trials, people who have designed, conducted, analysed or reported on randomised trials and people with experience of randomised trials methodology. Methods This partnership was aided by the James Lind Alliance and involved eight stages: (i) identifying a unique, relevant prioritisation area within trial methodology; (ii) establishing a steering group (iii) identifying and engaging with partners and stakeholders; (iv) formulating an initial list of uncertainties; (v) collating the uncertainties into research questions; (vi) confirming that the questions for research are a current recruitment challenge; (vii) shortlisting questions and (viii) final prioritisation through a face-to-face workshop. Results A total of 790 survey respondents yielded 1693 open-text answers to 6 questions, from which 1880 potential questions for research were identified. After merging duplicates, the number of questions was reduced to 496. Questions were combined further, and those that were submitted by fewer than 15 people and/or fewer than 6 of the 7 stakeholder groups were excluded from the next round of prioritisation resulting in 31 unique questions for research. All 31 questions were confirmed as being unanswered after checking relevant, up-to-date research evidence. The 10 highest priority questions were ranked at a face-to-face workshop. The number 1 ranked question was “How can randomised trials become part of routine care and best utilise current clinical care pathways?” The top 10 research questions can be viewed at www.priorityresearch.ie . Conclusion The prioritised questions call for a collective focus on normalising trials as part of clinical care, enhancing communication, addressing barriers, enablers and motivators around participation and exploring greater public involvement in the research process.

Background Public health research is an important component of United Kingdom (UK) health research and strategic analysis of its breadth and balance is key to ensure value. The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) is one of the main funders of health research in the UK and includes many research programmes and schools. This study reports on public health research funded by the NIHR between April 2006 and March 2013. Methods The NIHR research programmes and schools were asked for information about all research funded during the study period. Firstly, projects were classified as a public health research project according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. The public health research projects were further categorised according to the Public Health Outcomes Framework and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence taxonomy. Results Approximately 3000 research projects were funded by the NIHR, of which about 900 were relevant to public health. This represents approximately one-third of the research portfolio. All NIHR research funding programmes and schools funded research related to public health. The most prevalent domain of the Public Health Outcomes Framework was ‘healthcare public health and preventing premature mortality’ and there were a large number of health planning and self-management projects. One-quarter of projects were concerned with mental health and behavioural conditions. Conclusions The NIHR is a significant funder of research relevant to public health. This analysis offers a snapshot of the breadth and balance of NIHR research, which forms a basis for discussion. This is important for the NIHR and other research funders as it shows areas that are better represented and opportunities to fill important gaps. Appropriate research priority setting is an integral part of a needs-led research agenda and adds value to research.

Introduction:The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) is a major funder of health research in the United Kingdom. Selecting the most promising studies to fund is crucial, and external expert peer review is used to inform the funding boards. Our aim was to evaluate the influence of different kinds and numbers of peer review and reviewer scores on Board funding decisions, and how we might modify the process to reduce the workload for stakeholders.Methods:Our mixed method study included i) retrospective cross sectional analysis of funding board and external reviewer scores for second stage applications for research funding, using Receiver Operator Characteristic (ROC) curves to quantify the influence of reviewer scores on funding decisions and ii) qualitative interviews with thirty stakeholders (funding board members, applicants, external peer reviewers and NIHR staff).Results:Analysis of ROC area for reviewers indicated that areas changed very little with increasing numbers of reviewers from four to seven or more. External reviewers with clinical, methodological or patient expertise all appeared to influence Board funding decisions to a similar extent. The stakeholders interviewed valued peer review but felt it was important to develop a more proportionate process, to better balance its benefit with the workload of obtaining, preparing, reading and responding to reviews. Reviews are of most value when they fill gaps in expertise on the Board. Less than four reviews was felt to be insufficient but more than six, excessive. Workload could be reduced by making reviews more focused on the strengths and weaknesses of applications and identifying flaws which are potentially “fixable”.Conclusions:Stakeholders supported the need for peer review in evaluating funding applications. Our results suggest that four to six peer reviews per application is optimum, depending on the expertise needed to complement that of advisory boards.

Objectives: Evaluation is essential for the management of international projects or networks in health technology assessment (HTA). It extends beyond the normal process of project management by incorporating qualitative dimensions and provides information about a project's effectiveness and achievements. This article aimed to identify the factors that are important for the success of international HTA projects. The European network for Health Technology Assessment Joint Action (EUnetHTA JA) is presented as an exemplar. Methods: Methods for the evaluation of international HTA projects include interviews, focus groups, questionnaires, observations and documentary review, and the key points of these approaches have been summarized. The impact and effectiveness of the EUnetHTA JA was evaluated by questionnaires of project participants and external stakeholders, and by documentary review. Results: The response rate for the three annual questionnaires sent to project participants ranged from 86 percent to 88 percent and for external stakeholders ranged from 65 percent to 88 percent. Key factors for project success included production of deliverables according to the workplan, achievement of objectives, added value generated, effective communication, involvement of external stakeholders, workstream management and progress from the preceding EUnetHTA 2006–2008 project. Conclusions: The experience of this project can inform the evaluation of future international HTA collaborations, such as the EUnetHTA 2nd Joint Action and HTAsiaLink. A high response rate was achieved to the self-completion questionnaires and the strategy followed is recommended for evaluation of international HTA projects. Future assessments of international HTA projects should strive to measure outcomes and impact, not just outputs and process.

Objectives: Evaluation is essential for the management of international projects or networks in health technology assessment (HTA). It extends beyond the normal process of project management by incorporating qualitative dimensions and provides information about a project's effectiveness and achievements. This article aimed to identify the factors that are important for the success of international HTA projects. The European network for Health Technology Assessment Joint Action (EUnetHTA JA) is presented as an exemplar. Methods: Methods for the evaluation of international HTA projects include interviews, focus groups, questionnaires, observations and documentary review, and the key points of these approaches have been summarized. The impact and effectiveness of the EUnetHTA JA was evaluated by questionnaires of project participants and external stakeholders, and by documentary review. Results: The response rate for the three annual questionnaires sent to project participants ranged from 86 percent to 88 percent and for external stakeholders ranged from 65 percent to 88 percent. Key factors for project success included production of deliverables according to the workplan, achievement of objectives, added value generated, effective communication, involvement of external stakeholders, workstream management and progress from the preceding EUnetHTA 2006–2008 project. Conclusions: The experience of this project can inform the evaluation of future international HTA collaborations, such as the EUnetHTA 2nd Joint Action and HTAsiaLink. A high response rate was achieved to the self-completion questionnaires and the strategy followed is recommended for evaluation of international HTA projects. Future assessments of international HTA projects should strive to measure outcomes and impact, not just outputs and process.