workshop for new zealand health delivery research investment stream project applicants
DESCRIPTION
Workshop for New Zealand Health Delivery Research Investment Stream Project Applicants. Outline. New Zealand Health Delivery Research Investment Stream Outcome of NZHD Project Applications in 2011-14 Rounds Feedback from Committee Chairs and Recommendations for Applicants. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Workshop for New Zealand Health DeliveryResearch Investment Stream
Project Applicants
New Zealand Health Delivery Research Investment Stream Outcome of NZHD Project Applications in 2011-14 Rounds Feedback from Committee Chairs and Recommendations for Applicants
Outline
PurposeScope (what’s in & what’s out)GoalsPriorities (only HW and IOACC)Research characteristics (NZHD)Examples• Research areas in scope• Research better aligned with other RIS• FAQ
Investment Signals
Research Investment Streams
Rangahau Hauora Māori
Building Māori knowledge & capability to address Māori health issues
Improving Outcomes for Acute & Chronic Conditions in NZ
Improving outcomes in illness& injury
Health and Wellbeing in NZUnderstanding health and preventing
illness & injuryNZ Health Delivery
Immediate impact on policy & health
delivery
Goals: To make informed decisions or valuable changes as a direct result of the research within 5 years
Purpose: strengthen the use of evidence to inform decision-making in health practice or to improve the health system
Scope: research that can contribute to an outcome of improved health service delivery over the short-to-medium term
Research characteristics• Change of orientation• End-user engagement • Knowledge transfer
NZHD Applications in 2011-2014 Rounds
2014 2013 2012 2011
Number of Fundable Applications
4 3 3 9
Number of Full Applications 9 10 18 23
% of Fundable Applications 44.4 30.0 16.7 39.1
• Results were disappointing for applicants and HRC
Feedback from Committee Chairs
Key strengths
• Research topics were worthy of research and investment
• Increased numbers of Clinicians involved in proposed studies
Feedback from Committee Chairs
Over half of the applications (more in early years) did not score well across the assessment criteria.
A range of issues but two key areas?
1. Lacking rigor, justification and specification of methodology and study design.
AND
2. Lacking specification of clear impact on practice / policy and the process to deliver that (eg specification of the translational component embedded in proposal)
The right people to deliver impact The right process to achieve impact
Approach used not adequately justified as the best /most appropriate
Poor linking of study outcomes with Research Investment Signal goal
Research team had limited research experience (or lacking the full range of skills needed)
Budgets contained costs that were not well justified. eg too high FTE without a clear exposition
(but watch having too little FTE to do the work!)
Feedback from Committee ChairsOther weaknesses to consider
Key Recommendations for the Applicants
Establish linkages with end-users at EOI stage wherever possible (and have named contributors for full submission).
Check panel feedback on EOI (may improve the quality
of Full applications)
Worth getting peer review of your applications by local experts (methodology and translational components)
If doing an RCT - must select “RCT” as Type of Research in HRC Gateway
Ensure research methods are clear, operationalised and justified as the best for the particular study being done
Clearly link study outcomes with Investment Signal goals
Specify what translation of outcomes will be achieved within five years of the contract commencing - and how
So the key actions for applicants now?
Must be similar to Expression of Interest application
Can edit lay summary (based on EOI feedback) NIs can be substituted, HRC must be informed Guidelines, Investment Signal & Peer Review
Manual Ensure you have assembled a good team with
appropriate FTE, skills and collaborations (e.g. biostatistician, health economist, etc.)
Make your objectives clear, realistic and achievable
Tips for Writing Full Application
Demonstrate appropriate responsiveness to Māori Demonstrate engagement with stakeholders and
end-users Clearly identify the roles of NZ NIs within
multinational studies Write for a more general scientific audience Poor presentation can give a bad first impression
Check spelling, structure and grammar Allow time for internal peer review and rewriting
Tips for Writing Full Application
• Contact your Research Office• Peer Review Manual 2014• Guidelines
[email protected] Level 3, ProCare Building, 110 Stanley
Street, Auckland
Email: [email protected]
Any Questions?