Health Research Awards 2015
Content • Objective of the call • Scope and Panels • Principal Investigator • Response to peer-reviewers (rebuttal) • Some general revisions in the application forms • Practical tips and contact • Time lines
Objectives and remit
The Health Research Awards aim to fund researchers and research teams to conduct internationally competitive and innovative research that will create new knowledge and evidence of benefit to health through investment in
patient-oriented research, population health research health services research
Eligibility: choosing the right panel
Applicants must select the most suitable of
Patient-oriented research panel Population health research panel 3.
Health services research panel For clearly defined research projects up to a maximum value of
overheads), including pilot and feasibility studies up to
. (inclusive of 4. Definitive intervention panel For
conducting a definitive RCT or other intervention study involving humans
a maximum value of
up to (inclusive of overheads) with a duration of typically 2-4 years (but not beyond 60 months). Applications submitted to this panel must be able to provide details and evidence from previously conducted pilot, feasibility and acceptability studies (conducted by themselves and/or others) as set out in the MRC Guidance on Designing and Evaluating Complex Interventions.
Applicants are strongly advised to carefully read the guidance and details of the research areas covered by the remit of each Panel in Appendix II (page 44).
It is critical that all definitive intervention studies are submitted to panel 4 above regardless of whether the costs associated with the study fall within the upper funding limits of panels 1-3 (i.e., €330,000). The level and type of information required by reviewers for assessing a DI proposal is different from that required in panels 1-3, so a DI study
incorrectly submitted to panels 1-3 above cannot be reassigned to the DI panel, so will be deemed ineligible.
Eligibility: Principal Investigator
• • The Principal Investigator must demonstrate that they have the skills, knowledge and supports necessary to direct the proposed research and to be actively engaged in carrying the research through to completion. Generally this means that the PI will: Show appropriate evidence of expertise matched to the nature and context of the project; Show evidence of achievement as an independent researcher in their chosen research field by: Demonstrating a record of research output,
with at least three publications of original research in peer reviewed journals
. Where appropriate, they should also provide evidence of other outputs such as published book chapters, reports to government and/or any other relevant outputs that have resulted in a significant impact in their field. Demonstrating record of independence by showing that they have secured
at least one peer-reviewed research grant for a research project/s, as either the lead applicant or a co-applicant
. Funding received for travel to seminars/conferences and/or small personal bursaries will not be considered in this regard. • Show evidence that they possess the capability and authority to mentor, manage and supervise less experienced researchers and to manage relationships with co applicants, collaborators and the host institution.
Response to Reviewers (Rebuttal)
• This is a valuable step introduced last year to the HRA for the first time. There is no obligation to submit a response but this phase of the assessment process is extremely important and the response may play a critical role in whether a proposal eventually gets recommended for funding or not. The panel members really value this additional step. • Please make sure you don’t approach this step lightly!!
• For applications short-listed, each PI will have an extended time line compared to last year -
10 working days -
to submit the response to the peer-reviewers comments through GEMS, and the response has a maximum word count of
(compared to the 1200 words last year).
General revision after panel feedback and HRB reflection
o o o o o o Application now includes a paragraph on any ethical concerns and/or potential risks of the research Application now includes an “impact statement” regarding the likely impact of the study on patients, public and healthcare system Applicants are encouraged to have public involvement in research, where relevant. More guidance and useful resources have been added to the HRA guidance notes.
Applicants are strongly encouraged to better align the project to the personnel required: This is a recurrent issue raised by several panels in each year especially when the project involved one or more students Power calculations and sample sizes: it is strongly recommended to properly justify and align with the study aim, objectives and goals and the implementation context of the study. Do not just provide the mathematic formula.
In the Definitive Intervention studies, a graph describing screening and recruitment of patients from the pilot/feasibility phase and for the full intervention are now requested (mandatory).
• GEMS submission: leave plenty of time for endorsement and submission of the application by the Host institution – don’t wait until the HRB deadline!
• For any doubt about eligibility of the scope or PI or which panel to choose or anything else please contact the HRB • Please make sure the response to the peer-reviewers - even if not mandatory to do - is completed well. The panel really appreciate a good, well written, well thought and convincing response.
Contact Sara Lord T: 01/2345205 E: [email protected]
18 November 2014 27 January 2015, 13:00 June to early July 2015 September 2015 Late October 2015 November/December 2015 January 2016 Call opening Call closing for applications to all panels Response to reviewers Four Panel Meetings HRB Board approval Budgets/contracts The earliest start date of projects