Transcript PROCESS & PROCEDURES ANNUAL FUNDING ROUND 2010

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
Investment Signals
 Purpose
 Scope (what’s in & what’s out)
 Goals
 Priorities (only HW and IOACC)
 Research characteristics (NZHD)
 Examples
• Research areas in scope
• Research better aligned with other RIS
• FAQ
Research Investment Streams
Health and Wellbeing in NZ
Understanding health and preventing
illness & injury
NZ Health
Delivery
Improving Outcomes for Acute &
Chronic Conditions in NZ
Immediate
impact on
policy &
health
delivery
Improving outcomes in illness
& injury
Rangahau Hauora Māori
Building Māori knowledge & capability to address
Māori health issues
 Purpose: strengthen the use of evidence to inform decisionmaking 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
 Goals: To make informed decisions or valuable changes as a
direct result of the research within 5 years
 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
Feedback from Committee Chairs
Other weaknesses to consider
 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!)
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
So the key actions for applicants now?
 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
Tips for Writing Full Application
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
Any Questions?
• Contact your Research Office
• Peer Review Manual 2014
• Guidelines
www.hrc.govt.nz
[email protected]
Level 3, ProCare Building, 110 Stanley Street, Auckland
Email: [email protected]