Exploring Research Design and Funding Priorities in Northern Ireland
Dive into the world of research at the upcoming Application and Research Design Workshop scheduled for Friday, 28th May 2021. Discover the strategic priorities driving impactful research initiatives, learn about current research projects, funding processes, and collaborations. Explore the rich history of funding research in Northern Ireland since 1946, highlighting the significant investments made to support local research endeavors. Unveil the success stories and achievements of the Northern Ireland Chest Heart and Stroke (NICHS) in funding over 100 research projects. Get insights into the application processes and key milestones achieved in the realm of research funding. Join the journey of knowledge dissemination, policy influence, and partnership building for a brighter research future.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
Application and Application and Research Design Research Design Workshop Workshop Friday 28thMay 2021
Todays Agenda Today s Agenda Research Strategy and Application Process Q&A Comfort break Research Design and Methodology
Funding Research in Northern Ireland since 1946 WWW.NICHS.ORG.UK
Research & Impact Strategic Priorities Research & Impact Strategic Priorities Strategic Theme Strategic Priorities To fund high quality local research that will deliver tangible benefits Knowledge Knowledge To apply learning from research to influence policy and services. Applying Learning Applying Learning To develop and explore working in partnership in areas which will deliver greater benefit. Collaboration Collaboration To inform people about the difference that our research makes. Communication Communication To ensure that NICHS Research programme and services achieve impact. Impact Impact
Since 1994 Since 1994 we have invested almost 8m into local we have invested almost 8m into local research, funding 101 research research, funding 101 research projects projects
Since 2012 Since 2012 3,115,459 3,115,459 39 projects funded 39 projects funded 4 4 in in 10 10 applications applications accepted accepted
1,160,472 1,954,987 QUB-UU collaborations Uni partners outside NI Non university partners
NICHS Current Research NICHS Current Research & Funding Process & Funding Process
When does the When does the window open? window open?
Opens Monday 14 June 2021 Closes 20 August 2021 400,000
Who can apply? Who can apply?
PI based in PI based in Northern Ireland Northern Ireland Previous Previous applicants applicants Previous & Previous & current grant current grant holders holders Match funding
What type of research What type of research do we fund? do we fund? (refer to our strategy) (refer to our strategy)
Currently funded (live) research 2 4 8 7
Are people less likely to keep using their asthma inhalers when treated with powerful new biologic medicines? Is a common herpes virus associated with COPD? What types of bacteria grow in ventilator tubes used in treating people in intensive care, and can we treat them? Dr Joe Kidney, BHSCT, 79,160 Dr. John Busby, QUB, 70,485 Dr Laura Jayne Sherrard, QUB, 79,535
Could Fenugreek seed be used to treat Hyperlipidemia and CVD? Can the blood vessels in the eye be reliably used to predict CVD risk? Dr Qiaozhu Su, QUB, 98,306 Prof Tara Moore, UU, 250,000 Developing a support programme for Carers of people living with advanced heart failure. Can biomarkers in the blood of people with AF be used to predict risk of stroke & heart failure? Prof Donna Fitzsimons, QUB, 89,595 Dr. Chris Watson, QUB, 60,418
Can we improve therapy options for stroke survivors with severe cognitive problems? Is there any benefit to adding arm exercises to our stroke rehab programme (PREP)? Can a cardiac self- management programme be modified for people living with stroke? Dr Noleeen Mc Corry, QUB, 59,898 Dr katy Pedlow, UU, 103,575 Professor Michael Donnelly, QUB, 65,000
Developing a school- based programme to promote physical activity in children aged 8-9 years. (PhD) Can providing financial incentives encourage pregnant women to quit smoking? Why do young people use e-cigs? What are their (and their parents ) attitudes to them? Sarah Nally, UU (supervised by Profs Marie Murphy and Alison Gallagher), 114,893 Prof Frank Kee, QUB, 50,000 Dr Liz Simpson, UU, 116,453
How do we decide which How do we decide which studies to fund? studies to fund?
Funding decisions are made Funding decisions are made using a thorough and using a thorough and transparent process transparent process
The process 14th June 20th August 2021. Administration check. 1 APPLICATION WINDOW APPLICATION WINDOW Post-application window EXTERNAL PEER REVIEW EXTERNAL PEER REVIEW 2 August - October Lorem Ipsum Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, nibh est. A magna maecenas, quam magna nec quis, lorem nunc. Suspendisse viverra sodales mauris, cras pharetra proin egestas arcu erat dolor, at amet. 3 SRC MEMBER PEER REVIEW SRC MEMBER PEER REVIEW October - November November - December 4 REVIEWS SENT TO PI REVIEWS SENT TO PI 5 SRC COMMITTEE MEETS SRC COMMITTEE MEETS January 6 GOV. BOARD DECISION GOV. BOARD DECISION March
The process is independently The process is independently audited / accredited audited / accredited
What are the decision making What are the decision making criteria? criteria?
Informed by our strategy Informed by our strategy investing in research that delivers real improvements and maximum benefits for people living with, or at risk of chest, heart and stroke illness. To invest strategically in high quality local research that demonstrates the greatest impact for the care and prevention of CHS illnesses
All applications are scored on four criteria All applications are scored on four criteria scoring scoring Inadequate (a score of 1) Satisfactory (2) Good (3) Excellent (4) final overall score final overall score average of peer review and SRC scores
RESEARCH IMPACT SUMMARY 2012-19 Funded projects must demonstrate: #3 POTENTIAL IMPACT FOR NICHS #1 SCIENTIFIC QUALITY 4 evaluation 4 evaluation criteria for criteria for applications applications #2 POTENTIAL IMPACT FOR THE PEOPLE OF N.IRELAND #4 VALUE FOR MONEY
peer reviewers are asked to base their scores on: #1 SCIENTIFIC QUALITY a) b) Is the evidence base up to date and concise? Are the aims and objectives clear? Is there a logical and well described plan to achieve them? Strengths and weaknesses of the research design; Ethical, scientific, statistical or technical challenges; and Skills and experience of the PI and team. c) d) e) Is your proposed study unambiguous and clearly described? Credible, relevant / needed, and ambitious? Team s expertise clearly demonstrated? a high quality design?
peer reviewers are asked to base their scores on: #2 POTENTIAL IMPACT FOR THE PEOPLE OF N.IRELAND a) Has the application clearly identified who will potentially benefit? Has it clearly described the likely benefit(s)? Has it described an indicative timeframe for delivering the benefits? How realistic is this? Has the application clearly set out how the study will address PPI / engagement? b) c) d) Who will benefit? How? When? Are you being realistic? How do you plan to involve patients / service users / carers / public in your study?
peer reviewers are asked to base their scores on: #3 POTENTIAL IMPACT FOR NICHS a) Does the application clearly lay out what the potential benefit is for NICHS? How does it fit with NICHS strategy, organisational goals, and ethos? Does it address an issue relevant to people living with CHS conditions? Is there a clear plan for the dissemination of the research findings / activities stemming from it that benefits NICHS? b) c) d) Why should NICHS fund this study? Is it a good fit? Does it help us achieve our goals?
peer reviewers are asked to base their scores on: #4 VALUE FOR MONEY a) Does the application clearly account for and justify allocation of funds? Is there a clear and justifiable management plan for deployment of staff and other resources? Does this management plan have clear milestones and deliverables? Is this study Value for money , given the resources required and expected benefits? b) c) d) Is this a good use of public donations? Are funds requested realistic? Is there a clear plan to manage the project? Will it deliver on time and within budget?
Important Points Important Points Be realistic: don t be over ambitious, we want to fund research with key milestones and deliverables Be clear: use Plain English. (Don t overlook the lay summary!) Be precise: clearly outline what you will do Demonstrate planning and rigour Impact: be very clear on the potential impact of research. We prioritise research that aims to deliver potential patient and public benefit more rapidly.
Important Points Important Points All applications must Be completed as per guidance Be submitted by date specified align to NICHS strategy and meet our 4 decision making criteria
lay Summary lay Summary ensure that your project description is accessible to the widest ensure that your project description is accessible to the widest possible audience possible audience Plain English approach www.access2understanding.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Access- to-Understanding-writing-guidance_v1.pdf http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/files/howto.pdf Scientific Research Committee places emphasis on the information in this section. Two lay representatives on the SRC panel
Next steps Next steps Making an application Application form Associated guidance NICHS research strategy Available online from 14th June https://nichs.org.uk/researchgrants/ queries George Quinn, radmin@nichs.org.uk
Thank you Thank you
