Dataset Information

Development of a standard form for assessing research grant applications from the perspective of patients.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Health-research funding organizations are increasingly involving patient representatives in the assessment of grant applications. However, there is no consensus on an appropriate scope or definition of the patient perspective and the eligibility of potential patient reviewers to take on this role. The aim of our study is to develop a consensus-based template for patient reviewers to assess research grant applications from the patients' perspective. We also defined a glossary of terms and definitions to help the patient reviewers in their assessment role.

Methods

Together with members of the Dutch Association of Health Care Funds (SGF) we developed an assessment form for patient reviewers following constant comparative analysis of existing review forms, a survey among all stakeholders, testing in three pilot training sessions, and a structured consensus process.

Results

A small SGF working group collected and analysed 20 patient assessment forms, used by 12 health foundations and one patient organization. One systematic literature review was included. By comparing and discussing items and assessment categories in subsequent workshops, a first template form was developed. This version was electronically distributed among the members of 10 patient panels of whom 67 patient reviewers filled in the survey. A second version was then presented at a final working group meeting where consensus was reached about a template with 12 categories covering 41 items important for patients. A brochure for patient reviewers, a guide for panel coordinators and a glossary were developed to accompany future implementation of the template.

Conclusions

A template for patient reviewers to assess research grant applications is now available, based on the consensus of 21 Dutch health foundations.

SUBMITTER: de Wit M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6120065 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Research funders use a wide variety of application assessment processes yet there is little evidence on their relative advantages and disadvantages. A broad distinction can be made between processes with a single stage assessment of full proposals and those that first invite an outline, with full proposals invited at a second stage only for those which are shortlisted. This paper examines the effects of changing from a one-stage to a two-stage process within the UK's National Institute for Health Research's (NIHR) Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) Programme which made this change in 2015. METHODS:A retrospective comparative design was used to compare eight one-stage funding competitions (912 applications) with eight two-stage funding competitions (1090 applications). Comparisons were made between the number of applications submitted, number of peer and lay reviews required, the duration of the funding round, average external peer review scores, and the total costs involved. RESULTS:There was a mean number of 114 applications per funding round for the one-stage process and 136 for the two-stage process. The one-stage process took a mean of 274 days and the two-stage process 348 days to complete, although those who were not funded (i.e. the majority) were informed at a mean of 195 days (mean 79 days earlier) under the two-stage process. The mean peer review score for full applications using the one-stage process was 6.46 and for the two-stage process 6.82 (5.6% difference using a 1-10 scale (with 10 being the highest), but there was no significant difference between the lay reviewer scores. The one-stage process required a mean of 423 peer reviews and 102 lay reviewers and the two-stage process required a mean of 208 peer reviews and 50 lay reviews (mean difference of 215 peer reviews and 52 lay reviews) per funding round. Overall cost per funding round changed from £148,908 for the one-stage process to £105,342 for the two-stage process saving approximately £43,566 per round. CONCLUSION:We conclude that a two-stage application process increases the number of applications submitted to a funding round, is less burdensome and more efficient for all those involved with the process, is cost effective and has a small increase in peer reviewer scores. For the addition of fewer than 11 weeks to the process substantial efficiencies are gained which benefit funders, applicants and science. Funding agencies should consider adopting a two-stage application assessment process.

Project description:ImportanceInvesting in the next generation of researchers is essential, as recently highlighted in the 21st Century Cures Act. From its inception, the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) has supported training and career development to ensure a robust pipeline of investigators who are prepared to lead their respective fields of inquiry. In recent years, the NICHD has emphasized institutional over individual training awards to a greater degree than many other National Institutes of Health institutes of similar size.ObjectiveTo evaluate the success of individuals supported by NICHD career development and training awards, as measured by subsequent application and receipt of independent National Institutes of Health research project grant funding.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study identified 417 physician-scholars who were supported by NICHD career development awards between October 1, 1999, and September 30, 2001. This period was selected to allow adequate follow-up of research project grant applications and funding. Among these physician-scholars, 355 met inclusion criteria.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were the numbers of research project grant applications submitted and, of these, the numbers that were successfully funded.ResultsAmong 355 physician-scientists, scholars who had an MD degree only and received a K award or both an individual K award and institutional K12 support were more likely than those who received only K12 support (individual K only vs institutional K12 only: odds ratio [OR], 4.86; 95% CI, 1.83-13.62; both K and K12 vs K12 only: OR, 3.19; 95% CI, 1.46-7.10) to apply for subsequent project grant funding (88.0% vs 82.8% vs 60.1%, respectively; P < .001) and to receive it (60.0% vs 60.9% vs 32.9%, respectively; P < .001). For physicians with both MD and PhD degrees, neither application nor funding rates were statistically significantly different whether their career development was supported by individual or institutional awards.Conclusions and relevancePhysician-scholars are more likely to apply for and receive a National Institutes of Health research grant if they are trained on an individual career development award, with or without an institutional training award. Based on the data, the NICHD intends to provide a greater proportion of its career development fund allocation to individual awards. The NICHD recognizes the importance of institutional awards and will continue to support them. The NICHD remains committed to training and intends to maintain its investment in training and career development awards going forward.

Project description:BackgroundResearch misconduct is a global concern in biomedical science. There are no comprehensive data regarding the perception and situation of scientific misconduct among the Iranian medical faculty members. We conducted a nationwide survey to assess the research misconduct among the medical faculty members in Iran.MethodsWe used the Persian version of the research misconduct questionnaire (PRMQ) on the Google Forms platform. We sent the survey link to a systematic random sample of medical faculty members in Iran (N = 4986). Descriptive analyses were performed on the individual items of the PRMQ, with frequencies and percentages for categorical and Likert-type response items, and means and standard deviation (S.D.) for continuous variables. Chi-square analysis was conducted to test hypotheses examining differences in the frequency of responses related to factors influencing misconduct. We also defined four tenure categories (TC) based on the working years of the participants as tenured faculty members. All the analyses were performed using R 3.6.0.ResultsThe response rate was 13.8% (692 responses). Nearly 70% of the respondents agreed that their publication output would be of higher quality if there were no publication pressure. Approximately three-quarters (N =499, 72.1%) of the respondents had been aware of some instances of research misconduct during the previous year according to their understanding of misconduct. Among the participants, 18.5% perceived the effectiveness of their associated organisation's rules for reducing research misconduct to be high or very high. Pressure for tenure was identified as the item most frequently perceived with a strong behavioural influence on engaging in research misconduct (80.2%).ConclusionsThis study confirms that research misconduct needs to be actively addressed among the medical faculty members. Making policies with a focus on boosting awareness regarding the occasions of scientific misconduct and its management seems to be indispensable in the future in Iran.

Project description:BackgroundA diverse research workforce is essential for catalyzing biomedical advancements, but this workforce goal is hindered by persistent sex and racial/ethnic disparities among investigators receiving research grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). In response, the NIH-funded National Research Mentoring Network implemented a Grant Writing Coaching Program (GCP) to provide diverse cohorts of early-career investigators across the United States with intensive coaching throughout the proposal development process. We evaluated the GCP's national reach and short-term impact on participants' proposal submissions and funding outcomes.MethodsThe GCP was delivered as six similar but distinct models. All models began with an in-person group session, followed by a series of coaching sessions over 4 to 12 months. Participants were surveyed at 6-, 12- and 18-months after program completion to assess proposal outcomes (submissions, awards). Self-reported data were verified and supplemented by searches of public repositories of awarded grants when available. Submission and award rates were derived from counts of participants who submitted or were awarded at least one grant proposal in a category (NIH, other federal, non-federal).ResultsFrom June 2015 through March 2019, 545 investigators (67% female, 61% under-represented racial/ethnic minority, URM) from 187 different institutions participated in the GCP. Among them, 324 (59% of participants) submitted at least one grant application and 134 (41% of submitters) received funding. A total of 164 grants were awarded, the majority being from the NIH (93, 56%). Of the 74 R01 (or similar) NIH research proposals submitted by GCP participants, 16 have been funded thus far (56% to URM, 75% to women). This 22% award rate exceeded the 2016-2018 NIH success rates for new R01s.ConclusionInter- and intra-institutional grant writing coaching groups are a feasible and effective approach to supporting the grant acquisition efforts of early-career biomedical investigators, including women and those from URM groups.