Dataset Information

Decision-making approaches used by UK and international health funding organisations for allocating research funds: A survey of current practice.

ABSTRACT: Innovations in decision-making practice for allocation of funds in health research are emerging; however, it is not clear to what extent these are used. This study aims to better understand current decision-making practices for the allocation of research funding from the perspective of UK and international health funders. An online survey (active March-April 2019) was distributed by email to UK and international health and health-related funding organisations (e.g., biomedical and social), and was publicised on social media. The survey collected information about decision-making approaches for research funding allocation, and covered assessment criteria, current and past practices, and considerations for improvements or future practice. A mixed methods analysis provided descriptive statistics (frequencies and percentages of responses) and an inductive thematic framework of key experiences. Thirty-one responses were analysed, representing government-funded organisations and charities in the health sector from the UK, Europe and Australia. Four themes were extracted and provided a narrative framework. 1. The most reported decision-making approaches were external peer review, triage, and face-to-face committee meetings; 2. Key values underpinned decision-making processes. These included transparency and gaining perspectives from reviewers with different expertise (e.g., scientific, patient and public); 3. Cross-cutting challenges of the decision-making processes faced by funders included bias, burden and external limitations; 4. Evidence of variations and innovations from the most reported decision-making approaches, including proportionate peer review, number of decision-points, virtual committee meetings and sandpits (interactive workshop). Broadly similar decision-making processes were used by all funders in this survey. Findings indicated a preference for funders to adapt current decision-making processes rather than using more innovative approaches: however, there is a need for more flexibility in decision-making and support to applicants. Funders indicated the need for information and empirical evidence on innovations which would help to inform decision-making in research fund allocation.

SUBMITTER: Meadmore K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7644005 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Decision-making approaches used by UK and international health funding organisations for allocating research funds: A survey of current practice.

Meadmore Katie K Fackrell Kathryn K Recio-Saucedo Alejandra A Bull Abby A Fraser Simon D S SDS Blatch-Jones Amanda A

PloS one 20201105 11

Innovations in decision-making practice for allocation of funds in health research are emerging; however, it is not clear to what extent these are used. This study aims to better understand current decision-making practices for the allocation of research funding from the perspective of UK and international health funders. An online survey (active March-April 2019) was distributed by email to UK and international health and health-related funding organisations (e.g., biomedical and social), and w ...[more]

PMID: 33151954

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesHealthcare budgets are limited, and therefore, research funds should be wisely allocated to ensure high-quality, useful and cost-effective research. We aimed to critically review the criteria considered by major Australian organisations in prioritising and selecting health research projects for funding.MethodsWe reviewed all grant schemes listed on the Australian Competitive Grants Register that were health-related, active in 2017 and with publicly available selection criteria on the funders' websites. Data extracted included scheme name, funding organisation, selection criteria and the relative weight assigned to each criterion. Selection criteria were grouped into five representative domains: relevance, appropriateness, significance, feasibility (including team quality) and cost-effectiveness (ie, value for money).ResultsThirty-six schemes were included from 158 identified. One-half of the schemes were under the National Health and Medical Research Council. The most commonly used criteria were research team quality and capability (94%), research plan clarity (94%), scientific quality (92%) and research impact (92%). Criteria considered less commonly were existing knowledge (22%), fostering collaboration (22%), research environment (19%), value for money (14%), disease burden (8%) and ethical/moral considerations (3%). In terms of representative domains, relevance was considered in 72% of the schemes, appropriateness in 92%, significance in 94%, feasibility in 100% and cost-effectiveness in 17%. The relative weights for the selection criteria varied across schemes with 5%-30% for relevance, 20%-60% for each appropriateness and significance, 20%-75% for feasibility and 15%-33% for cost-effectiveness.ConclusionsIn selecting research projects for funding, Australian research organisations focus largely on research appropriateness, significance and feasibility; however, value for money is most often overlooked. Research funding decisions should include an assessment of value for money in order to maximise return on research investment.

Project description:IntroductionIntegrated care is viewed widely as a potential solution to some of the major challenges faced by health and social care systems, such as those posed by service duplication, fragmentation and poor care coordination, and associated impacts on the quality and cost of services. Fragmented models of allocating funds to and across sectors, programmes and providers are frequently cited as a major barrier to integration and countries have experimented with different models of allocating funds to enhance care coordination among service providers and to reduce ineffective care and avoid costly adverse events. This scoping review aims to assess published international experiences of different models of allocating funds to facilitate integration and the evidence on their impacts.Methods and analysisWe will adopt a scoping review methodology due to the potentially vast and multidisciplinary nature of the literature on different models of allocating funds in health and social care systems, as well as the scarcity of existing knowledge syntheses. The framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley will be followed that entails six steps: (1) identifying the research question(s), (2) searching for relevant studies, (3) selecting studies, (4) charting the data, (5) collating, summarising and reporting the results and (6) and conducting consultation exercises. These steps will be conducted iteratively and reflexively, making adjustments and repetitions when appropriate to make sure the literature has been covered as comprehensively as possible. To ensure comprehensiveness of our literature review, we also search a wide range of sources.Ethics and disseminationAn integrated knowledge translation strategy will be pursued by engaging our knowledge users through all stages of the review. We will organise two workshops or policy roundtables/policy dialogues in Alberta and British Columbia with participation of diverse knowledge users to discuss and interpret the findings of our review and to draw out policy opportunities and lessons that can be applied to the context of these two provinces.

Project description:BackgroundEvidence shows that territorial borders continue to have an impact on research collaboration in Europe. Knowledge of national research structural contexts is therefore crucial to the promotion of Europe-wide policies for research funding. Nevertheless, studies assessing and comparing research systems remain scarce. This paper aims to further the knowledge on national research landscapes in Europe, focusing on non-communicable disease (NCD) research in Italy and Germany.MethodsTo capture the architecture of country-specific research funding systems, a three-fold strategy was adopted. First, a literature review was conducted to determine a list of key public, voluntary/private non-profit and commercial research funding organisations (RFOs). Second, an electronic survey was administered qualifying RFOs. Finally, survey results were integrated with semi-structured interviews with key opinion leaders in NCD research. Three major dimensions of interest were investigated - funding mechanisms, funding patterns and expectations regarding outputs.ResultsThe number of RFOs in Italy is four times larger than that in Germany and the Italian research system has more project funding instruments than the German system. Regarding the funding patterns towards NCD areas, in both countries, respiratory disease research resulted as the lowest funded, whereas cancer research was the target of most funding streams. The most reported expected outputs of funded research activity were scholarly publication of articles and reports.ConclusionsThis cross-country comparison on the Italian and German research funding structures revealed substantial differences between the two systems. The current system is prone to duplicated research efforts, popular funding for some diseases and intransparency of research results. Future research will require addressing the need for better coordination of research funding efforts, even more so if European research efforts are to play a greater role.

Dataset Information

Decision-making approaches used by UK and international health funding organisations for allocating research funds: A survey of current practice.

Publications

Decision-making approaches used by UK and international health funding organisations for allocating research funds: A survey of current practice.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets