110 likes | 190 Views
The National Prevention Research Initiative NPRI. Roger Wilson Chair – NCRI Consumer Liaison Group. Background. NCRI Strategic Analysis 2002 2% of spend on prevention Compares with 9% in USA NCRI Planning Group analysis Proposed ongoing funding Multi-disciplinary, intervention focus
E N D
The National Prevention Research InitiativeNPRI Roger Wilson Chair – NCRI Consumer Liaison Group
Background • NCRI Strategic Analysis 2002 • 2% of spend on prevention • Compares with 9% in USA • NCRI Planning Group analysis • Proposed ongoing funding • Multi-disciplinary, intervention focus • UKCRC Strategic Analysis 2005 • 2.5%of spend on prevention
Structure • Programme Board • Funders • One lay representative • Scientific committee • Chair – Prof Ray Fitzpatrick • 24 members – international expertise • Of which 6 lay representatives • Management by MRC
Progress • First call – late 2004 • 248 outline proposals • Reviewed April 2005 • 48 invited to apply – reviewed October 2005 • 45 submitted full proposals • 26 projects funded from April 2006 • 70% of initial funding allocated • Second call in preparation for late 2006
Reviewing the Applications • External review – up to 3 respondents • Two scientific members – detailed review • Good science • Quality of project team • Appropriate costs • One lay member – detailed review • Public value • Public/patient involvement
Process • Secretariat ensured equality of status • Chair encouraged open discussion • Started cautiously keeping to boundaries • Overlaps started with science issues commented on by lay representatives • Then cautious discussion of public value issues by scientists • No cliques at lunch time • Ended up with ethical positions taken by scientists when lay people were happy
Results • Real multi-disciplinary projects • 24 interventions – leading to pilot stages • Methodology – one study • Clinical trial – one study • Word got round about involvement • Those that scored well on involvement usually also did well scientifically • Recommendations on involvement added by scientific committee where weak
Outcome • Final selections possibly no different BUT • Decisions are more valid • There is more user involvement in projects than there would have been • Returning greater value (assuming promises are lived up to) • Wider ownership of results • In the whole initiative • In the communities studied • Readier political will to fund interventions
Conclusions • Principle of involvement from outset • Useful to have experience within organisation • Helped by having one person on the Board • A clear role is very valuable • Lay representatives • Experience adds value • Confidence to challenge and discuss • Know when to listen and stay quiet • A facilitative chair is crucial to success
Roger Wilson roger@dflair.demon.co.uk