150 likes | 240 Views
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.
E N D
Workshop for New Zealand Health Delivery Research Investment StreamProject 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 Immediate impact on policy & health delivery Improving Outcomes for Acute & Chronic Conditions in NZ Improving outcomes in illness & injury Rangahau HauoraMāori Building Māori knowledge & capability to address Māori health issues
Purpose: strengthen the use of evidence to inform decision-making 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 • 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? • Lacking rigor, justification and specification of methodology and study design. • AND • 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 info@hrc.govt.nz Level 3, ProCare Building, 110 Stanley Street, Auckland Email: firstinitialsurname@hrc.govt.nz