Features of successful bids for funding of applied health research: a cohort study

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Sheila Turner ; Peter Davidson ; Louise Stanton…
• 关键词：Funding applications ; Health technology assessment ; Primary research ; Research funding
• 刊名：Health Research Policy and Systems
• 出版年：2014
• 出版时间：December 2014
• 年：2014
• 卷：12
• 期：1
• 全文大小：811 KB
• 参考文献：1. Ashwell, M (2004) Workshop on funding opportunities within the Food Standards Agency. Proc Nutr Soc 63: pp. 549-552 CrossRef
  2. Devine, EB (2009) The art of obtaining grants. Am J Health Syst Pharm 66: pp. 580-587 CrossRef
  3. Knott, C (2008) Turning research ideas into fundable grant applications requires clarity of thought and good planning. Pharm Pract 18: pp. 12-14
  4. Knott, C (2008) Selecting suitable funding bodies involves understanding their objectives and showing you can help meet these. Pharm Pract 18: pp. 64-68
  5. Van Dyke, HK (1999) Research grants and you: perfect together. SCI Nurs 16: pp. 104-107
  6. Woodward, DK, Clifton, GD (1994) Development of a successful research grant application. Am J Hosp Pharm 51: pp. 813-822
  7. Chollette, VY, Crowley, K (2007) National Cancer Institute’s Small Grants Program for behavioral research in cancer control boosts careers for new investigators and fulfills NIH research priorities. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 16: pp. 2459-2463 CrossRef
  8. Seif, G, Trope, G (2010) Impact of 10 years of glaucoma research funding: The Glaucoma Research Society of Canada. Can J Ophthalmol 45: pp. 132-134 CrossRef
  9. Shergold, M, Grant, J (2008) Freedom and need: The evolution of public strategy for biomedical and health research in England. Health Res Policy Syst 6: pp. 2 CrossRef
  10. Soper, B, Hanney, SR (2007) Lessons from the evaluation of the UK’s NHS R&D Implementation Methods Programme. Implement Sci 2: pp. 7 CrossRef
  11. Costello, LC (2010) Perspective: Is NIH funding the “best science by the best scientists- A critique of the NIH R01 research grant review policies. Acad Med 85: pp. 775-779 CrossRef
  12. Van, KJ, De, SD, Sewankambo, N (2006) Using knowledge brokering to promote evidence-based policy-making: The need for support structures. Bull World Health Organ 84: pp. 608-612 CrossRef
  13. Kupferman, ME, Moskovic, DJ, Weber, RS, Boyle, J (2009) Better than Buffett? A report on the success of the American Head and Neck Society Research Grant Program. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 135: pp. 1082-1086 CrossRef
  14. Bourgeois, FT, Murthy, S, Mandl, KD (2012) Comparative effectiveness research: an empirical study of trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. PLoS One 7: pp. e28820 CrossRef
  15. Schroter, S, Groves, T, H?jgaard, L (2010) Surveys of current status in biomedical science grant review: funding organisations-and grant reviewers-perspectives. BMC Med 8: pp. 62 CrossRef
  16. Raftery, J, Hanney, S, Green, C, Buxton, M (2009) Assessing the impact of England-National Health Service R&D Health Technology Assessment program using the “payback-approach. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 25: pp. 1-5 CrossRef
  17. Reddihough, DS, Walstab, JE, McKay, MF, Anderson, V (2004) Making the research dollar work: Outcome from a small research funding body [3]. J Paediatr Child Health 40: pp. 73-74 CrossRef
  18. Shah, S, Ward, JE (2001) Outcomes from NHMRC public health research project grants awarded in 1993. Aust N Z J Public Health 25: pp. 556-560 CrossRef
  19. Pettigrew, AG (2001) Investment and performance monitoring in Australian health and medical research. Med J Aust 174: pp. 559-560
  20. Graves, N, Barnett, AG, Clarke,
• 刊物主题：Health Administration; Social Policy; Quality of Life Research;
• 出版者：BioMed Central
• ISSN：1478-4505

文摘

Background The literature suggests that research funding decisions may be influenced by criteria such as gender or institution of the principal investigator (PI). The aim of this study was to investigate the association between characteristics of funding applications and success when considered by a research funding board. Methods We selected a retrospective cohort of 296 outline applications for primary research (mainly pragmatic clinical trials) submitted to the commissioning board of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme between January 1st 2006 and December 31st 2009. We selected proposals submitted to the commissioned NIHR HTA work stream as they addressed issues which the programme already deemed to be important, hence the priority of the research question was not considered as one of the selection criteria for success or failure. Main outcome measures were success or failure at short-listing and in obtaining research funding. Results The characteristics of applications associated with success at shortlisting and funding were multi-disciplinarity of the team (OR 19.94 [5.13, 77.50], P P P--.0209). The gender of the PI was not associated with success or failure at either stage. The PI’s affiliation institution was not associated with success or failure at shortlisting. Conclusions The gender of the PI was not associated with success or failure. The characteristics of research applications most strongly associated with success were related to the range of expertise in the team and the completion of a pilot or feasibility study.