Abstract
Objective: This study investigated the content, quality and value of feedback given to applicants who applied to one of four research programmes in the UK funded (or jointly funded) by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR).
Design/setting: Document analysis and an online survey.
Participants: NIHR applicant feedback documents comprised written feedback from Stage 1 and Stage 2 funding committees and external peer reviewers, and NIHR applicants.
Methods: A mixed-methods phased approach was conducted. Phase 1 examined 114 feedback documents and developed a conceptual framework of the key components of feedback using content analysis. Phase 2 was an online survey completed by 113 NIHR applicants. Frequencies of responses to closed questions were calculated. Perceptions of quality and value of feedback were identified using content analysis of open-text responses.
Results: In phase 1, a conceptual framework was developed with seven overarching categories: ‘Study structure and quality’; ‘Team and infrastructure’; ‘Acceptability to patients and professionals’; ‘Study justification and design’; ‘Risks and contingencies’; ‘Outputs’; ‘Value for money’. A higher frequency of feedback was provided at Stage 2 and for successful applications across the majority of components. In phase 2, frequency data showed that opinion on feedback was dependent on funding outcome. Content analysis revealed four main themes: ‘Committee transparency’; ‘Content validity and reliability’; ‘Additional support’; Recognition of effort and constraints’.
Conclusions: This study provides key insights and understanding into the quality, content, and value of feedback provided to NIHR applicants. The study identified key areas for improvement that can arise in NIHR funding applications, as well as in the feedback given to applicants that are applicable to other funding organisations. These findings could be used to inform funding application guidance documents to help researchers strengthen their applications and used more widely by other funders to inform their feedback processes.
Aim
The study aimed to investigate, through analysis of original feedback documents and an online survey, the content, quality and value of feedback given to applicants who applied to one of four research programmes in the UK funded (or jointly funded) by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR).
Intended Impact of the Study
This study will provide key knowledge on the quality and transparency of feedback provided to applicants and the divergence between information provided in guidance at pre-application to that provided post-funding decision. This analysis will provide critical information on the current landscape of decision-making practices in NIHR and the potential avenues for enhancing practices, which will then be transferable to other disciplines using peer review for funding allocation or accessing scientific quality.
Project Lead
Project Collaborators
Alejandra Recio-Saucedo
Abby Bull
Simon Fraser
Amanda Blatch-Jones
Keywords
URL
Research Area(s)
Study Design(s)
Data Collection Method(s)
Participant(s)
Other Participants: Funding committees
Status
Stage
Study Funding/Support
Dissemination Activity/Activities
Other(s): Study publication available here: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/11/9/e048979