Timetable and Budget
| Description | Deadline/Limit |
|---|---|
| Deadline for Stage 1 applications | 14 February 2023, 1pm |
| Notification of outcome of Stage 1 application | April 2023 |
| Project start | May - July 2023 |
| Project duration | 12 - 18 months |
| Budget | £250,000 to £300,000 per project |
Due to the urgency of this research call, applications will be assessed through a fast-track single stage Committee assessment process, based on information provided in the outline stage 1 application form. Successful applicants will be invited to respond to Committee feedback in an expanded form and will directly proceed to contracting and project start-up.
Introduction
The National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Policy Research Programme (PRP) invites applications for a single, multi-phase research project to evaluate the rollout of the national Adult Social Care (ASC) volunteer scheme due to launch in early 2023.The evaluation will contain 2 phases, the second of which will be adjusted in light of the outcomes of phase 1. DHSC is expecting proposals for both phases and consideration of how best to work with DHSC to adjust phase 2 in light of the phase 1 outcomes. Further detail is provided in the design and methodology section.
This research project will fund an evaluation of the ASC element of the volunteer programme to understand if the scheme is designed and implemented to maximise its full effectiveness, and any impact it is having on the ASC workforce, those receiving care, the volunteers themselves and others that are affected by the social care system.
Applicants are invited to submit plans and costs for the research.
Although volunteering schemes exist in the sector, this is the first-time that volunteering will be rolled out on a national scale for the ASC sector. This is therefore an opportunity to contribute to building an evidence base on an under-researched policy area. This work will be vital to our understanding of whether we should continue to fund this programme in ASC settings. This is the first scheme at a national level, and therefore the first year of the scheme should be evaluated so that we are able to make adjustments for a further year of the programme if it is continued, with potential to roll out longer depending on impact.
Background
The purpose of the ASC volunteer scheme is to increase the number of volunteers in Adult Social Care by making volunteering in Adult Social Care accessible through national recruitment and deployment of volunteers to care providers. The volunteers will provide extra support for people who draw on care, assist care staff, help provide extra capacity in emergency situations as well as improve quality and experience, whilst building their own skills, wellbeing and career prospects through meaningful activity. The national programme should also reduce the administrative and financial burdens that ASC providers face when recruiting volunteers.
We hope to achieve this increase in ASC volunteering by expanding the existing NHS Volunteer Responders (NHSVR) programme into ASC in early 2023 which was recommissioned as a business as usual programme in Winter 2022. We plan to develop and launch volunteer roles for ASC in two phases.
In the first phase we will work at pace to launch roles that are already partially developed and were used during the NHS Volunteer Responder programme during the pandemic, to support this winter with workforce pressures. In the second phase, we will work with care providers to identify and develop roles that can help in the longer term.
We anticipate that across both phases (from implementation and the longer term) ASC volunteers will primarily be used to carry out roles that reduce loneliness and increase care user participation in the community. These roles will hopefully supplement paid workers’ existing responsibilities and allow them to focus on personal care tasks, particularly during periods of heightened pressure. We also anticipate that the scheme will have a positive impact on paid staff wellbeing.
At present there is a moderate amount of data on the numbers and/or impact of volunteers in the ASC sector, collected during Covid-19, but there is no sufficient data on the impact on workforce capacity and wellbeing at a national level. We know some large ASC providers have long-standing well established volunteering schemes (e.g., Jewish Care; Methodist Homes, MHA) while local meals services, day care services, and local befriending schemes are also well-established in many community settings (see the national coverage of Red Cross’ Hospital from Home’s Schemes).
A recent report launched by the Royal Voluntary Service suggests that volunteers in ASC settings can help reduce stress and pressure of the ASC workforce (MacInnes J., Smith A., 2022). There is evidence of the positive impact of volunteers in NHS settings beyond the large providers. Surveys on the NHS Volunteer Responder scheme indicate that support from volunteers is associated with lower patient anxiety and evidence suggests that volunteers can play a role in improving care quality, i.e., by providing patients with someone to talk to who can be more flexible with their time. Such reports are extensive in small scale studies from ASC (e.g. Orellana et al 2021). In care homes, a recent systematic review of recruitment and retention of volunteers highlighted the need for schemes to have good management to be successful.
Research priorities
The research needed is an evaluation of the volunteer scheme newly introduced in ASC.
The overarching aims of the evaluations are:
- To understand if the ASC volunteer scheme is designed and implemented to maximise its effectiveness and to understand whether there are any unintended consequences due to the scheme roll-out.
- To understand the effectiveness of this scheme in increasing the number of volunteer hours, as well as (as far as possible) the impacts of volunteering to the ASC workforce, to those who receive care, the volunteers themselves and others in the social care system who may be affected by the scheme.
The research questions we want to understand are the following (a more detailed breakdown of potential questions can be found in Annex 1):
- To what extent has the volunteer scheme led to an increase in volunteer support for providers taking part in the scheme? Was this affected by how the scheme was implemented?
- How was volunteer support used by providers and did it lead to an overall increase in hours of support per care user (combination of hours or staff time and hours of volunteer time)?
- What was the impact of volunteer support on providers and their workforce? Has the introduction of the volunteer scheme led to an improvement in workforce wellbeing?
- What was the impact of volunteer support on care users’ experience?
- What was the impact of volunteer support on volunteers, unpaid carers (and other groups that might be impacted by the scheme)?
Design and methodology
We are not prescriptive on methodology, inviting bidders to advise on suitable approaches to answer the research questions set out above. Applicants will have significant scope to shape the methodology, albeit with the condition that we expect to maximise the use of quantitative methods as far as possible. We envisage qualitative research to mainly be used to strengthen the assessment of causality and we welcome suggestions for how to approach that.
As an indication of the proposed approach, we envision that this research may be conducted in two phases, but we are open to the prospective bidders views on how to best capture the research.
A first phase may involve surveys and/or qualitative engagement with providers, ASC workforce, volunteers and any other groups identified to understand more about the implementation of the scheme, and if it has been designed to its full potential and what the initial impacts/outcomes are. The results of which will help ensure that, if the scheme continues after the first year, we are maximising its full effectiveness. The NHSVR programme is in a period of being relaunched, so the programme will be developing over the time of the evaluation.
Phase 2 would likely take an iterative approach based on the results from phase 1. This would be to understand more about what themes or issues emerged, building understanding specifically on what initial impacts the scheme is having on the ASC workforce in general, any unintended impacts or consequences, and whether it is achieving, or, on track to achieve, any of the desired outcomes. For this phase, a choice of approach may differ depending on the research question. Example of possible approaches are:
- A before and after comparison of the size of the pool of volunteers used by providers who sign up to the scheme
- A quasi-experimental design to compare workforce wellbeing changes between providers that have employed volunteers through the scheme and providers that haven’t. Variation in take-up of the scheme could be used to build a counterfactual.
Applicants will need to provide details of their suggested approach for both phase 1 and phase 2 of the project. However, it is likely that there may be a need for some changes based on the findings emerging from phase 1. Potential applicants should outline how they will work with the department to ensure phase 2 is adjusted in light of the outcomes of phase 1 and meets their needs.
Existing data sources
We will seek to collect data at the online registration stage from both volunteers and providers. The kind of data that may be collected is outlined as an example below, however there is flexibility to change these between December to February, with potential to add fields as the platform is in operation.
For providers registration:
- If already use volunteers and how many hours per week they provide
- What roles/activities those volunteers do
- Organisation name and postcode
For volunteer’s registration:
- Age, ethnicity, gender, disability
A dashboard will also be developed to regularly capture data such as:
- Number of roles that ASC providers upload
- Number of volunteers that complete roles for ASC referrers
- Information on match rates between volunteers and role
- Number of volunteers who have not been on duty or done any task in the last 6 months
- Proportion of ASC volunteers by different roles.
- Hours of volunteering/per task and individuals
There may be scope to add additional variables and fields to this dashboard when developing the evaluation.
We are also commissioning a workforce cohort survey which will be collecting representative data on employees of the Adult Social Care workforce. This would complement ASC-WDS, as it would include measures of interest currently not included in the ASC -WDS (e.g., measures of employee subjective wellbeing appropriate to the ASC context). Outputs for wave 1 fieldwork of this survey are currently expected in July 2023, with wave 2 outputs expected in July 2024. The contract is not set to begin until January 2023. ?
NHS England have conducted an evaluation from the Covid-19 response programme. We expect data from this will be shareable with those undertaking the evaluation even if not publicly available.
DHSC will work with the appointed contractors to identify any new data sources that may become available.
Technical requirements / Expertise required
Required
- Knowledge of adult social care sector and workforce
- Experience of mixed methods evaluation
Desirable:
- Knowledge of volunteering and the Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprises
Outputs
Key outputs from the research should be:
- Early insights from what is available in word or short slide deck format for September/October 2023. This is a key decision point for the scheme.
- Mid-project workshop on interim and preliminary findings around January 2024 before Financial Year 24/25
- Final findings workshop at end of evaluation.
- A full final report, with executive and lay summary in a form suitable for policy colleagues in a 1:3:25 format.
Applicants are asked to consider the timing and nature of deliverables in their proposals. Policymakers will need research evidence to meet key policy decisions and timescales, so resource needs to be flexible to meet these needs. A meeting to discuss policy needs with DHSC officials will be convened as a matter of priority following contracting.
Budget and duration
The Department of Health expects the research to be delivered within a cost of £250,000 - £300,000.
The research will be conducted over a period of 12 – 18 months.
Costings can include up to 100% full economic costing (FEC) but should exclude output VAT. Applicants are advised that value for money is one of the key criteria that peer reviewers and commissioning panel members will assess applications against.
Management arrangements
A research advisory group including, but not limited to, representatives of DHSC, other stakeholders and the successful applicants for the research should be established. The advisory group will provide guidance, meeting regularly over the lifetime of the research. The successful applicants should be prepared to review research objectives with the advisory group, and to share emerging findings on an ongoing basis. They will be expected to:
- Provide regular feedback on progress
- Produce timely reports to the advisory group
- Produce a final report for sign off
Research contractors will be expected to work with nominated officials in DHSC, its partners and the NIHR. Key documents including, for example, research protocols, research instruments, reports and publications must be provided to DHSC in draft form allowing sufficient time for review.
Application
New Guidance on Inequities and Inequalities data collection within NIHR PRP Research:
Inequities and inequalities in the provision, access to and experience of health and care services is a high priority area within the Department of Health and Social Care and the NIHR and is present in the majority of funded projects. We will now assess all NIHR research proposals in relation to health and care inequalities. NIHR asks researchers to explore issues of inequality and inequity in the research being proposed.
Our goal is also to facilitate more widespread and consistent reporting of data on health and care inequalities relating to the primary outcomes of NIHR funded research. Applicants should, if feasible, collect or analyse data related to health and/or care inequalities, we request that this stated in the proposal. This is a new request from the NIHR PRP and we will be continuing to monitor queries and make any necessary clarifications, as needed.
We understand that research projects may employ different methodologies, and focus on different populations. We ask that you please clearly identify in the research plan section of the application whether your application has a health and care inequalities component. If the project uses quantitative methods, please include detail of the core set of data that will be collected or analysed. Submission of the data collection will be a condition of final reporting that will need to be submitted to NIHR PRP when the grant has finished. If a health and/or care inequalities component is not included, please explain clearly why this does not fit within your research.
Specifically for this project, it may be useful to consider how inequalities have affected volunteer uptake, hours of support and selection of volunteer roles. When exploring inequalities, we would like researchers to focus on collecting responses from individuals with a range of characteristics. Characteristics to consider are: sex and/or gender, region, 5 ONS Ethnic groups, and the 5 IMD quintile groups. These characteristics are considered an ideal, but we understand that these are subject to change depending on the sample population and research design.
A recording of the Health Inequalities in NIHR PRP Research Q&A Event which was held on 19 September 2022 is available to view on Youtube, this may be useful to refer to as it provides additional information.
Further details about this new request can be found in Annex 2.
References and key documents
- McFadden, P., Gillen, P., Moriarty, J., Mallett, J., Schroder, H., Ravalier, J., Manthorpe, J., Currie, D., Nicholl, P., McFadden, D., & Ross, J. (2021). Health and social care workers’ quality of working life and coping while working during the COVID19 pandemic: Findings from a UK Survey Phase 2: 17th November 2020 – 1st February 2021. University of Ulster Press.
- Naylor, C., Mundle, C., Weaks, L., Buck, D. (2013). Volunteering in health and care: Securing a sustainable future. The Kings Fund.
- Orellana, K. (2014). Care Home Managers: A scoping review of evidence. NIHR The School for Social Care Research.
Annex 1
- To what extent has the volunteer scheme led to an increase in volunteer support for providers taking part in the scheme?
- Did volunteers sign up to the scheme?
- Were volunteers who signed up placed with providers?
- Were volunteer placements sustained?
- Were there any barriers to volunteers signing up / being placed in roles / sustaining their placements?
- Were there any barriers to provides signing up to the scheme?
- How many additional hours [per week?] of volunteer time were providers able to access as a result of the scheme?
- How was volunteer support used by providers?
- What types of role were volunteers deployed in?
- Did the volunteer scheme lead to an overall increase in hours of support per care user (combination of hours or staff time and hours of volunteer time)?
- Did the volunteer scheme lead to any change in hours of staff time per care user?
- How much staff time was required to support volunteers?
- What was the impact of volunteer support on providers and their workforce?
- Did volunteer support lead to any changes in workforce capacity or staff time?
- Did volunteer support lead to any changes in staff wellbeing?
- What was the impact of volunteer support on care users?
- Did care users (and their friends / family members?) report positive perceptions of volunteer support?
- What was the impact of volunteer support on volunteers?
- Did volunteers report satisfaction with their role?
- Did volunteers report any benefits of their role in terms of
- Wellbeing
- Developing skills
- Gaining experience of the care sector ?
Annex 2: Further Detail on the New Guidance on Health Inequalities data collection within NIHR PRP Research:
Health Inequalities is a high priority area within the Department of Health and Social Care and the NIHR and is often present in a majority of funded projects. We are now assessing all NIHR research proposals in relation to health inequalities. We are asking applicants to identify in their application whether or not there is a health inequalities component or theme and how this research hopes to impact health inequalities. We are also asking researchers to collect relevant data related to health inequalities, if appropriate for the research. Collecting specific information about health inequalities in research submitted to the programme will allow for categorisation of health inequalities research, curation of data to aid future health inequalities research and enable policymakers to better understand the implications of health inequalities within their policy areas. This is a new request from the NIHR PRP and we will be continuing to monitor queries and adapt the process as needed. If you have any feedback on this new request, please contact us at prp@nihr.ac.uk.
Our goal is to facilitate more widespread and consistent reporting of health inequality breakdown data relating to the primary outcomes of NIHR funded research. We would ideally like researchers to focus on the following equity-relevant variables: age, sex, gender, disability, region*, 5 ONS Ethnic groups**, and the 5 IMD quintile groups. These variables are considered an ideal, but we understand that these are subject to change depending on the sample population and specific research question.
For qualitative research projects, this can be purely baseline characteristics of the participants, for example, the number of participants in each ethnic group.
For quantitative research projects, if there are multiple outcomes/effects with your stakeholders, select a small number of main outcomes as appropriate to report equity breakdowns. We will not be prescriptive about the number of the outcomes, as it will depend on the number of study design types and the nature of the project aims. We are asking for one way cross tabulations of each primary outcome by these equity-relevant variables, if appropriate for your research, together with the number of observations in each cell. If more detailed cross tabulations are appropriate for your proposed research, please include these as well. This request applies to both primary data collection studies and secondary analysis of routine data, and to causal inference studies as well as descriptive studies; however, if this is not possible due to data limitations then please explain. Due to sample size and other data limitations there may be difficult scientific and/or data security*** judgement calls to make about which breakdowns to report and whether to merge categories to increase counts in particular cells; we ask you to make these judgments yourself, bearing in mind our data curation aim of enabling future evidence synthesis work in pooling results from different studies. We also ask that researchers report breakdowns for the unadjusted as well as adjusted outcomes/effects, as appropriate.
We understand that research projects may employ different methodologies, and focus on different populations. Please explain how the variables and data collection methods chosen are appropriate to the methodologies used.
We ask that you please clearly identify in the research plan section of the application whether your application has a health inequalities component or not and detail the core set of health inequality breakdown data that will be collected, if applicable. Submission of the data collection will be a condition of the final report for all research with relevant methodologies regardless of whether the research has a health inequalities component that will need to be submitted to NIHR PRP when the grant has finished. This should only take a few sentences within the research plan section.
* Table below uses the nine regions in England, further regions can be used if using the UK as the study population. Please report region breakdown for large samples in nationally representative descriptive studies. There is no need to report this for small sample studies, for sub-national studies, or for quasi-experimental studies where it would require time-consuming re-estimation.
** White, Mixed/ Multiple ethnic groups, Asian/ Asian British, Black/ African/ Caribbean/ Black British, Other ethnic group. If the sample size is small then it is fine to report only some of the requested equity breakdowns and to merge some of the sub-groups as appropriate.
*** For guidance on how to handle data security concerns in reporting of sensitive data please see ONS guidance.
Example data table for submission at the end of the funded research project
(N.B. If there is more than one main outcome then you will require more tables and if you adjust your outcome then you will need two tables for the adjusted outcome and unadjusted outcome. For other methodologies, variable vs number of observations may be more appropriate to record participant data). This table is for an example only. It does not contain sub variables and does not illustrate any preference for certain variables, as these will be dependent on the proposed research.
| Variable | Outcome (an appropriate average for this subgroup, usually the mean) | Number of observations | Additional information about variation if appropriate, e.g. range, standard deviation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age | - | - | - |
| Sex | - | - | - |
| Gender | - | - | - |
| Disability | - | - | - |
| Ethnic Group | - | - | - |
| IMD Group | - | - | - |
| Region | - | - | - |