Programme Development Grants - Stream A scoring criteria

Applications to Programme Development Grants (PDG) are assessed at a PDG subcommittee meeting. Recommendations are made about which proposals should be funded, to assist the main selection committee. Top tips for applying to stream A.

Programme Development Grants proposal scoring

These committee scoring instructions should be viewed as an aid for decision-making and prioritisation. Scores should always be considered in light of the discussion on strengths and weaknesses. Average scores and their distributions will help in identifying where further discussion is needed. In assigning individual scores, committee members should take into account the overall selection criteria.

Stream A selection criteria

The selection criteria for PDG proposals for preparatory work for a future programme of research are:

• the relevance and importance of the research to be funded via any future PGfAR award to the priorities and needs of the NHS, public health, social care, patients, service users, carers or the wider public
• the suitability of the team (either now, or as augmented through PDG funding), including the relevant expertise and track-record of the team in conducting high quality applied health research
• the quality and appropriateness of the development work plan, notably the extent to which it helps develop and inform the proposed future programme
• the value for money provided by the application.

Attributes of fundable proposals

• No faults or no more than a modest number of minor fixable faults.
• Proposal is grounded in the relevant literature (or plans to be through the PDG funding), and addresses a very important area relevant to the NHS, Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), public health and social care, benefits to patients, service users, carers and the wider public, with very good consideration of unmet need.
• The future programme has good detail and offers a high chance of producing important findings that could influence practice and/or significant interventions that could be implemented in the NHS, public health or social care and yield benefits for patients/service users, carers and/or the wider public.
• The development work plan is appropriate, necessary, of very good quality and informs the future programme.
• Excellent team (or plans to have through the PDG funding) with the appropriate complement of specialists with a track record of delivering high-quality applied health research to deliver the outcomes. Very good consideration given to capacity development.
• The approach to PPIE and equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) is likely to result in research inclusion, active involvement, and influence of patients/service users/carers, or plans to be through PDG funding.
• Excellent value for money and use of public funds. Costed appropriately.

Attributes of fundable proposals with minor weaknesses/concerns

• A few major fixable faults or several minor fixable faults.
• Proposal is grounded in the majority of the relevant literature (or plans to be through the PDG funding), and addresses an important area relevant to the NHS, DHSC, public health and social care, benefits to patients, service users, carers and the wider public, with reasonable consideration of unmet need.
• The future programme is quite well detailed and offers a good chance of producing important findings that could influence practice and/or significant interventions that could be implemented in the NHS, public health or social care and yield benefits for patients/service users, carers and/or the wider public.
• The development work is necessary, good quality and has the potential to inform and strengthen the future programme. Concerns can be readily revised.
• Good team (or plans to have through the PDG funding) with largely the right complement of specialists and track record of delivering high-quality applied health research to deliver the outcomes; expertise gaps to deliver outcomes are addressable. Good consideration given to capacity development.
• Well planned PPIE and research inclusion that is likely to lead to user-informed outcomes but might be developed further.
• Good value for money and use of public funds. Costed properly to deliver outcomes.

Attributes of unfundable proposals with moderate weaknesses/concerns

• Reasonable value for money and inappropriate use of public funds.
• The approach to PPIE and research inclusion would need significant improvement. Limited plans are presented to improve these aspects through the PDG funding.
• Modest team (or plans to have through the PDG funding) with a reasonable track record of delivering high-quality applied health research to deliver the outcomes. Insufficient consideration given to team strengthening or capacity development.
• The development work is of moderate quality and has modest potential to inform and strengthen the future programme. The major concerns about the development work are unlikely to be fixed. The expectation of successful delivery is moderate.
• The future programme is moderately detailed and offers a modest chance of producing important findings that could influence practice and/or significant interventions that could be implemented in the NHS, public health or social care and yield benefits for patients/service users, carers and/or the wider public.
• Proposal is moderately grounded in the relevant literature, (with modest plans to address this through the PDG funding), and addresses a reasonably important area relevant to the NHS, DHSC, public health and social care, benefits to patients, service users, carers and the wider public, with modest consideration of unmet need.
• Not competitive – reasonably important research question and/or modest research plans containing some elements of merit, but proposal has too many major fixable faults/concerns.

Attributes of unfundable proposals with significant weaknesses/concerns

• Questionable potential to lead to benefits for patients/service users and/or the wider public. Proposal has major concerns that are unlikely to be addressable in a reasonable timeframe
• Proposal with limited grounding in the relevant literature, (with limited plans to address this through the PDG funding), and addresses a reasonably important area relevant to the NHS, DHSC, public health and social care, benefits to patients, service users, carers and the wider public, with modest consideration of unmet need.
• The future programme is out of scope and/or has limited detail, offering a limited chance of producing important findings that could influence practice and/or significant interventions that could be implemented in the NHS, public health or social care and yield benefits for patients/service users, carers and/or the wider public.
• The development work is weak or inappropriate and unlikely to inform and strengthen the future programme. The major concerns about the design are unlikely to be fixed.
• Mediocre team and track record of delivering high-quality applied health research to deliver the outcomes. Key skills are missing from the research team with limited plans to address gaps through the PDG funding. Limited consideration given to capacity development.
• The approach to PPIE and research inclusion are of questionable quality. Plans are not presented to improve these aspects through the PDG funding.
• Questionable value for money and an inappropriate use of public funds.

Attributes of unfundable proposals with severe weaknesses/concerns

• Highly unlikely to lead to benefits for patients/service users and/or the wider public, and the research proposal is fundamentally flawed
• Proposal is not grounded in the relevant literature (with no plans to address this through the PDG funding), and does not addresses an important area relevant to the NHS, DHSC, public health and social care, benefits to patients, service users, carers and the wider public, with modest consideration of unmet need.
• The future programme is out of scope and/or is highly unlikely to produce important findings that could influence practice and/or significant interventions that could be implemented in the NHS, public health or social care and yield benefits for patients/service users, carers and/or the wider public.
• The development work is poor, flawed or inappropriate, and highly unlikely to inform and strengthen the future programme. The feasibility of delivering the research proposed is questioned.
• The team lacks relevant research skills and experience with a poor track record of delivering high-quality applied health research to deliver the outcomes. No plans to address the gaps through the PDG funding and no consideration given to capacity development.
• The approach to PPIE and research inclusion appear poorly integrated and are of questionable quality. Plans are not presented to improve these aspects through the PDG funding.
• Poor value for money and an inappropriate use of public funds.

Scoring grid

Score	Definition	Description
6	Fundable	Excellent
5	Fundable	Good
4	Fundable	Minor weaknesses/concerns
3	Not fundable	Moderate weaknesses/concerns
2	Not fundable	Significant weaknesses/concerns
1	Not fundable	Severe weaknesses/concerns