This site is optimised for modern browsers. For the best experience, please use Google Chrome, Mozilla Firefox, or Microsoft Edge.

Programme Development Grants - Stream B scoring criteria

Contents

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 B.

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 B selection criteria 

The selection criteria for PDG proposals to support further development of an existing or ongoing programme of research are:

  • the relevance and importance of the development work to the priorities and needs of the NHS, public health, social care, patients, service users, carers or the wider public
  • the likelihood of the development work enabling significant additional benefit to be realised by the NHS, public health, social care, patients, service users, carers  or the wider public, above and beyond that attained via the existing/ongoing programme of research 
  • the suitability of the team (which need not include all members of the PGfAR application), including the relevant expertise and track-record of the team in conducting high quality applied health research, implementation and/or knowledge mobilisation activities as appropriate
  • the quality and appropriateness of the development work planned
  • the value for money provided by the application.

Attributes of fundable proposals

  • Proposal and current award addresses a very important area, and is relevant to the NHS, DHSC, public health and social care, patients, service users, carers and the wider public. The development work clearly articulates the added patient/service user/carer benefits, and is grounded in the relevant literature.
  • The team has the appropriate complement of specialists to deliver the additional development work.
  • Where appropriate, the approach to PPIE and equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) is very good.
  • The development  work is appropriate, clearly builds on  the preexisting PGfAR award, is very good quality and highly likely to enable added benefits to be realised above and beyond that attained via the current/ preceding PGfAR award. Minor concerns about the approach can be fixed easily.
  • Very good value for money, representing a very good way to spend public money.
  • Development work is very likely to increase the chance of:
    • key  findings from the PGfAR award  influencing policy, practice and patients/service users/carers
    • evidence based interventions being implemented in the NHS, public health or social care to substantially improve outcomes for patients/service users/carers.

Attributes of potentially fundable proposals

  • Proposal and current award addresses an important area, and is relevant to the NHS, DHSC, public health and social care, patients, service users, carers and the wider public. The additional patient/service user/carer benefits of the development work are not fully articulated, and is grounded in the majority of the relevant literature.
  • Competent and appropriate team; expertise gaps for the development work are addressable.
  • Where appropriate, the approach to PPIE and EDI is reasonable and any necessary improvements are addressable.
  • The development work is appropriate, somewhat builds on the preexisting PGfAR award, is good quality, and reasonably likely to enable added benefits to be realised above and beyond that attained via the current/ preceding PGfAR award. Major and minor concerns about the approach can be fixed. 
  • Good value for money, representing a reasonable way to spend public money.
  • Development work  is likely to increase the chance of:
    • producing important findings from the PGfAR award  that could influencing policy, practice and patients/service users/carers
    • evidence based interventions being implemented in the NHS, public health or social care to substantially improve outcomes for patients/service users/carers.

Attributes of not competitive proposals

  • Proposal and current award addresses an area which is now of modest relevance to the NHS, DHSC, public health and social care, patients, service users, carers and the wider public. The level of additional patient/service user/carer benefits are not articulated, and its grounding in the relevant literature is unconvincing.
  • Applicants have a modest level of relevant experience to deliver the development work. 
  • Where appropriate, the approach to PPIE and EDI would need to be significantly improved.
  • The development work does not build well on the pre existing award, is of modest quality, and unlikely to enable added benefits to be realised above and beyond that attained via the current/ preceding PGfAR award. The major concerns about the approach are unlikely to be fixed.
  • Questionable value for money.
  • The development work is unlikely to  increase the chance of:
    • producing important findings from the PGfAR award  that could influencing policy, practice and patients/service users/carers
    • evidence based interventions being implemented in the NHS, public health or social care to substantially improve outcomes for patients/service users/carers.

Attributes of unfundable proposals

    • The proposal, in contrast to the pre existing PGfAR award, is not relevant to the NHS, DHSC, public health and social care, patients, service users, carers and the wider public. The additional patient/service user/carer benefits are unclear or poorly articulated, and it is not grounded in the key relevant literature. 
    • Key skills missing from the  team such that the development work is unlikely to be robustly delivered.
    • The approach to PPIE and EDI needs radical improvement.
    • Poor or inappropriate development work, that does not build well on the pre existing PGfAR award, and does not result in additional  benefits beyond that attained via the current/preceding PGfAR award.
    • Represents poor value for money and an inappropriate use of public funds.
    • The proposed development work does not  increase the chance of:
      • producing important findings from the PGfAR award  that could influencing policy, practice and patients/service users/carers
      • evidence based interventions being implemented in the NHS, public health or social care to substantially improve outcomes for patients/service users/carers. 

Scoring grid

Likelihood of fundingDescriptionScoreRecommendation
Fundable No more than a handful of minor fixable concerns. 10 Fund
Fundable A small number of minor fixable concerns. 9 Fund
Fundable A moderate number of minor fixable concerns. 8 Fund
Potentially fundable At least one major fixable concern together with a small number of minor fixable concerns. 7 Potentially fund
Potentially fundable A few major fixable concerns or a large number of minor fixable concerns. 6 Potentially fund
Not competitive Important research area but proposal has too many major concerns. 5 Do not fund
Not competitive Development work plan contains some good elements but proposal has major concerns that are unlikely to be addressable. 4 Do not fund
Not competitive Questionable potential to lead to benefits for patients and proposal has major concerns that are unlikely to be addressable 3 Do not fund
Not fundable Unlikely to lead to benefits for patients and major concerns are not addressable. 2 Do not fund
Not fundable Unlikely to lead to benefits for patients and development work is fundamentally flawed. 1 Do not fund