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
- No faults or no more than a modest number of minor fixable faults.
- Proposal is grounded in the relevant literature and clearly builds on the pre existing PGfAR award to address 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 development work is appropriate, very good quality and highly likely to enable added benefits to be realised above and beyond that attained via the current/ preceding PGfAR award.
- The team has the appropriate complement of specialists to deliver the additional development work. Very good consideration is given to capacity development.
- Where appropriate, 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.
- 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 relevant literature and clearly builds on the pre existing PGfAR award to address 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 development work is necessary, good quality and has the potential to enable added benefits to be realised above and beyond that attained via the current/ preceding PGfAR award. Concerns can be readily revised.
- Good team with the appropriate complement of specialists to deliver the additional development work. As appropriate, good consideration is 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
- Reasonably important research question and/or modest development work plans contain some elements of merit, but the proposal has too many major fixable faults/concerns.
- Proposal is moderately grounded in the relevant literature, incrementally builds on the pre existing PGfAR award to address an area now of moderate relevance 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 development work is of moderate 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.
- Modest team with a complement of relevant experience to deliver the development work. Insufficient consideration given to team strengthening or capacity development.
- Where appropriate, the approach to PPIE and EDI would need significant improvement. Limited plans are presented to improve these aspects through the PDG funding.
- Questionable value for money.
Attributes of unfundable proposals with significant or severe weaknesses/concerns
- 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 key relevant literature, and, in contrast to the pre existing PGfAR award, is of limited relevance to the NHS, DHSC, public health and social care, benefits to patients, service users, carers and the wider public, with poorly articulated consideration of unmet need.
- Poor or inappropriate development work that does not build well on the pre existing PGfAR award. The feasibility of delivering the development work proposed is questioned.
- The team lacks key relevant skills and experience such that the development work is unlikely to be robustly delivered. 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 |