Mass media content
Overview
-
Opportunity status:Open
-
Type:Programme
-
Opening date:
-
Closing date:
-
Reference ID:2024/209
Ready to apply?
Apply for this funding opportunity through our online application form
Our Public Health Research (PHR) Programme is looking to fund research which evaluates the health and health inequality impacts of mass media content.
This is a two-stage, commissioned funding opportunity. To apply for the first stage you should submit an Outline Application. If invited to the second stage, you will then need to complete a Full Application.
Eligibility
Please see our PHR Programme page and the research specification for further detail on what we will fund.
Key dates
28 November 2024
Outline Application opening date
11 February 2025
Webinar
25 April 2025
Outline Application closing date
Mid May 2025
Notification of decline decision if out of remit or non-competitive
Early July 2025
Outline Application shortlisting decision
Early July 2025
Full Application opening date
End of August 2025
Full Application closing date
November 2025
Full Application decision
Studies within a trial or review
This funding opportunity is eligible for a SWAT/SWAR (study within a trial or study within a review), which can help significantly improve methodology of future research as well as the host study. Find out about the benefits of SWATs/SWARs and how to include one in your application.
Webinar
We are holding a webinar to support applicants seeking to apply to this funding opportunity and our other commissioned funding opportunities closing on the same date. This will be held on Tuesday 11 February 2025, 1:15pm to 2:30pm, and will focus on each funding opportunity as well as general tips for applying. There will be a Q&A at the end. Please complete our online form to sign up.
Research specification
Research question
- What are the health and health inequality impacts of mass media content?
Mass media is used to transmit information to a large audience. It includes everything from television, print media, radio and film to the Internet, games, gaming, advertising, podcasts, generative AI, and social media platforms. Research suggests that all types of mass media can have an impact on individual and population health. Existing evidence suggests that exposure to mass media content may positively or negatively affect diverse aspects of physical and mental health for individuals and populations. It may also impact on how people think about health more broadly, as well as how health information is communicated.
The Public Health Research (PHR) Programme is interested in research evaluating the health and health inequality impacts of mass media content. Research can investigate any media type. However, the UK population now spends more time on average consuming digital media than traditional types of media (e.g. broadcast television, radio, print media). Online communication platforms (e.g. social media) are becoming increasingly popular. Users can interact with family members and friends, accept invitations to public events, join online communities to meet people who share similar preferences, and interact with influencers and other online personalities. New platforms are emerging constantly, and multiple media platforms can be used simultaneously (e.g. social media and television). Evidence reviews suggest that social media platforms can have a positive role in public health (e.g. disease surveillance, professional development, influencing policy, health promotion, behavioural change) but can also have potential negative impacts on health (e.g. misinformation, privacy concerns, detriment to mental health, biased messaging inciting aggression, mistrust, social unrest and/or targeted assaults).
Emerging evidence suggests that social media is a major determinant of health, and some argue that the social media industry is a commercial determinant of health. Data collection and algorithms are used to suggest and prioritise the content that users see. Features such as targeted advertising provide businesses and special interest groups with more powerful tools than traditional media content by allowing them to target specific, defined demographics (e.g. cities, communities, ages, genders, education levels, jobs, interests, consumer behaviours). This can have both positive and negative effects on health and health inequalities.
There is concern that, while regulations have been developed over time for traditional media, digital media is developing faster than regulations. Regulations can be used to protect particular groups or restrict advertising of particular products, and this is currently lacking and/or can be circumvented for digital media. This could allow health harming industries to increase their impact on health, including communities or groups who might be particularly vulnerable.
Currently, minimal research has been conducted examining the health inequality impacts of digital media. Algorithms used for social media, generative AI and search engines are dependent and ‘trained’ on user data. There is concern that these algorithms are therefore susceptible to inheriting widespread biases and prejudices in society, exacerbating structural inequalities that already exist, and creating philosophical echo chambers. Users of digital media are also ‘broadcasters’ of information and their interaction with content can reshape and/or further amplify its reach.
The PHR Programme is interested in research evaluating the health and health inequality impacts of mass media content. This funding opportunity encompasses any media type, including traditional and new media types, generative AI, communication platforms, user-generated, commercially- or brand-generated, or hybrid media content.
Research areas of interest could include, but are not limited to:
- the extent to which (sub)population groups are currently exposed to, engage and/or interact with different kinds of mass media content (whether commercial, user-generated or hybrid), and the impact on health and health inequalities
- the impact of (sub)populations’ experiences of different kinds of media content on health and health inequalities
- the impact of mass media content on drivers of health or ill-health, including understanding, attitudes, susceptibility, and norms
- the impact of interventions that operate at whole population level
- structural drivers of the health impacts of media content
- the health and/or health inequality impacts of overt or covert commercial determinants and market-driven forces in mass media content (e.g. brand-endorsed social media influencers)
- the health or health inequality impacts of digital marketing that draws on personal data
- the impact of advertising legislation (or lack thereof) on health
- research investigating policy or regulatory levers (e.g. for platforms that use algorithms to suggest user-specific content and targeted advertising). This could take the form of modelling policy options
- the health and/or health inequality impacts of interventions such as media literacy or health messaging
- the impact of media-influenced values (e.g. sexism, racism, inclusion etc.) on the health of families/communities
- methodological approaches to evaluating the health or health inequality impacts of new (digital) media types, including modelling approaches
- the impact of generative AI on health and/or health inequalities, including potential harms and value
- games and gaming as a determinant of health
- the impact of mis/information on health, particularly among vulnerable (sub)populations
- interaction between neurodiversity and differential impact of social media
The PHR Programme recognises this is an emerging area and that, for some proposals, underpinning or development work to understand epidemiology might be beneficial to inform the evaluation of interventions. The Programme is willing to consider applications that include underpinning or development work. Please contact the PHR Programme before applying to discuss further.
The Programme acknowledges that digital media is a rapidly-changing field. Applicants need to justify the timeframes of their research and its dissemination in order to demonstrate that the research will have impact at the time of dissemination.
Applicants are encouraged to read the guidance notes, paying particular attention to the points highlighted below:
Population (P) – While PHR Programme funding opportunities are broad, applicants need to focus on, and justify, their specific choice of population. The PHR Programme recognises that interventions are likely to impact different (sub)populations in different ways.
Intervention (I) – The PHR Programme is predominantly interested in the evaluation of interventions that operate at a population level rather than at an individual level. The PHR Programme does not fund research into the treatment of disease but is interested in research that addresses the wider determinants of health. The description of the intervention may include the setting. For the purpose of this funding opportunity, the PHR Programme is willing to accept media content and/or the medium (e.g. print, digital) / device (e.g. mobile phones, laptops) through which content is sent and received as an intervention. Researchers may choose to investigate the health and/or health inequality of media content itself, exposure to the content, and/or interventions relating to mass media content (e.g. policy or regulation, media literacy interventions). Applicants are encouraged to specify the type of media, the source of media content, and the type of media content.
Comparator (C) – While we recognise that conducting a randomised controlled trial is not necessarily possible or appropriate in many situations, the PHR Programme encourages applicants to consider a suitable comparator.
Outcomes (O) – The primary outcome must be a health outcome. Researchers will need to clearly describe and justify their choice of primary and secondary outcomes. Researchers will need to specify how outcomes will be measured in the short, medium, and long term. Where a primary health outcome is not feasible then intermediary and proxy outcomes are accepted, if appropriately justified.
Health inequalities - Of particular importance to the PHR Programme is an understanding of inequalities in impact of policy and access to services. Evaluations of interventions seeking to reduce health inequalities are also of specific interest to the PHR Programme.
Application design
A range of study designs can be used. Qualitative, quantitative and innovative methodologies are welcomed. Researchers should clearly describe their methodological approach, and the rationale for this approach. Applicants are expected to be aware of other relevant studies in their area of research, to identify the gaps in the existing evidence base, and to articulate why their research is important for decision makers.
We welcome partnerships between research active and other less active institutions and those located in geographical areas of deprivation.
Health economics – Understanding the value of public health interventions - whether the outcomes justify their use of resources - is integral to the PHR Programme, where resources relating to different economic sectors and budgets are potentially relevant. The main outcomes for economic evaluation are expected to include health (including health-related quality of life) and the impact on health inequalities as a minimum, with consideration of broader outcomes welcomed. Different approaches to economic evaluation are encouraged as long as they assess the value and distributive impact of interventions. Applications that do not include an economic component should provide appropriate justification.
Pathways to Impact – The Programme is focused on the impact of the research it funds. Researchers are encouraged to maximise the impact of their research by explaining how they will mobilise knowledge and share their findings, to ensure that it is used, with the relevant policy makers, practitioners (e.g. educators, health and care professionals), public health officers, special interest groups, charities, community audiences and other stakeholders.
Application guidance
Please read our Domestic Outline Application guidance to help you complete all aspects of your application. You must read this alongside the information below, which details specific requirements our PHR Programme looks for in applications. You can also check our PHR Programme page for details about the Programme’s scope and remit.
Research Plan
Your Research Plan must be a maximum of four A4 pages. Please include the following when writing your Research Plan.
Methodology/plan
Include the below detail in your methodology/plan:
Project design and methods
Please provide the precise aims and research questions your project will address, justifying these by referencing relevant literature. You may like to present these in a PICOST format (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome/s, Setting and Timing).
Summarise your project plan plus any additional points required to support statements made in the previous sections of your application. Include any key references required to justify the points made (for example the use of particular outcome measures or methods of analysis).
References
Please upload one page of references in the ‘Uploads’ section of the application.
Research design
- for primary research: clearly summarise your study design. Include all of its components (for example primary and secondary outcomes, process and economic evaluations) and relevant time points for baseline and follow-up data collection for each component. You should reference established research techniques, providing details of how exposure to the intervention will be determined or defined. You should fully explain and justify any adaptations of these for the purposes of the research proposed
- for evidence synthesis: if you are proposing a systematic review and/or an evidence synthesis, you should provide details regarding the size of the available literature base, along with details of the search and review strategy
If your application proposes to carry out feasibility and/or pilot studies or is staged (for example, full effectiveness evaluations with a built in pilot phase), you should include clear criteria against which to judge whether progression to the next stage is justified. If you are proposing an evaluation of effectiveness, you should detail any prior scoping, feasibility and/or pilot work and, where appropriate, how the progression criteria of any feasibility and/or pilot study has been met. There are no set progression criteria to use but you should aim to explain whether the uncertainties which need to be addressed have been determined, or how they will be. This will give confidence that a full evaluation is feasible.
Examples of progression criteria could include (but are not limited to):
- can/did you recruit people/centres within a reasonable timespan and retain them to follow-up?
- is/was the intervention sufficiently acceptable and feasible to implement?
- can the intervention be delivered with reasonable fidelity?
- do you have commitment to fund the intervention for the duration of the study?
- can the outcome measures be measured across your target population?
- is the underlying question still the same/has the context changed?
Please note that the criteria listed above should be used as a guide only. It does not represent a comprehensive list of all the progression criteria that should be included within an application for a feasibility/pilot study. It is also not a comprehensive list for which feasibility will need to be evidenced in an application for an evaluation of effectiveness.
Evaluation
You should include details of the intervention(s) or policy under evaluation, such as:
- its components and their frequency and intensity
- theoretical basis
- specific techniques used
- modes of delivery
- who will deliver the intervention
You may like to refer to the TiDIER guidance on reporting interventions (Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR). Providing a clear description of what is being evaluated or studied is key to justifying the need, value and importance of a study. It is also essential to explain to our Funding Committee how your study design is fit for purpose. We have a broad view on what constitutes an ‘intervention’ or policy under evaluation.
Logic Model
Please upload a 1 page logic model depicting your theory of change, to help explain the intervention being evaluated.
Control/comparator group
Please state what comparator(s) will be used in your study. Justify its appropriateness for answering the research question, and describe how it will be selected.
Study population
Which population(s) will be the target for the intervention and the participants in the research? How will the population(s) be recruited and retained?
Setting
Where will the research be undertaken and the intervention delivered?
Outcome measures
Please state and justify the primary and secondary outcome measures.
Methods for data collection
For each outcome, process or economic study component proposed, please state the source of the data that will be analysed. Where this is primary data collection, please state the quantitative and/or qualitative method used where appropriate. Where this is secondary data, please describe the characteristics of the dataset and the process by which access will be obtained.
Primary outcomes must be health related. The PHR Programme will accept proxy measures for health as long as they are appropriately defined and the link to health is clearly justified. You are encouraged to consider additional outcome measures including those relating to the broader determinants of health and health inequalities, which should be specified and justified. When describing your approach to health inequalities, please give details of relevant health inequalities related to your study; the nature of the inequality and the definition of the population groups.
Sample size
Please describe and justify the proposed sample size for each element of the study. Justify the values used in the calculation by giving their source and/or some sensitivity around assumed values.
Data and analysis
Please detail how you will analyse each study data set. Clearly state the purpose of any analysis. You must state the proposed type and frequency of analyses including the selection of participants who will be included in the analyses. Describe any planned interim and sub-group analyses, sensitivity analysis and how missing data will be handled.
Health economics
Understanding the value of public health interventions – whether the outcomes justify their use of resources – is integral to the PHR Programme. The main outcomes for the economic evaluation are expected to include health (including health-related quality of life) and impact on health inequalities, with consideration of broader outcomes welcomed. Your economic evaluation should make clear where resources relate to different economic sectors and budgets. We encourage different approaches to economic evaluation as long as they assess the value and distributive impact of interventions. If your application does not assess distributive impact of interventions or does not include an economic component, you should provide appropriate justification.
Stakeholder engagement
You are strongly encouraged to ensure that a wide range of stakeholders are meaningfully involved in the design and planning of the research and throughout the work. Examples of stakeholders include decision-makers, commissioners, members of the public*, and people with lived experience. You might do this through involving them as costed/rewarded members of the research team.
*Please note there is a detailed section on public involvement within your study that does not need to be repeated here.
Timeline and milestones
Project timescale and milestones
Please provide a clear indication of the study timescale and dates by which key milestones should be achieved.
Flow Diagram
Please upload a one page flow diagram detailing your study timelines and milestones.
Study management
Please state how your study will be managed, and who will manage it. Refer to the roles of specific applicants as appropriate.
Where applicable, this section should also describe how any conflicts of interest will be managed, such as involving stakeholders with a financial or non-financial interest in the intervention in the study team.
Research governance and ethical approval
Please indicate what research governance issues will need to be addressed in your research and state how you will seek and obtain ethical approval. You must either comply with the research ethics framework formulated by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) or obtain approval via the National Research Ethics Service (NRES).
Please note that we will check all proposals recommended for funding which involve a clinical trial. We check for potential overlaps using WHO trials before we communicate any funding decision. Consequently, a funding recommendation may not be taken forward if a major overlap is identified at this stage. It is therefore important that you highlight any potential overlaps before your application is considered by the Funding Committee. You should then explain how you expect your proposed research will add to the body of knowledge, referring to current policy and practice.
Application process
Find out how to apply for this funding opportunity and what you need to do to get your application ready.
How to apply
When you are ready to apply, you will need to log in to our application system to apply. This funding opportunity is on our new Awards Management System and you will need to create a new account to apply.
The closing date is 25 April 2025 at 1pm. Applications received after 1pm on the closing date will not be considered.
Please read the following guidance before submitting an application:
- All of the application guidance detailed in the 'Application guidance' section in this funding opportunity
Download application form template
You can download a Word document template of the application form below. Please use this template as a guide only, to help you prepare your application. For example, to see how many characters are accepted in each section and to see how information in the form is laid out. Please do not try to use this as an application form; it cannot be submitted as an application. You must submit your application online via our Awards Management System.
Research inclusion and reasonable adjustments
At NIHR we are committed to creating a diverse and inclusive culture. We encourage applications from people from all backgrounds and communities bringing diverse skills and experiences. If you need any reasonable adjustments throughout the application process, please contact the programme team via the information in the Contact Details tab.
Research Support Service
Got a research idea and not sure how to turn it into a funding application? The free NIHR Research Support Service (RSS) supports researchers in England to apply for funding. It can help you develop and deliver clinical and applied health, social care and public health research post award. Please speak to the NIHR Specialist Centre for Public Health (SCPH) about the design of your research as soon as possible by completing the RSS SCPH online form. A successful application takes a long time (several months) to develop.
Contact Details
- For help with your application contact phr@nihr.ac.uk
- For more information about the funding Programme, visit the PHR Page
- Got a research idea and not sure how to turn it into a funding application? The free NIHR Research Support Service (RSS) supports researchers in England to apply for funding, and to develop and deliver clinical and applied health, social care and public health research post award. Find out how the RSS can help you.