Public Health Intervention Responsive Studies Teams (PHIRST) - process and outcomes evaluation

Key information

• The NIHR Public Health Research (PHR) Programme is seeking to commission a process and outcomes evaluation of the Public Health Intervention Responsive Studies Teams (PHIRST) scheme.
• The evaluation is expected to provide robust insights into PHIRST scheme processes and the difference it is making (outcomes and emergent impacts). The evaluation will provide key information to the NIHR regarding whether the PHIRST scheme is meeting its goals and remains fit for purpose. Recommendations should be made to inform the future of the scheme.
• It is anticipated that the evaluation will begin in late 2025, with completion by no later than early 2027.
• The envisaged duration of the evaluation is approximately 12-15 months. It is estimated that the work will cost between £250k - 350k, but this is flexible, and funding requested should be proportionate to the work proposed.
• For further information on submitting an application to the PHR Programme, please refer to the Stage 1 guidance notes and PHR supporting information. These can be found by clicking on the relevant topic on the main funding opportunities page. This also includes closing dates and details about how to apply.

Background

In line with the NIHR strategy ‘Best Research for Best Health: The Next Chapter’, NIHR has an ambition to build capacity and capability in prevention and public health research, making the UK a world leader in this area. Central to this is co-production of research with practitioners, policymakers, and the public, to ensure research answers the most important questions facing policymakers and services at local and national levels.

In 2020 the NIHR Public Health Research (PHR) Programme launched the PHIRST scheme, which is currently funding eight academic research teams. PHIRST teams are able to rapidly but robustly evaluate interventions put forward by UK local government organisations, where such interventions may impact on health or health inequalities. A key driver behind the launch of the PHIRST scheme was a recognition that whilst local government organisations play a vital role in their local communities – with an ability to influence public health – they had not always been able to access the research and evaluation support that could have been beneficial.

Research conducted through the PHIRST scheme is intended to inform future commissioning and policy decisions, by building the evidence base for local government interventions, and in doing so inform the delivery of current and future interventions that impact health and health inequalities.

The PHIRST model

The PHIRST scheme operates a model whereby local government teams can put forward their local interventions for evaluation. At set intervals – currently twice per year – the PHR Programme prioritises several of these interventions based on public health importance and other factors. Prioritised interventions are then allocated to PHIRST teams, who lead on scoping out and conducting an evaluation, working in partnership with the local government team.

Evaluations are conducted with academic rigour, but in timescales relevant to local government. Project outputs are tailored to local government needs, with peer-reviewed academic outputs also produced. Co-production is fundamental to successful evaluations, with this approach also having the potential to confer additional benefits such as shared learning and upskilling of local government teams.

PHIRST teams hold five-year contracts with an expectation that ten evaluations are undertaken during the contract period. As of Spring 2024, the PHIRST scheme has a portfolio of around 50 evaluations, either completed or ongoing.

The PHIRST scheme complements other initiatives including the Health Determinants Research Collaborations (HDRCs) launched by NIHR and the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), which are intended to enable local government to become more research active.

PHIRST may have the potential to generate outcomes and impacts at different levels and through a variety of mechanisms. Domains of impact might include (but are not limited to): capacity building and collaboration in higher education and local government; knowledge and awareness of public health principles and interventions; more evidence-informed decision making in local government; and improvements in health and health inequalities arising from interventions that are commissioned, decommissioned, or adapted as a result of evaluation findings.

Formative evaluation (2022)

In 2022 the NIHR Public Health Policy Research Unit conducted an evaluation of the initial phase of the PHIRST scheme. Learning was captured, in particular relating to PHIRST scheme processes, and a series of recommendations (.PDF) (.PDF) made as part of the findings. This work represented a formative evaluation and created an initial theory of change for PHIRST.

The evaluation to be commissioned

The PHR Programme invites applications for an independent evaluation of the PHIRST scheme. This should build on the 2022 formative evaluation and focus on the processes, outputs, outcomes, and emergent impacts of PHIRST.

Key criteria against which applications will be assessed are specified below.

Domain A: the evaluation approach

The proposed evaluation should:

• Use a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods, triangulating different sources of data. Qualitative work will be required to understand local circumstances, processes, and dynamics of PHIRST.
• Generate case studies based on PHIRST projects.
• Identify indicators relevant to the scope, processes, and intended outputs, outcomes, and emergent impacts of the PHIRST scheme, and report against these.
• Make recommendations related to the PHIRST scheme and its future development – identifying where successes are being realised and where improvements can be made.
• Address, as a minimum, the following:
  • Is the PHIRST model working? Has it been useful to local government? – for example in providing timely answers to questions that inform decision making and local commissioning decisions?
  • To what extent, and how, have PHIRST project findings been utilised by local government teams that took part in a PHIRST project?
  • Is the PHIRST scheme accessible to local government teams that would benefit from it and that would like to participate?
  • How is PHIRST perceived by, and what is its profile within, local government? What is the perceived utility of project findings, and to what extent is knowledge exchange being realised? What are the relationship dynamics of PHIRST with local government teams and what factors influence these? (for example, structures or ways of working across different PHIRST teams).
  • To what extent, and how, have PHIRST project findings been utilised by local government teams outside the area in which a project has taken place?
  • What are the barriers and facilitators of PHIRST being effective in local government? Is PHIRST unearthing issues or challenges with regard to local government-focused research?
  • Is cultural change being achieved through PHIRST? For example regarding the perception and use of evidence by local government – and if so why, or why not? Has PHIRST helped research initiatives and principles spread beyond public health teams to other areas of local government?
  • Are processes of allocating PHIRST teams to projects optimised? – in relation to the prioritisation of expressions of interest received from local government (the perspectives of both successful and unsuccessful local government applicants are relevant). What impact does the geographical proximity of a PHIRST team to a local government/project area have?
  • What has been the effect of PHIRST on relationships with the wider research landscape and infrastructure, for example the higher education sector and HDRCs? What wider impact has the process of co-production of PHIRST research had for stakeholders?
  • Are the differences between PHIRST and HDRCs understood? Are there any perceived gaps or overlaps in these two offers, or views on what else might be needed to support local government?
  • Is PHIRST helping to build capacity and capability in prevention and public health research?
  • To what extent is PHIRST able to facilitate effective public involvement and engagement? 
  • Have there been any unanticipated effects of PHIRST?
  • To what extent have advancements in theory and methods been a by-product of PHIRST?
  • Is the PHIRST scheme likely to be having an effect on health and health inequalities?

Applicants should:

• Justify the evaluation approach or conceptual framework to be used for the evaluation, potentially building on the initial theory of change developed in the formative 2022 evaluation of PHIRST (.PDF) (.PDF).
• Ensure that proposals are informed by the scope and intentions behind the creation of PHIRST, the wider context as it relates to NIHR and local government, and the logic model underlying the PHR Programme.

Domain B: general expectations

Applicants should:

• Describe the team, and its suitability and expertise to conduct the work. The team may be based across more than one institution or organisation.
• Evidence a strong track record of the team and/or its members in conducting high quality, ethical, process/outcome and impact evaluations using multi-methods approaches, aligned to the Magenta Book.
• Incorporate involvement and engagement of the public and of other relevant stakeholders (for example, elected council members, Directors of Public Health, local government organisations) as appropriate.
• Evidence, through the application: (a) an understanding of the complexities of local and national government as it relates to public health policy, practice, and different delivery structures in England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland; (b) familiarity with relevant strategies and goals of the NIHR and DHSC.
• Propose work that represents value for money, justifying costs requested. The cost and duration of the proposed work should be proportionate to the outputs.
• Provide assurance that a Stage 2 application, if shortlisted at Stage 1, would have the support of the host institution(s) or organisation(s). Please include relevant letters of support.

Working with NIHR

Successful applicants are expected to engage closely with NIHR as partners throughout the work, to facilitate access to knowledge and data regarding PHIRST. It is anticipated that the evaluation will be informed by a steering group.

The NIHR PHR Programme is the key customer for the evaluation findings (outputs and recommendations). Dissemination and sharing of findings will be at the discretion of the PHR Programme.

Successful applicants will be asked to provide a final concise report to NIHR, and to share emerging findings in a responsive way (through appropriate means, such as a presentation) during the course of the work. In addition to the final report, a broader range of outputs are encouraged: these might include a presentation, infographic, video, or other formats, to be agreed with the PHR Programme.

Timetable

• Deadline for submission of Stage 1 applications: 1pm, 13 December 2024
• Notification of shortlisting decision: early March 2025
• Window for writing Stage 2 applications: from early March to early May 2025
• Notification of funding decision: mid-end July 2025
• Earliest contract start date for funded team: 1 December 2025

Any changes to these dates will be emailed to all lead applicants who have an application in progress.

Notes to applicants

Successful applicants should expect to be in regular contact with a Research Manager based at the NIHR Co-ordinating Centre, Southampton, throughout the evaluation, for the purposes of monitoring the contract. For context, the NIHR Co-ordinating Centre, Southampton, commissions the PHIRST scheme. 

The Public Health Research (PHR) Programme is funded by the NIHR, with contributions from the CSO in Scotland, Health and Care Research Wales, and the HSC R&D Division, Public Health Agency in Northern Ireland. Researchers in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are eligible to apply for funding under this programme.

Transparency agenda

In line with the government’s transparency agenda, any contract resulting from this tender may be published in its entirety, accessible to the general public. See the Local government transparency code and Contracts finder.

Supporting Information

• tips for success in applying

All primary research projects are expected to establish a programme appointed Study/Trial Steering Committee and it is important that you read the Research Governance Guidelines before completing your application. Costs incurred by this committee should be included in the budget as appropriate.