Programme Grants for Applied Research - Stage 1 Committee scoring instructions

  • Published: 3 February 2020
  • Version: V3.0 - May 2023
  • 5 min read

The Stage 1 Committee meeting supports the Programme Director to decide which Stage 1 applications should progress to Stage 2 in priority order. The scoring system should be viewed as an aid for decision-making and prioritisation only. 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.

Stage 1 selection criteria

In assigning individual scores committee members should take into account the overall selection criteria:

  • the importance and relevance of the proposed research to the priorities and needs of the NHS, public health, social care, patients/service users, carers and/or the wider public and population
  • the likelihood of significant benefit to the NHS, public health, social care, patients/service users, carers or public throughout the programme
  • the quality of the research planned
  • the quality of involvement and engagement of patients, service users, carers (PPIE) in developing and supporting the research
  • evidence of attention to issues of equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI)
  • the value for money provided by the application.

Attributes of proposals invited to stage 2

  • No faults or no more than a modest number of minor fixable faults.
  • Proposal that is fully grounded in the relevant literature and addresses a very important area highly relevant to the needs of the NHS, public health, social care, Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), patients/service users, carers and the wider public with very good consideration of unmet need and passes the ‘so what?’ test.
  • Very good articulation of patient/service user, carer benefits.
  • Research is highly likely to produce important findings that could influence practice and/or significant interventions that could be implemented in the NHS, public health or social care to substantially improve outcomes for patients/service users, carers and the public.
  • The research design is very good quality and highly likely to answer the research question without significant revisions. Ambition is very good, with realistic timescales.
  • The approach to PPIE is likely to lead to user-informed outcomes with active involvement and influence of service users at all relevant stages of the project.
  • The project has a robust and relevant EDI strategy that will improve the likelihood of inclusion and/or tackling unmet needs.
  • Excellent value for money and use of public funds. Costed appropriately to deliver outcomes.

Attributes of proposals invited to stage 2 with minor weaknesses/concerns

  • A few major fixable faults or a several of minor fixable faults.
  • Proposal that is grounded in the majority of the relevant literature and addresses an important area relevant to the NHS, public health, social care, DHSC, patients/service users, carers and the wider public with reasonable consideration of unmet need and passes the ‘so what?’ test.
  • Good articulation of patient/service user, carer benefits.
  • Research is likely 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 improve outcomes for patients/service users, carers and the public.
  • The research design is good quality and has the potential to answer the research question. Ambition is good, with realistic timescales. Concerns about the research approach can be readily revised.
  • Well planned PPIE that is likely to lead to user-informed outcomes but might be developed further.
  • Relevant EDI aspects have been considered.
  • Good value for money and use of public funds. Costed properly to deliver outcomes.

Attributes of proposals not invited to stage 2 with moderate weaknesses/concerns

  • Reasonably important research question and/or modest research plans containing some elements of merit but proposal has too many major fixable faults/concerns.
  • Proposal that is moderately grounded in the relevant literature and addresses a reasonably important area relevant to the needs of the NHS, public health and social care, DHSC, patients/service users, carers and the wider public with modest good consideration of unmet need. Modest in respect of passing the ‘so what’ test.
  • Modest articulation of patient/service user, carer benefits.
  • Research has a modest expectation 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 improve outcomes for patients/service users, carers and the public.
  • The research design is of modest quality or is underspecified. The major concerns about the research are unlikely to be fixed. The expectation of successful delivery is moderate.
  • Some appropriate elements of PPIE and EDI but would require further integration.
  • Reasonable value for money and use of public funds.

Attributes of proposals not invited to stage 2 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.
  • Proposal with limited grounding in the relevant literature and addresses a somewhat moderately important area relevant to the needs of the NHS, public health and social care, DHSC, patients/service users, carers and the wider public with limited consideration of unmet need. Unconvincing in respect of passing the ‘so what’ test.
  • Mediocre articulation of patient/service user, carer benefits.
  • Research has a limited expectation 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 improve outcomes for patients/service users, carers and the public.
  • The research design is weak, poorly aligned with the research question(s) and the expectation of success is limited. The major concerns about the design are unlikely to be fixed.
  • The approach to PPIE and EDI is of questionable quality.
  • Questionable value for money and an inappropriate use of public funds.

Attributes of proposals not invited to stage 2 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 that is not grounded in the relevant literature and does not address an important research area relevant to the needs of the NHS, public health and social care, DHSC, patients/service users, carers and the wider public with no focus on unmet need. Does not pass the ‘so what’ test.
  • Poorly articulated patient/service user, carer benefits.
  • Research 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 improve outcomes for patients/service users, carers and the public.
  • The research design is poor or flawed with serious scientific concerns. The feasibility of delivering the research proposed is questioned.
  • The approach to PPIE and EDI appears poorly integrated and is of questionable quality.
  • Poor value for money and an inappropriate use of public funds.

Scoring grid

Score Definition Description
6 Invite Excellent
5 Invite
Good
4 Invite
Minor weaknesses/concerns
3 Decline Moderate weaknesses/concerns
2 Decline Significant weaknesses/concerns
1 Decline Severe weaknesses/concerns