Features of successful bids for funding of applied health research: a cohort study

Sheila Turner,Peter Davidson,Louise Stanton,Victoria Cawdeary

doi:10.1186/1478-4505-12-54

Abstract

BackgroundThe literature suggests that research funding decisions may be influenced by criteria such as gender or institution of the principal investigator (PI). The aim of this study was to investigate the association between characteristics of funding applications and success when considered by a research funding board.MethodsWe selected a retrospective cohort of 296 outline applications for primary research (mainly pragmatic clinical trials) submitted to the commissioning board of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme between January 1st 2006 and December 31st 2009. We selected proposals submitted to the commissioned NIHR HTA work stream as they addressed issues which the programme already deemed to be important, hence the priority of the research question was not considered as one of the selection criteria for success or failure. Main outcome measures were success or failure at short-listing and in obtaining research funding.ResultsThe characteristics of applications associated with success at shortlisting and funding were multi-disciplinarity of the team (OR 19.94 [5.13, 77.50], P <0.0001), particularly inclusion of a statistician (OR 3.76 [2.21, 6.37], P <0.0001), and the completion of a pilot/feasibility study (OR 4.11 [1.24, 13.62], P = 0.0209). The gender of the PI was not associated with success or failure at either stage. The PI’s affiliation institution was not associated with success or failure at shortlisting.ConclusionsThe gender of the PI was not associated with success or failure. The characteristics of research applications most strongly associated with success were related to the range of expertise in the team and the completion of a pilot or feasibility study.

Highlights

The literature suggests that research funding decisions may be influenced by criteria such as gender or institution of the principal investigator (PI)
We undertook a retrospective cohort study of funding applications submitted to the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Commissioning Board, a committee of just over 20 independent senior academic clinicians and methodologists, selected for their experience in carrying out high quality health research
Applications in response to a particular commissioning brief were in direct competition with each other, and funding decisions made on the quality of the application alone, as other variables such as research question and study outline framework had been indicated by the brief

Summary

Introduction

The literature suggests that research funding decisions may be influenced by criteria such as gender or institution of the principal investigator (PI). The aim of this study was to investigate the association between characteristics of funding applications and success when considered by a research funding board. A system of peer review and selection by boards or committees is common to many funding organisations. Previous analysis conducted over the last 10 to 12 years (mainly in the USA), suggests that in medical and biomedical research criteria, such as gender [24,25,26,27] or institution [28] of the principal investigator (PI) and the amount of funding available [29], may have an influence on success or failure in obtaining funding. A large metaanalysis considering gender differences in peer review of grant applications across a range of disciplines [35], and a later study [36], found no gender differences

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion