Streamlined research funding using short proposals and accelerated peer review: an observational study

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Adrian G Barnett (1) (2)
  Danielle L Herbert (1) (3)
  Megan Campbell (1) (2)
  Naomi Daly (2) (4)
  Jason A Roberts (2) (4)
  Alison Mudge (2) (4)
  Nicholas Graves (1) (2)
  
  1. Queensland University of Technology (QUT) ; 60 Musk Ave ; Kelvin Grove ; Brisbane ; QLD ; 4059 ; Australia
  2. Australian Centre for Health Services Innovation (AusHSI) ; 60 Musk Ave ; Kelvin Grove ; Brisbane ; QLD ; 4059 ; Australia
  3. Cerebral Palsy Alliance ; 187 Allambie Road ; Allambie Heights ; Sydney ; NSW ; 2100 ; Australia
  4. Royal Brisbane and Women鈥檚 Hospital (RBWH) ; Herston ; Brisbane ; QLD ; 4029 ; Australia
  
• 刊名：BMC Health Services Research
• 出版年：2015
• 出版时间：December 2015
• 年：2015
• 卷：15
• 期：1
• 全文大小：350 KB
• 参考文献：1. National Institute of Health Research. Policy research programme guidance for applicants. 2013 [https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/media.dh.gov.uk/network/221/files/2013/07/Guidance-for-Applicants.pdf]
  2. National Institute of Health Research. The NIHR health services and delivery research (HS&DR) programme: applying for research funding. 2012 [http://www.nets.nihr.ac.uk/programmes/hsdr]
  3. National Health and Medical Research Council. Research funding facts book 2013. 2014 [https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines/publications/nh167]
  4. Herbert DL, Barnett AG, Clarke P, Graves N. On the time spent preparing grant proposals: an observational study of Australian researchers. BMJ Open. 2013;3(5):e002800. CrossRef
  5. National Health and Medical Research Council. Funding rate and funding by funding scheme. 2013 [http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/grants/outcomes-funding-rounds]
  6. Australian Government. Strategic review of health and medical research in Australia 鈥?better health through research. 2013 [http://www.mckeonreview.org.au]
  7. National Health and Medical Research Council. Australian code for the responsible conduct of research. 2007 [http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines/publications/r39]
  8. National Health and Medical Research Council. National statement on ethical conduct in human research (2007) (Updated March 2014), Chapter 5.1: Institutional responsibilities [http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/book/chapter-5-1-institutional-responsibilities]
  9. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Evaluation of the open operating grant program: final report. 2012 [http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/documents/oogp_evaluation_report_2012_e.pdf]
  10. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Designing for the future: the new open suite of programs and peer review process. 2013 [http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/documents/or_des_for_future-en.pdf]
  11. Queensland Government. Allied health professions鈥?office of Queensland, health practitioner research grant scheme 2014鈥?015 funding. 2013 [http://www.health.qld.gov.au/hpresearch/docs/hprgsguidelines.pdf]
  12. Mow KE, Tait D. Research capacity building: does history really matter? Int J Interdiscipl Soc Sci. 2008;2(5):215鈥?2.
  13. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council. Results of EPSRC peer review survey. 2009 [http://www.epsrc.ac.uk/newsevents/pubs/results-of-epsrc-peer-review-survey/]
  14. Couzin-Frankel J. Biomedical publishing. Secretive and subjective, peer review proves resistant to study. Science. 2013;34(6152):1331. CrossRef
  15. National Institutes of Health. SF424 (R&R) application guide for NIH and other PHS agencies. 2013 [http://grants.nih.gov/Grants/funding/424/SF424_RR_Guide_General_Adobe_VerB.pdf]
  16. Holliday C, Robotin M. The Delphi process: a solution for reviewing novel grant applications. Int J Gen Med. 2010;3:225鈥?0.
  
• 刊物主题：Public Health; Health Administration; Health Informatics; Nursing Management/Nursing Research;
• 出版者：BioMed Central
• ISSN：1472-6963

文摘

Background Despite the widely recognised importance of sustainable health care systems, health services research remains generally underfunded in Australia. The Australian Centre for Health Services Innovation (AusHSI) is funding health services research in the state of Queensland. AusHSI has developed a streamlined protocol for applying and awarding funding using a short proposal and accelerated peer review. Method An observational study of proposals for four health services research funding rounds from May 2012 to November 2013. A short proposal of less than 1,200 words was submitted using a secure web-based portal. The primary outcome measures are: time spent preparing proposals; a simplified scoring of grant proposals (reject, revise or accept for interview) by a scientific review committee; and progressing from submission to funding outcomes within eight weeks. Proposals outside of health services research were deemed ineligible. Results There were 228 eligible proposals across 4 funding rounds: from 29% to 79% were shortlisted and 9% to 32% were accepted for interview. Success rates increased from 6% (in 2012) to 16% (in 2013) of eligible proposals. Applicants were notified of the outcomes within two weeks from the interview; which was a maximum of eight weeks after the submission deadline. Applicants spent 7 days on average preparing their proposal. Applicants with a ranking of reject or revise received written feedback and suggested improvements for their proposals, and resubmissions composed one third of the 2013 rounds. Conclusions The AusHSI funding scheme is a streamlined application process that has simplified the process of allocating health services research funding for both applicants and peer reviewers. The AusHSI process has minimised the time from submission to notification of funding outcomes.