All applications to EME must cite some evidence that the intervention could work, i.e. that there is “proof of concept”. How much prior evidence of potential efficacy is needed will vary with the size of the translational step, the scale of the proposed study and the nature of the intervention. This document looks a examples of proof of concept that are accepted by the EME Funding Committees
In 2016, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Journals Library published a series of essays, in which a range of UK and international experts in health services research identified current developments and future challenges in methods to evaluate health, social care and public health innovations. It was recognised that this volume did not comprehensively address the full array of methods. One such gap was the economic evaluation of service innovations.
There are well-developed guidelines for economic evaluation of clearly defined clinical interventions, but no such guidelines for economic analysis of service interventions. Distinctive challenges for analysis of service interventions include diffuse effects, wider system impacts, and variability in implementation, costs and effects. Cost-effectiveness evidence is as important for service interventions as for clinical interventions. There is also an important role for wider forms of economic analysis to increase our general understanding of context, processes and behaviours in the care system. Methods exist to estimate the cost-effectiveness of service interventions before and after introduction, to measure patient and professional preferences, to reflect the value of resources used by service interventions, and to capture wider system effects, but these are not widely applied. Future priorities for economic analysis should be to produce cost-effectiveness evidence and to increase our understanding of how service interventions affect, and are affected by, the care system.
THis curent report looks at:
There has been a question about the amount by which applications may vary in cost between Stage 1 and Stage 2 and a perception that costs should not vary by more than 10%. The official position is now that “It is accepted that a variance in costs is likely to occur between Stage 1 and Stage 2, but costs at each stage should represent value for money. Advisory committees may provide project specific costing guidance/feedback following stage 1.”
The health economic evidence resource (HEER) tool shows the main cost-effectiveness and return on investment evidence on activities in the public health grant.
Each piece of evidence is summarised across over 20 criteria to provide details on how the results were created and to highlight the inputs and assumptions used in the original studies. This allows users to understand the relevance and apply the evidence to their local setting.
Created on Friday, 05 Apr 2019. Posted in Toolkit/Database
Asthma UK have created guidance for researchers writing a grant application for research into asthma. It provides advice on application forms, peer review and finance, and what funders are looking for at each stage of your application.
Created on Friday, 05 Apr 2019. Posted in Literature
Mental health conditions are the largest single cause of disability in the UK, with one in 4 adults experiencing a mental health condition in any given year. NICE plays a key role in setting high standards for the care of people with mental health conditions. Since the publication of NICE’s first guideline, which was on schizophrenia in 2002, NICE has published a large suite of 33 guidelines and 18 quality standards to support the identification and management of common and severe mental health conditions in children, young people and adults. This report considers how
NICE’s evidence-based guidance cancontribute to improvements in the care ofpeople with mental health conditions. Areas covered:
Created on Friday, 05 Apr 2019. Posted in Costing
NHS England, the HRA and the NIHR have jointly developed a National Directive on Commercial Contract Research, which will enable a study-based approach across England to the costing and contracting elements of commercial contract research. Guidance has been published on the NIHR website, outlining what the new requirements for NHS providers in England will mean for the life sciences sector.
Created on Thursday, 04 Apr 2019. Posted in Funding
Every year innovators in England develop countless promising medical technologies, many of which are funded by the NIHR. But too many don’t make it all the way into the NHS and across the finish line of patient benefit.
In order to be of interest to the NHS, a product must address an existing clinical problem. It should be measured against the right comparators, and demonstrate either better patient outcomes, or cost savings, or both. In addition, its implementation needs to be sustainable; furthermore, there is a need to identify the clinical pathway that will be disrupted with its use, and the consequences of that disruption.
These questions are particularly difficult for SMEs to answer, as this requires novel trial approaches and a multidisciplinary effort, involving not only technology developers, but also clinicians, methodologists, health economists, implementation scientists, amongst others. These interventions can be expensive, and financial and time constraints sometimes limit their scope.
To help overcome this hurdle i4i is dedictaing its i4i Challenge Awards to real world implementation of mearket ready medtechinnovations.
Created on Wednesday, 27 Mar 2019. Posted in Funding
The NIHR has launched a new funding competition to allocate up to £56 million of funding over 5 years to public health research. The competition will award funding from the Department of Health and Social Care to 14 NIHR Health Protection Research Units (HPRUs) - partnerships between academic institutions and Public Health England (PHE). These new units will act as centres of excellence in multidisciplinary health protection research in England.
The NIHR have launched a new funding and awards database covering all of their funding streams, listing current and past projects.
Information on each award covers plain English summary and abstract, as well as the funding amount, investigators, start and end date, funding stream, research type and contracting organisation.