Download newsletter pdf here - RDS London - NIHR

0 downloads 232 Views 1003KB Size Report
Nov 18, 2015 - Research Design Service London. NEWSLETTER. Case study: funding success for innovative qualitative study
Research Design Service London

NEWSLETTER In this issue: NIHR funding success for innovative qualitative study Efficient study designs call Considering using qualitative methods? Our advisors give their top six tips Upcoming funding deadlines Ask RDS PPI Update

Your Local RDS London Team Contact Details North London University College London Administrator: Mina Akthar 020 7794 0500 ext. 34753 [email protected] South London King’s College London Administrator: Ray Leal 020 7848 6782 [email protected] East London Queen Mary University of London Administrator: Glen Poon 020 7882 2498 [email protected] West London Imperial College London Administrator: Kimberley Foley [email protected]

www.rdslondon.co.uk

Issue 17 Winter 2015

Case study: funding success for innovative qualitative study in gastrostomy support services A qualitative study that was supported by RDS London has recently been awarded £376,000 of NIHR Health Services and Delivery Research (HS&DR) funding. The newly funded study is led by Dr Gillian Craig, Senior Lecturer Disability and Social Inclusion from the Centre for Maternal and Child Health, City University London. Her study aims to identify best practice models of psychosocial support for children with neuro-disability and feeding difficulties requiring a gastrostomy feeding tube and their families. A national survey and case study approach will be used to map and cost service models, care pathways and the child and family experience. “Case studies are a potentially very rich but relatively underutilised method in health services research,” said Jill Russell from Queen Mary University of London, who was the RDS adviser on the study. “This exciting new study illustrates the strength of a case study approach.” Dr Gill Craig

RDS London provided support around the case study element of the research, especially a partnership between

focussing on difficulties arising from the large variability in how these services are delivered in the context of a changing landscape of service provision. “Advice on developing a strategy and appropriate criteria for selecting study sites in the face of uncertainty was really helpful,” said Dr Craig. “It was great working with someone very knowledgeable in qualitative methods and, most importantly, someone who understood what the NIHR panel members and reviewers would be looking for in a research proposal. “Getting advice on responding to reviewers’ comments was also helpful. I would definitely recommend working with the RDS. Having someone who understands the requirements of the funding stream and who can offer an external perspective as a critical friend is really useful.” We wish Dr Craig and her team the very best for conducting her new study.

www.rdslondon.co.uk

Considering using qualitative methods? Our advisors give their top six tips Jill Russell Qualitative

methods lead

Efficient study designs call The NIHR are interested in funding primary research using efficient study designs to evaluate clinical and public health interventions for the NHS. The focus of the call is to encourage research that will allow more rapid conduct or lower costs when benchmarked against conventional pragmatic trials, yet still provide robust evidence to the NHS to guide decisions in important clinical areas. The Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme is interested in the use of study designs that will promote rapid or more efficient recruitment or studies that exploit existing trial cohorts, existing datasets or electronic health records. Non randomised evaluations will also be considered, where bias can be reduced to acceptable levels. Studies that focus on a limited number of the most important outcomes that allow rapid follow-up would also be within remit. As always, applicants should clearly describe the significance of the study to the NHS, but also articulate the cost benefits of the statistical or operational efficiencies that have been incorporated into the design of studies targeting this call. Although the deadline for submission of an expression of interest to their researcher-led work stream for this funding call is Wednesday 18th November 2015, the call represents a more general interest by NIHR in the use of efficient study designs.

When we think about NIHR research, often what comes to mind are quantitative randomised controlled trials and clinical research. But a closer look at the NIHR portfolio of funded projects reveals the range of qualitative studies and methodologies supported by NIHR on a variety of health services research topics. About a quarter of recently funded NIHR projects include a qualitative component of their design, with methods ranging from in-depth interviews (www.bit.ly/ HTA1219210) and focus groups (www. bit.ly/HTA1215004), to ethnographic observation (www.bit.ly/HSDR131080), qualitative systematic reviews (www. bit.ly/HSDR1419807) and conversation analysis (www.bit.ly/HSDR1311493). Many of these studies are mixed methods – undertaking qualitative research alongside a trial, often to explore the acceptability of an intervention and to understand the processes of implementation. However, a number of studies are entirely qualitative (www.bit.ly/HSDR135926). The value of qualitative research is its concern to explore meaning and interpretation of the social world. Qualitative research addresses ‘why’ and ‘how’ questions, for example, ‘WHY do some patients not take the medicines they are prescribed by their doctor?’, or ‘HOW do online support groups help patients with cancer’? The emphasis of qualitative research is on understanding rather than measurement. Our team of advisors at RDS London have extensive experience in qualitative methods and supporting applicants in popular methods such as interviews

and focus groups, as well as the more specialist areas of case study design, interpretive policy analysis, discourse analysis, co-design methods, participatory research methods, and the Delphi consensus method. Or, if necessary, we can put applicants in touch with colleagues who have expertise in a specialist area. As advisors on qualitative methods, what is some of the most common advice we give on applications? 1. The need to justify chosen methods. Too often we see proposals that simply state ‘we will undertake 20 in-depth interviews and five focus groups’. Why are in-depth interviews and focus groups the most appropriate methods for the data you want to collect? What are the specific advantages (and disadvantages) of these methods over others? Why and how did you choose a sample size of 20 interviews and five focus groups? 2. Consider using qualitative methods that go beyond straightforward interviews and focus groups. For example, if you want to explore the acceptability of an intervention, in addition to interviewing health professionals and patients, you may consider using ethnographic methods to observe the unfolding of an intervention in practice. 3. Be careful about use of technical language (what some might consider jargon). We see too many applications that include terms such as ‘data saturation’, ‘the constant comparative method’, and ‘triangulation’ with little sense that applicants understand their meaning and relevance. Terms that are sometimes inserted to impress a reviewer can unfortunately have the opposite effect if left unexplained. 4. Make sure that any study proposal draws and builds on the existing knowledge base in an area. Often ►

RDS London Newsletter Winter 2015 Issue 17

proposals for studies of patient experience neglect to explore existing qualitative literature in that area. A common resource we refer applicants to is the excellent site of the Health Experiences Research Group (www.phc. ox.ac.uk/research/health-experiences). 5. There is an important but often blurred distinction between patient and public involvement (PPI) and qualitative research into patients’ views. PPI is concerned with getting patients’ input into the study design, implementation and dissemination; qualitative research is focused on exploring patients’ views to address specific research questions. The latter constitutes research data collection and analysis, whereas the former is part of research management and governance to ensure that the study design, implementation and reporting takes full consideration of the patient perspective.

qualitative expertise on an application is insufficient. If your study includes a qualitative component, make sure you have someone with qualitative expertise as an active member of the study team; for a research proposal to be successful that person needs to be fully engaged with designing the study

and then undertaking or supervising the qualitative component if and when the study receives funding. Jill Russell is based at Queen Mary University of London. More information about qualitative research methods: www.bit.ly/RDSqual

6. Lastly, but importantly, simply putting a name of someone with

Upcoming Funding Deadlines C=commissioned; RL=researcher-led; ES=evidence synthesis; EoI=expression of interest; Full=full proposal Call

Categories

Date

NIHR Central Commissioning Facility (CCF) Funding Deadlines Product Development Awards & Challenge Awards

13 Jan 2016, 27 May 2015

Multiple Morbidities in Older People Themed Call

20 May 2015

Fellowship Programme

Full

20 January 2016

Policy Research Programme (PRP)

C, Full

17 Nov 2015, 24 Nov 2015

Competition 15

8 March 2016

Competition 16

22 July 2016 

Programme Grants for Applied Research (PGfAR)

Competition 20, Stage 1

6 April 2016

Competition 21, Stage 1

27 July 2016

Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB)

Competition 28, Stage 1

2 Dec 2015

Invention for Innovation (i4i)

Programme Development Grants (PDG)

NIHR National Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre (NETSCC) Funding Deadlines Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME)

Health Technology Assessment (HTA)

Health Services and Delivery Research (HS&DR) Public Health Research (PHR)

C, Full

15 March 2016

RL, Full

18 Nov 2015

RL, EoI; ES, EoI; C, EoI

4 Dec 2015

C, EoI

21 January 2016

C, EoI

19 May 2016

C, Full

17 Dec 2015

RL, EoI; ES, Full

14 Jan 2016

C, Full

30 Nov 2015

C, Full

26 April 2016

If applying for funding, please check the accuracy of the information provided above on the relevant NIHR webpage.

Ask RDS

Q. I’m fairly new to research and I’m wondering how to identify co-investigators for my grant application?

A: While many funding streams require the principle investigator (PI) to have substantial experience, there are some funding streams suitable for new investigators (particularly research charities that hand out small grants and some funding streams that allow co-PIs). The NIHR RfPB funding stream has stated an intention to support new PIs, providing they have a very strong team of co-applicants (some funding streams allow co-PIs).

Alternatively, with funding specified in your application you may be able to pay for statistical or health economics consultancy. For health psychology, the European Health Psychology Society has a searchable member directory that can be restricted to UK-only (www.bit.ly/ EHPSdirectory).

For patient and public involvement (PPI), find out if there are existing patient groups or research advisory panels Deciding when to approach collaborators for your research topic. You may be can be challenging. Early collaborator able to find these through your local input can provide guidance on refining hospital, GP user groups, or NIHR’s the research question to ensure it’s INVOLVE People in Research (www. relevant, important and feasible to test. peopleinresearch.org). It is recommended to include a How RDS London can help: clinical expert in the disease and • As part of the advice that RDS population being studied, and larger provides, your adviser will review multidisciplinary programmes of work team composition, identify gaps and are likely to need a team methodological suggest collaborators. experts, such as statisticians, economists, or qualitative experts. • For PPI, RDS London maintains lists of individuals, patient groups and Sometimes it is better to first refine your organisations interested in being research question and then use that to involved in research. identify the type of expertise needed in a potential collaborator, or support needed in specialist areas such as health economics, qualitative methods or statistics.

• To apply for costs of initial PPI work, see RDS London’s Enabling Involvement Fund.

The first place to look for these people is through your current contacts or colleagues in your department and ask them if they can recommend anyone.

You will need to consider the record of the co-applicant in getting research funded, and also how available they are likely to be in practice to give you support and guidance.

If a Clinical Trials Unit has agreed to support your trial then they may be able to suggest a trial statistician or health economist for you to approach.

There is more information and advice on our website: www.bit.ly/RDSresearchteam

Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) Update Dr. Aris KomporozosAthanasiou PPI Advisor The PPI team at RDS London is pleased to welcome a new member: Jonathan Paylor, who joined the PPI team in October 2015 as research assistant in patient and public involvement. Jonathan brings in expertise in social science research and participatory research methods. He will be acting as the first point of contact for researchers seeking advice on how to involve patients and the public in the development of their grant applications. Following discussions with our RDS London PPI Advisory Group, we have expanded our existing lay advisors’ network, and have established new services such as dedicated lay summary reviewing for London researchers. We have also linked with existing primary care/CCG patient groups in order to involve more patient representatives in research studies that demand noncondition-specific lay input. Due to popular demand, we will be increasing the number of our patient-led PPI workshops from five to six per year; we will also be expanding our team of patient trainers through recruitment of two new members of the public for the delivery of the workshops. The next PPI workshop, co-organised with the Biomedical Research Centre at Guy’s Hospital, is scheduled for the 25th November 2015.

Contact Details www.rdslondon.co.uk [email protected] 020 7848 6782 RDS London 4th Floor Addison House Guy’s Campus, KCL London SE1 1UL

Dr Peter J Lovell Deputy Director [email protected] 020 7848 6632 Dr Aris Komporozos-Athanasiou Patient and Public Involvement Adviser [email protected] 020 7848 6763

Ray Leal Core Administrator [email protected] 020 7848 6782

Dr Hilary Jones Communications Manager [email protected] 020 7848 6684