The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository
Warning ePrints Soton is experiencing an issue with some file downloads not being available. We are working hard to fix this. Please bear with us.

PP021 Peer review innovations for grant applications: Efficient and effective?

PP021 Peer review innovations for grant applications: Efficient and effective?
PP021 Peer review innovations for grant applications: Efficient and effective?
INTRODUCTION Peer review of grant applications is employed routinely by health research funding bodies to determine which research proposals should be funded. Peer review faces a number of criticisms, however, especially that it is time consuming, financially expensive, and may not select the best proposals. Various modifications to peer review have been examined in research studies but these have not been systematically reviewed to guide Health Technology Assessment (HTA) funding agencies. METHODS We developed a systematic map based on a logic model to summarize the characteristics of empirical studies that have investigated peer review of health research grant applications. Consultation with stakeholders from a major health research funder (the United Kingdom National Institute for Health Research, NIHR) helped to identify topic areas within the map of particular interest. Innovations that could improve the efficiency and/or effectiveness of peer review were agreed as being a priority for more detailed analysis. Studies of these innovations were identified using pre-specified eligibility criteria and were subjected to a full systematic review. RESULTS The systematic map includes eighty-one studies, most published since 2005, indicating an increasing area of investigation. Studies were mostly observational and retrospective in design, and a large proportion have been conducted in the United States, with many conducted by the National Institutes of Health. An example of an innovation is video training to improve reviewer reliability. Although research councils in the United Kingdom have conducted several relevant studies, these have mainly examined existing practices rather than testing peer review innovations. Full results of the systematic review will be provided in the presentation, and we will assess which innovations could improve the efficiency and/or effectiveness of peer review for selecting health research proposals. CONCLUSIONS Despite considerable interest in, and criticism of, peer review for helping to select health research proposals, there have been few detailed systematic examinations of the primary research evidence in this area. Our evidence synthesis provides the most up-to-date overview of evidence in this important developing area, with recommendations for health research funders in their decision making.
peer review, grant applications, health research funding, innovations, efficiency, effectiveness, systematic map, Systematic review
0266-4623
77-78
Frampton, Geoffrey
26c6163c-3428-45b8-b8b9-92091ff6c69f
Shepherd, Jonathan
dfbca97a-9307-4eee-bdf7-e27bcb02bc67
Pickett, Karen
1bac9d88-da29-4a3e-9fd2-e469f129f963
Wyatt, Jeremy
8361be5a-fca9-4acf-b3d2-7ce04126f468
Frampton, Geoffrey
26c6163c-3428-45b8-b8b9-92091ff6c69f
Shepherd, Jonathan
dfbca97a-9307-4eee-bdf7-e27bcb02bc67
Pickett, Karen
1bac9d88-da29-4a3e-9fd2-e469f129f963
Wyatt, Jeremy
8361be5a-fca9-4acf-b3d2-7ce04126f468

Frampton, Geoffrey, Shepherd, Jonathan, Pickett, Karen and Wyatt, Jeremy (2017) PP021 Peer review innovations for grant applications: Efficient and effective? International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 33 (S1), 77-78.

Record type: Meeting abstract

Abstract

INTRODUCTION Peer review of grant applications is employed routinely by health research funding bodies to determine which research proposals should be funded. Peer review faces a number of criticisms, however, especially that it is time consuming, financially expensive, and may not select the best proposals. Various modifications to peer review have been examined in research studies but these have not been systematically reviewed to guide Health Technology Assessment (HTA) funding agencies. METHODS We developed a systematic map based on a logic model to summarize the characteristics of empirical studies that have investigated peer review of health research grant applications. Consultation with stakeholders from a major health research funder (the United Kingdom National Institute for Health Research, NIHR) helped to identify topic areas within the map of particular interest. Innovations that could improve the efficiency and/or effectiveness of peer review were agreed as being a priority for more detailed analysis. Studies of these innovations were identified using pre-specified eligibility criteria and were subjected to a full systematic review. RESULTS The systematic map includes eighty-one studies, most published since 2005, indicating an increasing area of investigation. Studies were mostly observational and retrospective in design, and a large proportion have been conducted in the United States, with many conducted by the National Institutes of Health. An example of an innovation is video training to improve reviewer reliability. Although research councils in the United Kingdom have conducted several relevant studies, these have mainly examined existing practices rather than testing peer review innovations. Full results of the systematic review will be provided in the presentation, and we will assess which innovations could improve the efficiency and/or effectiveness of peer review for selecting health research proposals. CONCLUSIONS Despite considerable interest in, and criticism of, peer review for helping to select health research proposals, there have been few detailed systematic examinations of the primary research evidence in this area. Our evidence synthesis provides the most up-to-date overview of evidence in this important developing area, with recommendations for health research funders in their decision making.

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

Published date: 2017
Keywords: peer review, grant applications, health research funding, innovations, efficiency, effectiveness, systematic map, Systematic review

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 420983
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/420983
ISSN: 0266-4623
PURE UUID: f4fb1ad8-9113-4e2c-9ac6-191ae34c82d0
ORCID for Geoffrey Frampton: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0003-2005-0497
ORCID for Jonathan Shepherd: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0003-1682-4330
ORCID for Karen Pickett: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-8631-6465
ORCID for Jeremy Wyatt: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0001-7008-1473

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 21 May 2018 16:30
Last modified: 10 Nov 2021 03:40

Export record

Contributors

Author: Karen Pickett ORCID iD
Author: Jeremy Wyatt ORCID iD

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×