EBOP Child Health Research Assessment Criteria - Projects greater than $10,000

Update 1 November 2018 EASTERN BAY OF PLENTY CHILD HEALTH RESEARCH TRUST RESEARCH CRITERIA FOR APPLICATIONS >$10,000 1.0

Introduction

The Eastern Bay of Plenty Hepatitis ‘B’ Immunisation Trust was established in 1983 under the Charitable Trusts Act for the purposes of promoting the vaccination of pre-school and primary school children against Hepatitis B, and to promote and encourage research into child-related diseases.

This Trust collected and administered funds sourced from the communities of the Eastern Bay of Plenty to provide a Hepatitis B immunisation programme to pre-school and primary school children of the Eastern Bay of Plenty. The programme was undertaken on behalf of the Trust by the Whakatāne Hospital.

Once the success of the Hepatitis B immunisation programme was realised, immunisation of pre-school and primary school children against Hepatitis B was incorporated into a national vaccination programme that was, and continues to be, funded and administered by the Ministry of Health. The Trust invested the balance of community funds that remained in the Trust’s care after the Ministry of Health incorporated Hepatitis B vaccinations into its national immunisation strategy. These monies have accrued interest and the Eastern Bay of Plenty Immunisation ‘B’ Trust Board wished to make these funds available to promoting the purposes of the Trust.

As a consequence of Hepatitis B vaccinations being funded and administered by the Ministry of Health, the Trustees looked to the wider aims of the Trust and determined it would be appropriate to alter the name of the Trust to reflect these wider aims. The Eastern Bay of Plenty Hepatitis ‘B’ Immunisation Trust subsequently became the Eastern Bay of Plenty Child Health Research Trust which was registered as an Incorporated Trust on 12 March 2018.

Making research funding available through an application process is the mechanism the Eastern Bay of Plenty Child Health Research Trust has adopted to achieve its purposes.

2.0

Application Evaluation

Applications will be evaluated through a two stage process against two sets of criteria. The first stage includes criteria that reinforce the purpose of the Eastern Bay of Plenty Child Health Research Trust in improving the health of Eastern Bay of Plenty children. The second stage involves an evaluation of the technical robustness of application proposals.

2.1

Stage 1 Criteria

Qualifying applications must address the following criteria: 2.1.1

Community engagement - the proposal demonstrates how the research and potential outcomes are a priority for Eastern Bay of Plenty communities with relevant community engagement by individuals, communities and/or organisations in conceptualisation, development and approval, data collection and management, analysis, report writing and dissemination of results.

1

Update 1 November 2018 2.1.2

Benefit - the potential health benefit of the project is demonstrated by addressing an important public health issue for Eastern Bay of Plenty peoples. This benefit can have a single focus or affect several areas, such as knowledge, policy or quality of life. The benefit may be direct and immediate or it can be indirect, gradual and considered.

2.1.3

Sustainability and transferability - the proposal demonstrates how the results of the project have the potential to lead to achievable and effective contributions to health gain for Eastern Bay of Plenty peoples, beyond the life of the project. This may be through sustainability in the project setting and/or transferability to other settings such as evidence-based practice and/or policy. In considering this issue the proposal should address the relationship between costs and benefits.

2.1.4

Building capability - the proposal demonstrates how Eastern Bay of Plenty peoples, communities and researchers will develop relevant capabilities through partnerships and participation in the project.

The Research Advisory Group will consider these in its overall assessment of the application; together with the Stage 2 assessment criteria 2.2

Stage 2 Criteria1

Specific Assessment Criteria are: 2.2.1

Scientific Quality (%) This includes the clarity of the hypotheses or research objectives, the strengths and weaknesses of the study design and feasibility.

The research proposal may be assessed in terms of, but not limited to: (a) Clarity of the hypothesis or research objectives, including: i.

Has the method/framework been partially tested? ii.

What outcome is sought in the proposed study? What exactly is the outcome measure? iii.

Is it well integrated and adequately developed? (b) Is there a clear and appropriate research plan i.

What are the strengths and weaknesses of the study and its design? ii.

Have any major pitfalls or problems been overlooked?

11

Sourced from the NHMRC Project Grants Funding Policy for Funding

2

Update 1 November 2018 iii.

Have alternative approaches been considered? iv.

Is the plan well informed by knowledge of the literature? v.

Is the design appropriate for the aims of the research? (c) Feasibility i.

Will the research plan successfully address the stated hypothesis or research objectives? ii.

Are the goals concrete and achievable? iii.

Is the investigating team appropriate – is it capable of achieving the goals? Does it have the right skills and expertise?

2.2.2

Significance and/or Innovation (%) This includes the potential to increase knowledge about human health, disease diagnoses, or biology of agents that affect human health, or the application of new ideas, procedures, technologies, programs or health policy settings to important topics that will impact on human health.

Note: Applications do not need to be rated on both significance and innovation. Truly innovative ideas and research may not reveal their significance until sometime in the future. Similarly, research of the highest significance e.g. important randomised clinical trials or public health intervention studies, may use ‘tried and true’ methods only, yet be of immense significance to health. Reviewers will use peer review judgement.

Applications may be assessed in terms of, but not limited to: (a) Is the problem important? (b) Will the work or research have an impact? (c) Is the proposed research new/novel or creative? (d) How will scientific knowledge be advanced? (e) What will be the effect of the study on the concepts or methods that drive this field? (f) Does the research challenge existing models or develop new technologies or new study methods? (g) How well does the proposal describe the new ideas, procedures, technologies, programs or health policy settings?

2.2.3

Track Record (%) Track record is considered in terms of whether an applicant’s previous research demonstrates that the researcher (or team) is capable of achieving the proposed project and/or ability to deliver the proposed project in terms of having the appropriate mix of research skills and experience.

3

Update 1 November 2018

Track record may encompass the national and international standing of the applicant(s) based upon their research achievements, including but not limited to:  Research outputs – most recent significant publications, publications that illustrate innovation and significance to past accomplishments; impact or outcome of previous research achievements, including effects on health care practices or policy; awards or honours in recognition of achievements;  Contribution to discipline or area – invitations to speak at international meetings, editorial appointments, specialist and high level health policy committee appointments; and  Other research-related achievements such as: o Influence on clinical/health policy or practice, or provision of influential advice to health authorities or government o Impacts on health via the broad dissemination of research outcomes: e.g. via mainstream media, the community or industry involvement

4

Update 1 November 2018 Project Grant Category Descriptors The following category descriptors are used to score an application against each of the assessment criteria: (1) Scientific achievement; (2) Significance and Innovation; and (3) Track Record. Categories 1-3 are not fundable.

5

Update 1 November 2018

3 Not Competitive – The application is considered to be satisfactory in terms of its scientific quality, and while the Trust is confident that the applicants will be able to undertake the research, on balance it is not competitive.

2. Marginal – The application displays a number of good features but is not competitive.

1. Poor – The application is not of sufficient quality to be competitive against any of the criteria.

6

Update 1 November 2018 Research Involving Maori The Eastern Bay of Plenty Hepatitis B Immunisation Trust recognises that health research that focuses on health of Eastern Bay of Plenty children is likely to include children of Maori ethnicity. Applicants considering research that involve Maori should familiarise themselves with Guidelines for Researchers on Health Research Involving Maori (2010) (Health Research Council of New Zealand, Version 2)2. Applications for research involving Maori children will be reviewed for alignment with the Guidelines for Researchers on Health Research Involving Maori.

2

This document is available on the Health Research Council of New Zealand Website: Refer http://www.hrc.govt.nz

7