Criteria for Assessing Research Proposals

 The following pages provide details on the criteria used by the Research Advisory Committee on assessing research proposals.

CRITERIA USED FOR ASSESSING SHORT RESEARCH PROPOSALS

1. Relevance

• Is the research within designated priority areas ?
• Does the research address an important problem ?
• What new information will the research produce which is not already known ?
• How can the results be operationalised into clinical or public health practice ?
• What are the probable health and/or economic benefits of the research  ?

2. Quality of Protocol

• Introduction
• Aims
• Methods
• Analysis
• Reporting

 3. Feasibility

• Practicability
• Experience of researchers 

 4. Ethics

• Is the study lawful
• Stage of ethics or QA submission

 5.Budget and Cost 

• Cost and cost‑effectiveness
• Cost‑benefit 

 

 

CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING LONG RESEARCH PROTOCOLS

1. Introduction 

• Is the context of the study adequately described ?                             
• Is local and international information on the research topic adequately reviewed ?
• Is the scientific and health services rationale for the study adequately explained ?
• Is an explanation given concerning  how the results of the study can be used ?
• Is there sufficient multi‑disciplinary involvement in the study ?          

2.  Aims

• Are the aims clearly stated in a way which is amenable to scientific investigation ?
• Are research questions and hypotheses explicitly stated ‑ if this is appropriate ?
• Are the variables clearly described ‑ if this is appropriate ?

3.  Methods 

3.1. Study design 

• Is the type(s) of study and scientific approach(s) clearly described ?
• Are the methods capable of answering the research questions ?
• Are combinations of methods applied if this is required by the research questions ?
• Are standard methods being used (and described) or are new methods being developed (and explained) ?
• Are the methods described in sufficient detail ?
• Are the outcome factor(s), study factors and confounders adequately characterised and their measurement described ?
• What is the validity of the measurement methods ?
• Will assessment of the validity of some measurements be undertaken ?  How will this be performed ?
• Have all confounding factors been clearly defined and will data be collected on these ?  What of unmeasured confounders ?
• Are some measured variables being used as proxies for other unmeasured variables and what is the legitimacy of this ?

3.2. Sampling                         

• Is the source of specimens or study populations clearly identified ?
• Is the method of selecting and sampling specimens, people, households or communities appropriate for the study ?
• Are the numbers of cases adequate for the study ?  Have sample size calculations been performed where this is relevant ?  

3.3. Materials                        

• Are adequate laboratory and/or computer facilities available to perform the research ?
• Are adequate scientific instruments and/or reagents available to perform the research ?
• Is an adequate survey instrument (questionnaire or data form) available, or will it be developed (and how) ?
• Are skilled personnel available to collect the information or will they be trained ?

3.4. Implementation

• Can the research study be implemented ?  Is it practical ?
• Can specimens be obtained ?  Will people and communities agree to participate ?
• Will hospitals and health services agree to co‑operate as required ?
• Will collaborative arrangements between researchers work ?
• Are there previous or pilot studies which indicate that this study can be done ?
• Does the previous record of the researchers indicate that they have the required  skills and experience ?
• What arrangements are there to ensure data quality and minimise information bias during data collection ?
• What arrangements are there to ensure maximum participation and avoid selection bias ?
• Is there a description or a diagram to indicate the time lines for implementation of the study ?

3.5. Analysis of information

• What is the basic strategy for the analysis ?
• Are the proposed methods of analysis described in sufficient detail ?
• Are the proposed methods of analysis appropriate for the type of study and kind of information collected ?
• Do the researchers understand the approach to analysis, have the tools (e.g. computers and  programs), and are they capable of analysing the information ?
• Are the researchers aware of problems of bias and confounding and how do they propose to deal with these at the analysis stage?

3.5. Reporting

• Do the researchers explain how the results of the research will be reported, and to who ?
• Will the researchers present information at meetings and conferences ?
• Will the results be published as reports, conference papers, and/or in scientific journals ?
• Will the research reports be scientifically reviewed ?
• Will information be transmitted to the public or patient groups ?

4. Ethics

• Is the study ethical and lawful ? 
• Has the study been approved by, or will it be submitted to, an ethics committee or assessor?
• Is the use of routinely or specially collected data or specimens for this research covered by an appropriate law ?
• Are subjects invited to participate and is consent obtained ? 
• Are consent and patient information forms acceptable ?
• In cases of sensitive information, are questions relating to these topics in the questionnaire acceptable ?
• Are subjects  allowed to decline or discontinue without sanction ?
• Is confidentiality of individual information maintained ?  What security arrangements are there for protection of identified physical and electronic records ?
• Is treatment and/or counselling offered for cases of disease which are detected ?
• Could there be adverse effects of the questionnaire or invasive procedures, or from new information uncovered on individuals, and how would these situations be handled ?
• Is there evidence of safety for new medications or procedures before clinical trials begin ?
• Are subjects in clinical trials being offered new treatments which can reasonably be expected to be equivalent or better than standard treatments available according to existing evidence ?
•  Is there provision to stop clinical trials if some groups show markedly better or worse results than others ?
• Are extra medical costs for patients resulting from research studies covered ?
• Do the potential benefits of the research to the community outweigh the risks, inconvenience and/or invasion of privacy for the individual ?

5.  Budget and Cost 

5.1. Cost and cost‑effectiveness                     

• Is the budget total within specified limits ?
• Is the budget sufficiently detailed  ?
• Is each item in the budget adequately justified ?
• Are some budget items excessive in relation to their justification ?
• Are personnel too senior or junior for specified tasks ?
• Is the equipment really necessary ?
• Should some of the equipment and consumables applied for be covered by the institution applying for the grant ?
• Are there less expensive options for achieving a similar result ?
• Could some less important parts of the study be deleted to reduce the
•  budget ?

5.2. Cost‑benefit                  

• What is the prospect for success of this research project ?
• What are the likely benefits of this research ?
• How does the ratio of cost to likely benefit for this research compare to the ratio of cost to likely benefit for other competing health and medical research ?

 

      

Last Updated on Tuesday, 16 March 2010 14:50