Identification and comparison of key criteria of feedback of funding decisions: mixed-methods analysis of funder and applicant perspectives.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the content, quality and value of feedback given to applicants who applied to one of four research programmes in the UK funded (or jointly funded) by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). METHODS: A mixed-method phased approach was conducted using document analysis and an online survey. Phase 1 examined 114 NIHR applicant feedback documents comprised written feedback from funding committees and external peer-reviewers and a conceptual framework of the key components of feedback was developed using content analysis. Phase 2 was an online survey completed by 113 NIHR applicants. Frequencies of responses to closed questions were calculated. Perceptions of quality and value of feedback were identified using content analysis of open-text responses. RESULTS: In phase 1, a conceptual framework was developed with seven overarching categories 'Study structure and quality'; 'Team and infrastructure'; 'Acceptability to patients and professionals'; 'Study justification and design'; 'Risks and contingencies'; 'Outputs'; 'Value for money'. A higher frequency of feedback was provided at stage 2 and for successful applications across the majority of components. In phase 2, frequency data showed that opinion on feedback was dependent on funding outcome. Content analysis revealed four main themes 'Committee transparency'; 'Content validity and reliability'; 'Additional support'; Recognition of effort and constraints'. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides key insights and understanding into the quality, content and value of feedback provided to NIHR applicants. The study identified key areas for improvement that can arise in NIHR funding applications, as well as in the feedback given to applicants that are applicable to other funding organisations. These findings could be used to inform funding application guidance documents to help researchers strengthen their applications and used more widely by other funders to inform their feedback processes.