the national prevention research initiative npri
DESCRIPTION
The National Prevention Research Initiative NPRI. Roger Wilson Chair – NCRI Consumer Liaison Group. Background. NCRI Strategic Analysis 2002 2% of spend on prevention Compares with 9% in USA NCRI Planning Group analysis Proposed ongoing funding Multi-disciplinary, intervention focus - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
The National Prevention Research Initiative
NPRI
Roger Wilson
Chair – NCRI Consumer Liaison Group
Background
• NCRI Strategic Analysis 2002– 2% of spend on prevention– Compares with 9% in USA
• NCRI Planning Group analysis– Proposed ongoing funding– Multi-disciplinary, intervention focus
• UKCRC Strategic Analysis 2005 – 2.5%of spend on prevention
Committing £11.7m over 5 years
Structure
• Programme Board– Funders– One lay representative
• Scientific committee– Chair – Prof Ray Fitzpatrick– 24 members – international expertise– Of which 6 lay representatives
• Management by MRC
Progress
• First call – late 2004
• 248 outline proposals– Reviewed April 2005– 48 invited to apply – reviewed October 2005
• 45 submitted full proposals– 26 projects funded from April 2006– 70% of initial funding allocated
• Second call in preparation for late 2006
Reviewing the Applications
• External review – up to 3 respondents
• Two scientific members – detailed review– Good science– Quality of project team– Appropriate costs
• One lay member – detailed review– Public value– Public/patient involvement
Process• Secretariat ensured equality of status• Chair encouraged open discussion• Started cautiously keeping to boundaries• Overlaps started with science issues
commented on by lay representatives• Then cautious discussion of public value
issues by scientists• No cliques at lunch time• Ended up with ethical positions taken by
scientists when lay people were happy
Results
• Real multi-disciplinary projects– 24 interventions – leading to pilot stages– Methodology – one study– Clinical trial – one study
• Word got round about involvement– Those that scored well on involvement usually
also did well scientifically
• Recommendations on involvement added by scientific committee where weak
Outcome
• Final selections possibly no different BUT– Decisions are more valid– There is more user involvement in projects than
there would have been– Returning greater value (assuming promises
are lived up to)
• Wider ownership of results – In the whole initiative– In the communities studied
• Readier political will to fund interventions
Conclusions
• Principle of involvement from outset– Useful to have experience within organisation– Helped by having one person on the Board
• A clear role is very valuable
• Lay representatives– Experience adds value– Confidence to challenge and discuss– Know when to listen and stay quiet
• A facilitative chair is crucial to success
Roger Wilson