the national prevention research initiative npri

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

roger@dflair.demon.co.uk