Development and assessment of criteria to select projects for funding in the EU health programme

Broucke, Stephan Van den; Dargent, Guy; Pletschette, Michel

doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckr066

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Sub-optimal projects are financed due to unexpected circumstances that affect the budget allocation, mistakes in calculation, planning error, and strategic misrepresentation of target benefits. Van den Broucke et al 30 reported on the assessment of criteria to select projects for funding in the EU health programme. The key element in selecting the most valuable projects in assuring the EU Health Programme's quality is the evaluation process according to quality standards.…”

Section: Budget Constraintmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementation of an Immunisation Project for the Refugees Using the Logic Model

Goh

Sow

Jaafar

2020

MJPHM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Refugees worldwide have been a challenge to many countries. Threats of preventable immunisable diseases amongst children that disrupt the herd immunity have been a concern as many countries lack a structured national policy to administer full vaccines to these refugees. Full immunisation coverage not only protected the refugees but also safeguarded the children of the home country. We designed a collaborative university-based community service partnership with UNHCR and International-Organisation-for-Migration, implemented a practice-integrated immunisation service initiative with the local community. This paper described the implementation process of an immunisation project for the refugees using the evaluative Logic Model. This model diagrammatically shows the relationships between the program's objectives, program activities, process indicators, outcomes, and resources used. It applies to program planning, operation, evaluation and address questions for decision making. The aim was to provide refugees' children below 18-years the complete doses of the national scheduled immunisation. The immunisation was given in six refugees-learning-centres in a total of 31 visits. The workflow includes administering the immunisation, health education, triaging, data collection, and monitoring the children immunised. A total of 1116 children received full immunisation within a period of eighteen months. Vaccines given were Pentavalent, Hepatitis B, Tetanus-Diphtheria, and Mumps-Measles-Rubella. This project has achieved more than 80% immunisation coverage for all the vaccines except Pentavalent (<50%). The Logic Model is useful for developing, implementing, and evaluating knowledge co-production partnerships in the context of a community delivery system in this project.

show abstract

Section: Budget Constraintmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementation of an Immunisation Project for the Refugees Using the Logic Model

Goh

Sow

Jaafar

2020

MJPHM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Criteria for assessing grant applications: a systematic review

Hug

Aeschbach

2020

Palgrave Commun

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Criteria are an essential component of any procedure for assessing merit. Yet, little is known about the criteria peers use to assess grant applications. In this systematic review we therefore identify and synthesize studies that examine grant peer review criteria in an empirical and inductive manner. To facilitate the synthesis, we introduce a framework that classifies what is generally referred to as 'criterion' into an evaluated entity (i.e., the object of evaluation) and an evaluation criterion (i.e., the dimension along which an entity is evaluated). In total, the synthesis includes 12 studies on grant peer review criteria. Two-thirds of these studies examine criteria in the medical and health sciences, while studies in other fields are scarce. Few studies compare criteria across different fields, and none focus on criteria for interdisciplinary research. We conducted a qualitative content analysis of the 12 studies and thereby identified 15 evaluation criteria and 30 evaluated entities, as well as the relations between them. Based on a network analysis, we determined the following main relations between the identified evaluation criteria and evaluated entities. The aims and outcomes of a proposed project are assessed in terms of the evaluation criteria originality, academic relevance, and extra-academic relevance. The proposed research process is evaluated both on the content level (quality, appropriateness, rigor, coherence/justification), as well as on the level of description (clarity, completeness). The resources needed to implement the research process are evaluated in terms of the evaluation criterion feasibility. Lastly, the person and personality of the applicant are assessed from a 'psychological' (motivation, traits) and a 'sociological' (diversity) perspective. Furthermore, we find that some of the criteria peers use to evaluate grant applications do not conform to the fairness doctrine and the ideal of impartiality. Grant peer review could therefore be considered unfair and biased. Our findings suggest that future studies on criteria in grant peer review should focus on the applicant, include data from non-Western countries, and examine fields other than the medical and health sciences.

show abstract

Development and validation of a questionnaire to measure research impact

Solans‐Domènech

Pons

Adam

et al. 2019

Research Evaluation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although questionnaires are widely used in research impact assessment, their metric properties are not well known. Our aim is to test the internal consistency and content validity of an instrument designed to measure the perceived impacts of a wide range of research projects. To do so, we designed a questionnaire to be completed by principal investigators in a variety of disciplines (arts and humanities, social sciences, health sciences, and information and communication technologies). The impacts perceived and their associated characteristics were also assessed. This easy-to-use questionnaire demonstrated good internal consistency and acceptable content validity. However, its metric properties were more powerful in areas such as knowledge production, capacity building and informing policy and practice, in which the researchers had a degree of control and influence. In general, the research projects represented an stimulus for the production of knowledge and the development of research skills. Behavioural aspects such as engagement with potential users or mission-oriented projects (targeted to practical applications) were associated with higher social benefits. Considering the difficulties in assessing a wide array of research topics, and potential differences in the understanding of the concept of ‘research impact’, an analysis of the context can help to focus on research needs. Analyzing the metric properties of questionnaires can open up new possibilities for validating instruments used to measure research impact. Further to the methodological utility of the current exercise, we see a practical applicability to specific contexts where multiple discipline research impact is requires.

show abstract

Development and assessment of criteria to select projects for funding in the EU health programme

Abstract: The study shows the successful development and validation of criteria to evaluate EU health project grant proposals.

Cited by 4 publications

References 5 publications

Implementation of an Immunisation Project for the Refugees Using the Logic Model

Implementation of an Immunisation Project for the Refugees Using the Logic Model

Criteria for assessing grant applications: a systematic review

Development and validation of a questionnaire to measure research impact

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About