Apply for funding for the early-stage development of an intervention that seeks to address a UK or global public health challenge.
Any researcher employed by an eligible research organisation, including MRC institutes and units (including those in Gambia and Uganda), can apply for this funding opportunity.
You can apply for up to £150,000. MRC will fund 80% of the full economic cost (100% for overseas costs).
Your project can last up to 18 months.
Any researcher with an employment contract at an eligible research organisation, including MRC institutes and units (including those in Gambia and Uganda), can apply for this funding opportunity.
International co-investigators can be included if they provide expertise that’s not available in the UK.
Applicants can also include one or more project partners in their application.
Find more about eligibility in section one of our guidance for applicants.
You cannot apply for this opportunity (PHIND January 2022) on our Joint Electronic Submission (Je-S) system. It is one of the opportunities being run on the new UKRI Funding Service.
We’ll contact research offices at organisations whose members have not previously applied through the Funding Service. This is to create a UKRI Funding Service account, with administrator status. This will give you:
If you anticipate researchers from your organisation applying for PHIND January 2022, but have not already received an invitation to open an account, email support@funding-service.ukri.org.
As an administrator, you will be responsible for the final submission of the application to UKRI. Please ensure internal deadlines are made clear to applicants from your organisation.
We’re running a webinar for research offices from organisations with potential applicants to PHIND on 8 December.
Register for our webinar on the new research office functionality (eventbrite).
MRC is looking to support the early-stage development of interventions that seek to address either UK or global public health challenges. This might include qualitative and quantitative primary research and the development of theory and logic models. However, emphasis should be placed on developing the intervention.
This opportunity supports the incorporation of systems thinking in addressing public health challenges. It is justifiable to focus on just one aspect of a system as long as the wider systems context is recognised, for example, in the framework for evaluation.
It also encourages the use of multi-disciplinary teams and co-production with users and other relevant stakeholders, such as policy makers.
Population level interventions, with a focus on non-health care settings. Examples of the focus of health-related population level interventions include:
For the purposes of this funding opportunity, ‘population’ is defined as groups of individuals for which an intervention may subsequently be delivered and evaluated. For example, this includes:
Healthcare settings can be included, but projects should demonstrate potential for improved health of general, high-risk, or vulnerable populations.
The creation of new interventions, where active components of existing interventions are combined to create a new intervention, is allowable within the scope.
The following activities are not within the scope of this opportunity:
You should address the following points about the proposed intervention:
The application should demonstrate a pathway to further development and evaluation of the intervention, and criteria for its progression to the next stage of development (detailed within the case for support).
Engagement of potential commissioners and users of an intervention is often crucial to its potential success. You should be able to identify potential beneficiaries of your intervention, who would be delivering the intervention and who would commission it.
Your application will be strengthened by demonstrating that users and the target population will be willing to participate in the development study (and potentially further testing and evaluation).
Applicants can apply for up to £150,000, for a maximum of 18 months.
Funds requested by UK research organisations will be funded at 80% of the full economic cost. Overseas costs will be funded at 100% of the full economic cost.
Funds may be requested to support costs attributable to the study, including investigator and research staff time, consumables, equipment and travel.
A limited amount (approximately 15%) of the overall cost may be allocated to some acceptability and feasibility research, to:
What follows is a copy of the sections and questions you’ll need to complete and answer on UKRI’s Funding Service. You cannot apply for this opportunity on the Je-S system.
You must follow the guidance here and in the Funding Service. This may be different from the general MRC guidance for applicants.
A full economic costs (fEC) template, available to download from the Funding Service, letters of support and GANTT charts may be attached. Other attachments are not required for this opportunity.
Applicants will need to take the following steps to apply:
Make sure you get any necessary approval from your organisation in advance and give yourself plenty of editing time before the closing date.
As this opportunity uses the UKRI Funding Service, many of the attachments described in the general MRC guidance for applicants are not required, for example:
This should be the title of your proposed project.
Limited to 20 words.
Provide principal investigator and co-investigator details.
Provide the start date and planned duration of your proposed project.
Describe your proposed intervention stating the public health challenge it’s seeking to address and its potential impact. Make sure you include the study objectives to give assessors an overview of your research plans.
Limited to 400 words.
Explain the public health outcomes being addressed with this intervention, including the target population, and how it addresses strategic public health priorities.
Limited to 600 words.
The assessors are looking for the importance of the public health question and the need for an intervention to address the issue or issues, taking account of the current landscape. In your response refer to relevant literature and what is already known, including what has previously been tested. Please reflect on:
You should give details of how this project addresses strategic public health priorities. For example, lack of physical activity in sedentary older adults leading to poor physical and mental health.
You should fully justify the target population identified in your proposal, with clear consideration of the potential for differences according to:
What is the evidence gap this study addresses?
Limited to 500 words.
The assessors are looking to understand the need for an intervention in this research area and what gap your intervention will fill.
It’s rare that a proposed intervention will be the first of its kind to tackle a particular public health problem. Explain what the literature shows and why a new intervention is needed. For example, is it likely to be more effective, cheaper or more practicable?
Describe what type of intervention would be studied in the subsequent ‘main study’. Include criteria for progression and the pathway to the next stage of evaluation, and give an indication of what the intervention would likely involve.
Limited to 400 words.
This question refers to the subsequent intervention development phases that would be informed by, or could lead on from, the proposed intervention development study. It’s important to demonstrate:
Be as clear as possible about the future plans, including an outline of the design of full-scale trial.
While you’re not expected to know the outcome of your research, a strong application will consider the format of the proposed intervention, what the ‘product’ will be and whether it is likely to be affordable and feasible to deliver.
For example, specifying that you intend to develop an online alcohol reduction programme would give the panel a clearer picture of what you envisage than simply referring to an educational resource.
You may also find it helpful to develop a logic model and relevant programme theory to underpin and explain the intervention and its likely effects.
Not all PHIND projects will necessarily be developed into feasible interventions. But either way, results will be valuable for informing future research and should be appropriately disseminated.
You should also detail the criteria you’ll use to determine whether the project should progress to the next stage of evaluation. This may be related to uptake of the intervention, its feasibility or scalability, or practicality of delivery. It’s not essential to provide figures but give the panel an indication of what you’ll be looking for.
Describe the proposed methodology for the early phase study, giving a detailed description of the methods to be used.
Limited to 800 words.
Detail the methodological approach you intend to use. In your response:
Successful PHIND applications clearly describe robust methods. For example, if you’re using focus groups, specify the number of sessions that will be involved and justify sample sizes. You should also define the selection criteria and recruitment strategy for your study participants.
You should evaluate the potential for unintended consequences. For example, some interventions may risk widening inequalities. App-based interventions may generate negative health effects associated with increased screen-time. Some community-based interventions improve the health and well-being of those directly involved, but not the target population.
Please explain what you could put in place to mitigate these risks. Equally, be open to the possibility of unexpected positive outcomes and consider how these might best be captured.
Describe the expertise and experience of the research team as it relates to this project, including any relevant partners or users.
Limited to 1,000 words.
For each principal investigator, co-investigator and named individual research staff member, including any partners and users, describe their expertise, experience and role on the project to ensure its success.
You should include:
Has a related application been previously submitted to the MRC or another funding organisation?
Limited to 500 words.
If the application is a resubmission, provide information on how this new application differs from that submitted previously. It must not be used to cover anything which should be included in the case for support.
If the application was previously submitted to another funder, you should provide:
Detail the references used in your application.
Limited to 800 words.
The list the references, such as published journal papers, used within the case for support.
If applicable, outline the impact of disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Limited to 500 words.
Applicants are invited to provide an impact statement on their personal experience during the pandemic. The purpose is to allow the applicant to provide additional information, of relevance to the application and the research case, to explain specific disruptions to previous or current research caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. For example:
Provide a logic model, Gantt chart or both, to support your proposal (optional).
You can provide a logic model to describe the anticipated mechanism of action, delivery, key components and their inter-relationships, outputs and outcomes of the intervention.
You can provide a Gantt chart to show milestones and the overall timeframe of your proposal. Please do not use the Gantt chart to include information which should be detailed in the case for support.
You can only upload one PDF file, no bigger than 8MB. You must not use more than one page for each (logic model, Gantt chart). If you want to submit both a logic model and a Gantt chart you will need to combine them in a single two-page document.
For the file name, use the unique Funding Service number the system gives to your proposal (when you create an application) immediately followed by the words ‘Logic and time’.
Unless specifically requested, please do not include any personal data within the attachment.
Provide full economic costs and calculate the amount you are applying for using the template contained provided and add justifications.
Limited to 500 words.
Complete the full economic costings template (downloadable from within UKRI’s Funding Service), then upload it as a PDF that’s no larger than 8MB. For the file name, use the unique Funding Service number the system gives to your proposal (when you create an application) immediately followed by ‘fEC’.
For international co-investigators and international staff, enter related costs under the ‘exceptions’ section of the full economic costs template.
Enter 80% of the full economic cost for equipment; 100% in the case of equipment for overseas research organisations.
You must make sure each named or identifiable (from post name) individual included on this form is aware that:
Once you’ve done that, provide justifications for the resources you’re requesting using the same headings as those in the template.
Provide any letters of support from project partners and relevant collaborators
Use the text box below to detail each organisation’s:
If you have more than one project partner or collaborator, please include the information as a table.
In addition, you must upload a single PDF containing all letters or emails of support from these organisations. Each letter or email should:
Copies of your letters and emails must be uploaded as a single PDF file, no larger than 8MB.
Unless specifically requested, please do not include any personal data within the attachment.
Would the project involve the use of human subjects?
Limited to 500 words.
Answer either ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.
If ‘Yes’, justify the number and the diversity of the participants involved as well as any procedures. Provide details of any areas of substantial or moderate severity of impact.
Will personal information be used?
Limited to 500 words.
Answer either ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.
If ‘Yes’, provide details of whether the information will be anonymised and how it will be stored securely.
Are there ethical implications arising from the proposed research?
Limited to 500 words
Answer either ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.
If ‘Yes’, provide details of ethical implications and how they would be addressed.
Where approvals are required, confirm the authority who will provide the approval, and whether this has been sought and approved.
The expert review panel will use the following criteria to assess your application:
The expert review panel comprises independent academics and public health practitioners. It has close links with NIHR and the MRC Global Health board, to ensure the public health relevance of projects and to increase the potential success of future applications for piloting and evaluative studies.
The expert review panel meeting will take place approximately eight weeks after the closing date.
Panel feedback will be provided to all applicants, approximately four to six weeks after the meeting.
Applications that are outside the scope of the opportunity will not be assessed by the panel.
Email: support@funding-service.ukri.org
Phone: 01793 265810
