• myGriffith
    • Staff portal
    • Contact Us⌄
      • Future student enquiries 1800 677 728
      • Current student enquiries 1800 154 055
      • International enquiries +61 7 3735 6425
      • General enquiries 07 3735 7111
      • Online enquiries
      • Staff phonebook
    View Item 
    •   Home
    • Griffith Research Online
    • Conference outputs
    • View Item
    • Home
    • Griffith Research Online
    • Conference outputs
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

  • All of Griffith Research Online
    • Communities & Collections
    • Authors
    • By Issue Date
    • Titles
  • This Collection
    • Authors
    • By Issue Date
    • Titles
  • Statistics

  • Most Popular Items
  • Statistics by Country
  • Most Popular Authors
  • Support

  • Contact us
  • FAQs
  • Admin login

  • Login
  • Value For Money, the Overlooked Aspect in Research Funding Decisions

    Author(s)
    Tuffaha, H
    El-Saifi, N
    Scuffham, P
    Griffith University Author(s)
    Scuffham, Paul A.
    Year published
    2018
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    Objectives: Governments and research organisations allocate considerable resources to fund medical research; however, research budgets are limited and decisions have to be made about the best way to prioritise research projects competing for funding. This is often done by assessing submitted proposals against predefined criteria. We aimed to review the criteria considered by major Australian funding organisations to select research projects for funding. Methods: We reviewed all grant schemes listed on the Australian Competitive Grants Register. Schemes included were health related, active in 2017 and with publicly available ...
    View more >
    Objectives: Governments and research organisations allocate considerable resources to fund medical research; however, research budgets are limited and decisions have to be made about the best way to prioritise research projects competing for funding. This is often done by assessing submitted proposals against predefined criteria. We aimed to review the criteria considered by major Australian funding organisations to select research projects for funding. Methods: We reviewed all grant schemes listed on the Australian Competitive Grants Register. Schemes included were health related, active in 2017 and with publicly available selection criteria on the funders’ websites. Fellowship, scholarship and training schemes were excluded. Data extracted included scheme name, funding organisation, selection criteria and the relative weight assigned to each criterion. Selection criteria were grouped, based on a modified Essential National Health Research approach, into five categories: relevance, appropriateness, significance, feasibility and value for money (i.e., research benefits compared to research costs). Results: Thirty-eight schemes were included from 158 identified. Almost one half of the schemes (47%) were under the National Health and Medical Research Council. All schemes considered feasibility criteria (research environment, team quality and/or research plan), 95% considered significance (innovation, implementation, translation and/or impact), 92% considered appropriateness (ethics, proposal’s quality and/or scientific rigour), 63% considered relevance (disease burden, national/organisational goals, equity and/or knowledge gap), and only 21% considered value for money. When reported, the relative weights for the selection criteria varied across schemes with 20-75% for feasibility, 20-60% for each significance and appropriateness, 5-30% for relevance and 15-33% for value for money. Conclusions: In selecting research projects for funding, research organisations in Australia focus mainly on research quality, significance and feasibility; nevertheless, value for money is often overlooked. Research funding decisions should be guided, along other considerations, by value for money of competing research proposals to maximise return on research investment.
    View less >
    Conference Title
    VALUE IN HEALTH
    Volume
    21
    DOI
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2018.07.413
    Subject
    Applied economics
    Social Sciences
    Science & Technology
    Life Sciences & Biomedicine
    Economics
    Health Care Sciences & Services
    Publication URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/10072/395179
    Collection
    • Conference outputs

    Footer

    Disclaimer

    • Privacy policy
    • Copyright matters
    • CRICOS Provider - 00233E
    • TEQSA: PRV12076

    Tagline

    • Gold Coast
    • Logan
    • Brisbane - Queensland, Australia
    First Peoples of Australia
    • Aboriginal
    • Torres Strait Islander