Will it have a direct impact on health outcomes or health care costs?

• Evidence of a systematic review of the effectiveness and cost literature including search terms and databases sourced.
• Research question is clearly articulated including estimate of size of impact anticipated.
• Number of people impacted/exposure.
• Alignment with national health priority areas and Bupa’s priorities.
• Linkage between intervention/program and outcome is biologically or clinically plausible.
• The health care costs are realistic, for example are in keeping with BUPA’s experience and/or based on Australian data.
• Acceptance (or likelihood) of the intervention/program in the medical community.

Timing of delivery of results

• The timing of study recruitment, trial completion and publication/dissemination.
• The appropriateness of the timelines. For example, are the recruitment targets per month realistic? Have the researchers allowed a reasonable period of time to seek ethics approval?
• The completion of other trials in the area/field. This would be advisable if BUPA wishes to be the first.
• A proposed program for the publication of results and findings.
• Will the Foundation be able to leverage media opportunities?
• The release of publications in light of our own internal media strategy.

Justification of funding

• A clear breakdown is provided of the components making up the total initiative including the cost of each component. At a minimum, funding should be split between direct research costs and infrastructure.
• Declaration of all financial investments/organisations and/or expressions of interest.
• Does the proposed request for funding compare to what BUPA currently pays (if applicable or identifiable)?
• The split of funding between researchers versus infrastructure. We wish to see the bulk of our investment being put into research rather than say a new IT system for the organisation.
• Whether staff costs and the costs associated with data collection are in keeping with say university scales plus some arbitrary amount.
• The sizes of the applicant’s own commitment or other funding partners and contributions to date.

Impact on the health system

• Projects looking at solutions will score better than projects analysing the problem.
• Will the initiative have an indirect impact through highlighting problems and igniting debate?
• Research highlights problems and suggests possible solutions.
• Project may provide a solution to future health costs.

Contribution to existing health policy debate

• Is it a relevant area of research in the current environment?
• Is there potential to influence the direction of policy debates?
• Does it focus solely on public health?
• Does it focus solely on private health?
• Focus balanced on public/private sustainability?
• Projects that look at the future of the private health care sector will score better than those that look at the public system or the mixed system.

Study or program design

• Comprehensive description of the intervention/program is provided.
• Sample size calculations are included with an appropriate adjustment for drop-outs and/or non-compliant people.
• Eligibility criteria for inclusion in the study outlined.
• Recruitment process described.
• Study design and methodology can reasonably answer the question being posed.
• Level of evidence the study will deliver e.g. level I (high quality) or IV (low quality).
• How this level of evidence compares to existing evidence in the field. For example, a case series (low quality) will not contribute to the debate if evidence in the field is often high quality in the form of randomised controlled trials.

Reputation of Organisation

• Disclosure of other (private sector) inputs (partners, collaborators funders etc.)
• MBF Foundation's past dealings with the institution/individual/organisation (if applicable)
• Qualifications and/or affiliations of institution/individual/organisation. Considerations should extend to beyond the Chief Investigator to associate investigators and beyond their current employment.
• Consultancy experience.
• Journal impact factor and/or debate following publication.
• Health leadership in the field including education and training.
• International relationships.

» Hide assessment criteria requirements and some of their considerations