A new evaluation will scrutinise the NIHR’s PHIRST scheme, which pairs academic researchers with local councils to test whether public health interventions—such as a new cycle lane or a community weight-loss programme—actually work. The scheme exists because local authorities often lack the resources or expertise to rigorously evaluate their own initiatives, yet they make decisions that affect millions of people’s health. This evaluation asks whether the scheme itself is delivering value for money, meeting the needs of councils and researchers, and producing evidence that changes practice. The team will survey stakeholders, interview project participants, and analyse why some applications succeed while others are withdrawn. If the scheme proves effective, the findings will help NIHR refine how it funds and supports these partnerships, potentially making it easier for councils across the UK to base spending decisions on solid evidence rather than intuition. The outputs—a case study library and insight modules—are designed to be used directly by local government officers and public health teams. This is an evaluation of a funding mechanism, not a study of a specific disease or treatment; its impact will be on how public health research is commissioned and used.
View original technical description
Research Question: Is the PHIRST scheme, its constituent teams, and the evidence it generates meeting the goals of its different stakeholders, does it remain fit for purpose, and how can impact be realised? Background: The NIHR Public Health Intervention Responsive Studies Teams (PHIRST) scheme supports UK local government by evaluating public health interventions through partnerships with academic research teams. The scheme facilitates evaluative research into public health interventions by linking academic researchers (PHIRST teams) with local government organisations, which put forward their interventions for evaluation. The aim of the scheme is to build the evidence base for local government decision-making. Methods: Using a mixed-methods approach, the evaluation will seek to determine whether the PHIRST scheme is meeting its objectives and stakeholder needs, identify areas of success and areas for potential improvement, and generate context-specific recommendations for the NIHR and broader public health infrastructure. We will independently evaluate the PHIRST scheme, supported by an advisory group and our patient and public involvement (PPI) contributors. We will build on the previous evaluation of the initial phase of the PHIRST scheme (Nanchahal et al., 2022), to thoroughly assess processes, outputs, outcomes, and emerging impacts. The evaluation will be undertaken under four work packages (WPs). WP1: Rapid review of PHIRST projects and applications to identify common factors associated with adopted and completed projects and any evidence of early impact. WP2: National online survey with key stakeholders (including those involved in the PHIRST scheme and comparable non-participants), to identify processes, outputs, and outcomes; and to explore the scheme’s impact beyond the adopted projects. WP3: In-depth qualitative research with researchers, practitioners, PPI members and partners involved in a selection of completed PHIRST projects, and a light-touch evaluation of declined applications and those withdrawn at the evaluability assessment stage. WP4: A synthesis of findings across all WPs, informing the development of a refined theory of change. Stakeholders will be invited to a national online workshop to discuss and influence the implications of, and recommendations arising from, the synthesis. Impact and Dissemination: We will disseminate recommendations pertaining to areas of success and potential improvement. Our recommendations will be context-specific for the NIHR and broader public health infrastructure to enhance the effectiveness of academic and local government partnerships. To maximise the impact of our findings, we will co-produce a range of accessible outputs, including a case study library and insight modules for local government, NIHR, and academic audiences. These will be complemented by a public facing output which will be developed with our PPI contributors. These materials will facilitate learning and knowledge-sharing, ensuring the broader dissemination of valuable lessons learned. Implementation of these findings may have a positive impact on the PHIRST scheme, evidence-based decision-making and strengthen academic-local government partnerships.
Plain English summaries and category classifications on this site are generated by AI and may not perfectly reflect the original research.
Is something wrong? Let us know