This jargon buster or glossary of words contains the definitions of some of the terms commonly used in public involvement in research. It is not a complete list of all the words you might come across. The original definitions were developed for INVOLVE by TwoCan Associates working in consultation with a panel of researchers and a panel of people who use services, and we add to them continually.
The jargon buster can be searched by clicking on one of the letters below or browsing all terms.
An online social networking service. After registering to use the site, users can create a personal profile, add other users as friends, exchange messages, post status updates and photos, and receive notifications when others update their profiles. Users can also join interest groups, which can be open, closed or secret.
A trial design used to assess the individual contribution of treatments given in combination, as well as any interactive effect they may have. In a trial using a 2×2 factorial design, participants are allocated to one of four possible combinations. This type of study is usually carried out in circumstances where no interaction is likely.
Frequently Asked Questions
A streamlined system used in some NETS programmes under exceptional circumstances to speed up the assessment of proposals.
Food and Drug Administration: the Competent Authority in the United States, giving authorisation to conduct clinical trials and issuing marketing licences
There are a number of NIHR programmes which will fund feasibility and pilot studies. There are no strict rules about which programme funds which feasibility or pilot study and it is for applicants to choose the most appropriate in the context of the guidance on applicability provided by each programme. It may be that it is best suited to the Research for Patient Benefit Programme or one of the five NETS programmes. Nevertheless, in choosing, you might like to consider the following:
Note that feasibility and pilot studies should be distinguished from Phase II trials in which some sort of evidence for efficacy, often in a surrogate marker, is sought prior to embarking on a full Phase III trial: EME might be the most appropriate funding stream for these if there is strong scientific interest in the question, and RfPB if there is a clear potential trajectory into patient benefit.
The Public Health Research Programme also funds feasibility and pilot studies within its remit of evaluating public health interventions delivered outside the NHS.
This is a definition that has been agreed by the EME, PHR, HTA and RfPB programmes. Feasibility Studies are pieces of research done before a main study in order to answer the question “Can this study be done?”. They are used to estimate important parameters that are needed to design the main study. For instance:
A focus group is a small group of people brought together to talk. The purpose is to listen and gather information. It is a good way to find out how people feel or think about an issue, or to come up with possible solutions to problems.
A process of periodic contact with participants enrolled in the trial for the purpose of administering the assigned intervention(s), modifying the course of intervention(s), observing the effects of the intervention(s), or for data collection.
Twitter users may subscribe to other users’ tweets – this is known as ‘following’ and subscribers are known as ‘followers’.
Full and appropriate funding is provided because no upper limit is placed on the amount of funding granted for a project. Subject to availability of funds, if the question is important enough and the science requires it, we will fund it. For University based projects, we will fund up to 80 per cent of the Full Economic Cost (FEC) of the research, and 100 per cent of the direct costs for NHS Trust based projects. Other organisations are welcome to apply to our programmes and should discuss costing with us.
Organisation providing funding for a study (through agreements, grants or donations to an authorised member of the employing and/ or care organisation). The main funder typically has a key role in scientific quality assurance. In any case, it remains responsible for securing value for money.
A group of experts who consider grant applications and reviewer reports to decide whether to recommend funding.