Share
Print
Comparative Effectiveness Research for Healthcare Interventions in Areas of High Public Health Need
Details
Location:EU 27
Funding agency:
Contracting authority type:Development Institution
Description
Call Update
Jul 25, 2024 2:51:28 PM
CALL UPDATE: FLASH EVALUATION RESULTS
EVALUATION results
Published: 07.12.2022
Deadline: 11.04.2024
Available budget: EUR 45,000,000
We recently informed the applicants about the evaluation results for their proposals.
The results of the evaluation for the topic HORIZON-HLTH-2024-DISEASE-03-08-two-stage are as follows:
Number of proposals submitted (including proposals transferred from or to other calls): 22
Number of inadmissible proposals: 0
Number of ineligible proposals: 0
Number of above-threshold proposals: 14
Total budget requested for above-threshold proposals: EUR 105,486,927.74
Number of proposals retained for funding: 7
Number of proposals in the reserve list: 2
Funding threshold[1]: 14.5
Ranking
Number of proposals with scores lower or equal to 15 and higher or equal to 14: 7
Number of proposals with scores lower than 14 and higher or equal to 13: 5
Number of proposals with scores lower than 13 and higher or equal to 12: 2
Summary of observers’ report:
Two independent observers were asked to assist the European Health and Digital Executive Agency (HaDEA) in the evaluation of proposals submitted to 9 single and two-stage calls (covering 14 topics) with deadline on 11 April 2024, which were discussed during 2.5 weeks of consensus meetings. They followed the evaluation in order to assess and report on the implementation of the evaluation procedures, on the conduct and fairness of the evaluation process and on the application of the evaluation criteria. Based on the analysis conducted, the observers give independent advice for improvement of the evaluation process.
The evaluation process was fully transparent. The rules and guidelines to be followed were clearly communicated by documents provided to experts, by online and on-site briefings and by instructions given and, where necessary, repeated by the moderators. This ensured a fair and transparent procedure. The evaluation was conducted in an extremely fair and professional way, thanks to a thorough and meticulous preparation and to the helpful and competent HaDEA staff involved, including the quality checkers and the assistant team.
The lump sum method was used in this evaluation. Despite that the budget tables provided detailed information and that guidance was provided, many experts found it challenging assessing the proposed budgets.
The independent observers were impressed by the high quality of the evaluation, and made some further recommendations, for consideration in setting up the rules for the next framework programme. The most important advice is that a higher weight should be assigned to the Excellence criterion. It has at present a weight of 1/3 of the final score. This should be increased, as scientific excellence is the most important factor that determines the quality of a project. Such a change would be in line with international practices.
For questions, please contact the Research Enquiry Service.
[1] Proposals with the same score were ranked according to the priority order procedure set out in the call conditions (for HE, in the General Annexes to the Work Programme or specific arrangements in the specific call/topic conditions).
Apr 19, 2024 5:54:02 PM
Call HORIZON-HLTH-2024-DISEASE-03-two-stage has closed on 11 April 2024.
52 proposals have been submitted. The breakdown per topic is:
HORIZON-HLTH-2024-DISEASE-03-08-two-stage: 22 proposals
Evaluation results are expected to be communicated in July 2024 at the earliest.
Feb 13, 2024 12:06:52 PM
In order to best ensure equal treatment, successful stage 1 applicants do not receive the evaluation summary reports (ESRs) for their proposals, but this generalised feedback with information and tips for preparing the full proposal.
Information & tips
The proposals should address all the individual sub-criteria in each appropriate section of the proposal (Excellence, Impact, Implementation). E.g., the state of the art should be clearly referenced, the methodology and - where relevant – the technical robustness of AI should be clearly described, the pathways to the expected outcomes and impacts, the scale and significance of project’s contributions to the expected outcomes, and all other aspects need to be addressed.
If your proposal contains clinical studies, please read carefully the definition and guidance on the template ‘Information on clinical studies' published on the call page in the Participant Portal (Information on clinical studies (HE)) and remember to upload the template filled in when submitting your proposal.
In stage 2 the eligible costs will take the form of a lump sum contribution as defined in the Decision of 7 July 2021 authorising the use of lump sum contributions under the Horizon Europe Programme. To get started, please read lump sum funding and the guide Lump sum funding - what do I need to know, with details on how to complete the Excel workbook. Recommended: Excel 2013 (Windows) / Excel 2016 (Mac OS) or more recent.
In your stage 2 proposal, you have a chance to address or clarify these issues.
Please bear in mind that your full proposal will now be evaluated more in-depth and possibly by a new group of external experts.
Please make sure that your full proposal is consistent with your short outline proposal. It may NOT differ substantially. The project must stay the same.
Jan 29, 2024 6:35:29 PM
In accordance with General Annex F of the Work Programme, the evaluation of the first-stage proposals was made looking only at the criteria ‘Excellence’ and ‘Impact’. The threshold for both criteria was 4. The overall threshold (applying to the sum of the two individual scores) was set at 9.0 points for topic HORIZON-HLTH-2024-DISEASE-03-08-two-stage that allowed the total requested budget of proposals admitted to stage 2 be as close as possible to 3 times the available budget of EUR 45 000 000 (and not below 2.5 times the budget).
The results of the evaluation are as follows:
- Number of proposals submitted (including proposals transferred from or to other calls): 90
- Number of inadmissible proposals: 1
- Number of ineligible proposals: 1
- Number of above-threshold proposals: 22
- Total budget requested for above-threshold proposals: EUR 160 133 229
We recently informed the applicants about the evaluation results for their proposals.
For questions, please contact the https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/contact-us/research-enquiry-service_en
Sep 20, 2023 6:42:56 PM
First stage of call HORIZON-HLTH-2024-DISEASE-03-two-stage closed on 19 September 2023. 293 proposals were submitted. The breakdown per topic is:
HORIZON-HLTH-2024-DISEASE-03-08-two-stage: 91 proposals
Evaluation results are expected to be communicated on 24 January 2024 at the earliest.
Mar 31, 2023 11:12:09 AM
The submission session is now available for: HORIZON-HLTH-2024-DISEASE-03-08-two-stage(HORIZON-RIA)
Mar 3, 2023 12:37:24 PM
The Director-General responsible for the call HORIZON-HLTH-2024-DISEASE-03-two-stage, has decided to postpone the opening of this topic from 30 March 2023 to 26 April 2023.
Comparative effectiveness research for healthcare interventions in areas of high public health need
TOPIC ID: HORIZON-HLTH-2024-DISEASE-03-08-two-stage
Programme: Horizon Europe Framework Programme (HORIZON)
Call: Tackling diseases (Two stage - 2024) (HORIZON-HLTH-2024-DISEASE-03-two-stage)
Type of action: HORIZON-RIA HORIZON Research and Innovation Actions
Type of MGA: HORIZON Lump Sum Grant [HORIZON-AG-LS]
Deadline model: two-stage
Planned opening date: 30 March 2023
Deadline dates: 19 September 2023 17:00:00 Brussels time
11 April 2024 17:00:00 Brussels time
Topic description
ExpectedOutcome:
This topic aims at supporting activities that are enabling or contributing to one or several expected impacts of destination 3 “Tackling diseases and reducing disease burden”. To that end, proposals under this topic should aim for delivering results that are directed, tailored towards and contributing to most of the following expected outcomes:
- Health policymakers are aware of the healthcare interventions (pharmacological, non-pharmacological or technological interventions; including preventive and rehabilitative actions) that are identified as working best for the specific population groups from the point of view of safety, efficacy, patient outcomes, adherence, quality of life, accessibility, and (cost-) effectiveness.
- Health professionals have access to and use the improved clinical guidelines on the optimal treatment of patients and prevention of diseases e.g. through vaccines. Considerations made in the guidelines include the harmonisation and standardisation of care for high burden diseases or conditions throughout Europe, as well as possible individualised needs of patients.
- The scientific and clinical communities make effective use of state-of-the-art information, data, technologies, tools and best practices to develop interventions that are sustainable.
- Citizens, patients, prescribers, and payers receive more accurate information on available healthcare interventions via ad hoc communication platforms.
- The scientific and clinical communities make wide use of the newly established open access databases and/or integrate them with existing open access infrastructures for storage and sharing of collected data according to FAIR[1] principles.
Effective, affordable and accessible healthcare for diverse population groups is challenging and complex. For example, specific needs underlie the delivery of effective preventive actions and therapeutic treatments to a rapidly growing elderly population, often presenting comorbidities and associated polypharmacy. The paediatric population, including children born preterm, has also its specific needs in specially adjusted therapeutics and early interventions to address emerging health and developmental problems. Similar to the elderly population, the paediatric population is often excluded from many clinical trials that generate the evidence base for healthcare interventions. Women, including pregnant women, are also often under-represented in clinical studies and access to quality healthcare is frequently inadequate. Other population groups with limited access to quality healthcare and/or under-representation in clinical studies include low-income groups, and refugees. Intersectionality within these groups also needs consideration.
Proposals should address most of the following:
- Compare the use of currently existing (pharmacological, non-pharmacological and technological) healthcare interventions in specific population groups (or selected subgroups). While there is no restriction on diseases or conditions, preference will be given to proposals focusing on interventions with high public health relevance[2].
- Ensure acceptability and sustainability of the healthcare intervention through early involvement of ‘end users’ (e.g. patients, care providers) in the design of the study (integrating patient valued outcomes) and, where possible, in the research process including implementation. Additionally, proposals should take into account the diversity of health systems in different regions of Europe to allow large-scale uptake.
- Consider involving HTA bodies in order to create synergies and accelerate the practical implementation of the results. Where relevant, existing work of EU-funded projects such as EUnetHTA[3] should be also taken into account.
- Consider issues of particular relevance for the target populations, for example, multimorbidity, complex chronic conditions, polypharmacy, substance misuse, vaccine efficacy, compliance, age, gender specificities and diseases with high societal burden (including but not limited to e.g. musculoskeletal diseases and mental health disorders). Special consideration should be given to fulfilling all ethical requirements.
- For the chosen population, assess clinical and safety parameters, as well as health and socio-economic outcomes (e.g. quality of life, patient mortality, (co)morbidity, costs, and performance of the health system). Agreed core outcome sets (COS) should be used as endpoints in conditions where they already exist, in other cases, efforts should be made to agree on such COS. Consider using new instruments and methods for determining the burden of disease and for evaluating the effects of the interventions. Low-cost innovations should also be considered.
- Inclusion of patient organisations and associations of caregivers and other healthcare professionals is recommended.
- Clinical trials, including pragmatic clinical trials, observational studies, use of existing health data in different study designs, creation of large-scale databases and performing meta-analyses may be considered for this topic. Use of existing data should always be considered to add value, increase quality and increase implementation speed of the study. Regarding databases, sustainability after the proposed action's end also needs to be considered.
- The proposed research needs to take into account sex and gender aspects.
This topic requires the effective contribution of social sciences and humanities (SSH) disciplines and the involvement of SSH experts, institutions as well as the inclusion of relevant SSH expertise, in order to produce meaningful and significant effects enhancing the societal impact of the related research activities.
The Commission will ensure an overall coordination mechanism between the projects funded under this topic to catalyse the exchange of knowledge, as well as the development and adoption of best practices. Proposals are expected to budget for the attendance to regular meetings. Projects resulting from this call will be invited to share and discuss their case studies amongst themselves and with relevant stakeholders at the EU level, and necessary resources should be allocated to this task.
Applicants invited to the second stage and envisaging to include clinical studies should provide details of their clinical studies in the dedicated annex using the template provided in the submission system. See definition of clinical studies in the introduction to this work programme part.
[1]See definition of FAIR data in the introduction to this work programme part.
[2] Interventions addressing diseases or conditions that are particularly frequent, have a high negative impact on the quality of life of the individual and/or are associated with significant costs where savings can be achieved.
[3] https://www.eunethta.eu/
Similar grants
By Locations
Funding agency:
EC
Status:
awarded
Location:
EU 27
Funding agency:
EC
Status:
awarded
Location:
EU 27
By Sectors
Funding agency:
Horizon 2020
Status:
awarded
Location:
EU 27