Thank you to everybody who submitted an expression of interest application for our funding call focused on implementing evidence-based interventions that prevent, delay or reduce health and/or social care requirements for older adults in underserved communities. We received a huge amount of interest in the call, and 45 applications were submitted by the deadline of 1st July 2025. We recently let applicants know whether they had been invited to submit a full application and the success rate at this stage was 22%.
Expression of interest applications were assessed on a range of criteria which were set out in the call guidelines. As with last year’s implementation-focused funding call, we were impressed by the wide variety of work taking place throughout the country, and the panel’s general feedback on proposals at this stage of the application process is outlined below:
- A number of proposals appeared to be ‘too early’ for the scope of the call. We were looking for proposals focused on existing interventions which already had robust evidence of effectiveness, and were ready to be implemented and evaluated at greater scale in a ‘real world’ setting. In some cases, proposals appeared to be seeking to develop new interventions and then gather evidence on their feasibility / acceptability and/or effectiveness. In other cases, the existing evidence base was centred primarily on the feasibility / acceptability of the intervention(s) – something the guidelines stated did not constitute robust evidence of effectiveness. Often evidence of effectiveness was stated, but there was a lack of supporting information / data within the application form, making it hard to discern how robust this evidence base was. Whilst we weren’t limiting ‘robust evidence’ to published papers, for un-published evidence (e.g. a commissioned evaluation by an external partner), we would have expected to see data / sources supporting these claims within the application.
- Related to the above, on some occasions the proposed intervention(s) appeared to combine elements from various other interventions / programmes without a clear rationale for how these components would work together in the proposed setting(s) / target population(s), or without evidence of effectiveness for the integrated approach. This raised questions over the robustness of the evidence of the intervention being proposed. A few proposals relied on “effectiveness by proxy” — for example, drawing from effectiveness of interventions for different conditions or populations — without a clear justification / link for why similar outcomes could be expected in the new target condition / population. This created uncertainty about the robustness and applicability of the intervention’s evidence base.
- Proposals that clearly described what the intervention is, the evidence supporting it, and what the proposed programme of work entails were much stronger. Some applications focused too heavily on the broader case, without clearly articulating the specific intervention(s), evidence of effectiveness and the programme of work being proposed (e.g. what will be done, by whom, and how it will be evaluated at scale to support longer-term and/or wider adoption). As stated in the call guidelines, the expression of interest stage was intended to focus on these specific elements.
- Similarly, the composition of the team played a key role in the panel’s consideration of the application:
- On a number of occasions there were perceived knowledge / expertise gaps within the proposed team – specific areas that were often raised included the absence of a named commissioner / adopter, and/or experts in implementation science and health economics (or similar).
- Some applications stated that key partners — such as academic partners, health economics leads, or commissioner / adopter partner(s) — had not yet been confirmed, with plans to secure them ahead of the full application stage. While we appreciate this transparency, these roles were considered essential for the proposal to be eligible. We strongly encourage applicants to identify and engage core co-applicants as early as possible for any future rounds of this type of call.
- In some cases, it was not clear who the lead applicant was, as the individual who submitted the application was later identified within the proposal as a co-applicant or collaborator. To avoid this, it is important that the Principal Investigator (PI) / lead applicant (i.e. the person with overall responsibility for the proposal) is the one listed as the submitting applicant. This ensures clarity around leadership and accountability for the programme.
- Relatedly, in some applications, the lead applicant did not appear to have a direct connection to the intervention, its delivery / implementation and/or any prior related work, which also raised questions about the leadership of the team.
- A key aspect of the call is the generation of evidence on the economic impacts / implications / sustainability of the intervention(s), to help facilitate its longer-term adoption. Some applications had no or minimal discussion of the economic implications and long-term sustainability of the interventions to support adoption, and/or did not have a clear plan for this (e.g. a cost-effectiveness analysis plan and/or identification of a comparator etc.). These applications often lacked involvement from an individual with relevant health economics expertise (or similar) in developing the proposal. Stronger proposals explained how this analysis could support the longer-term adoption of the intervention(s). This was seen to be particularly realistic when the approach had been supported by / co-developed with the relevant commissioning / adopter partner(s), ensuring alignment with real-world decision-making needs (more detail on this is provided below).
- On that note, it wasn’t always clear what the potential routes to adoption of the intervention(s) were and how the work being proposed could support this. With this in mind, the strongest proposals clearly articulated the commissioning / adoption partner(s)’ involvement in the proposal’s development and how the proposed programme would inform their decision-making regarding the longer-term adoption of the intervention. They also provided a strong justification for why the proposed work was needed, over and above the evidence of effectiveness that had already been gained.
- Some applications appeared more like an extension of an existing programme / service with a research component added on. In other cases, the proposed implementation plans were not well developed or convincing, with limited detail on embedding the intervention in the local context or scaling beyond the initial site.
- As stated in the guidelines, this funding call was specifically targeting the implementation of intervention(s) that focus on prevention in underserved communities. In some cases, these populations were not clearly defined, or the rationale for considering the target group as underserved was unclear. In other proposals, commitments to working with underserved communities were general rather than supported by concrete plans or actions. The strongest proposals detailed partnerships with relevant community organisations, addressed potential barriers, and could evidence that they had the appropriate expertise and/or had been successful in doing this previously.
- It was sometimes unclear to what extent the intervention was genuinely ageing-related / targeted at older adults. Where an intervention was available to all, but the case was made that the majority / a large proportion of the target population were / could be older adults, the provision of supporting evidence to provide confidence in this was necessary. In a few proposals, the ageing-related content was minimal, and/or the main intervention lacked a convincing ageing-specific rationale.
- Several applications made no mention to patient, carer and/or public involvement and engagement activities / work. Stronger submissions included clear, appropriate plans for involving older adults and relevant communities in shaping and delivering the work.
- In a few instances we noticed the use of the terms “elderly”, “subjects” and “hard-to-reach groups”. Whilst the panel didn’t factor this into their assessment, we thought it would be helpful to highlight this and signpost to some useful guidance on these terms:
- For example, the Centre for Ageing Better’s Age-friendly communication principles advocates for the use of “older person” or “older people” instead of “elderly”, which often has negative connotations.
- In addition, the term “subject”, used to describe someone taking part in a research study, is now viewed as outdated – with the UK government replacing the term “subject” with “participant” in the legislation that underpins the regulation of clinical trials in the UK.
- Many people – ourselves included – advocate for the use of the term “seldom-heard groups” instead of “hard-to-reach groups”.
With so many interesting and high-quality proposals, the decision on who to shortlist was difficult. We very much appreciate the time and effort put into developing an application, and hope that this feedback is helpful to those who were unsuccessful at this stage in taking their work forward. If you are looking for new networks to assist you, do consider joining / reaching out to members of the Vivensa Academy. You may also be interested in the Academy Ignition Fund, which provides small pots of funding (up to £5k) to be used flexibly, for example to bring together different stakeholders / partners and develop ideas for future funding applications. Finally, do visit the UK Ageing Research Funders’ Forum news page to view other potential funding opportunities.
If you wish to stay updated on other funding opportunities from the Foundation, then you can join our mailing list by adding your details to the ‘Join our community’ section of our “Contact us” page. You can also follow us on LinkedIn or Bluesky.