A unofficial guide to NIHR-MRC Better Methods, Better Research applications

This guide reflects my own personal views and opinions and not those of the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR), UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) or the Medical Research Council (MRC). For official information about the funding schemes discussed please refer to the NIHR website.

This guide is intended for those from UK-based research communities who are not familiar with NIHR funding particularly those doing mathematical and computational sciences and who focus more on foundational methods research.

Background

The Better Methods, Better Research (BMBR) programme funds methodological research to ensure that optimal research methods are used in biomedical, health, and care-focused research, policy, and delivery. It is one of the few UK funding schemes dedicated to methodology development — whether qualitative or quantitative. Specifically methods must be applicable beyond a single case study or research question and should also be developed with end-user engagement.

In late 2024, BMBR transitioned from being operated by the Medical Research Council (MRC) to the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR). This change brought several important differences for applicants and award holders familiar with the MRC/UKRI model. Some of these may be particularly unfamiliar to those from mathematical and computational science backgrounds.

I created this unofficial guide to help researchers interested in applying. Practical advice can be hard to find, and having previously served as a BMBR funding panel member (under MRC) and as a successful applicant in the first NIHR-led round (you can read my research protocol here), I hope my insights will be useful.

Who Are the Funders?

NIHR and MRC derive their budgets from different sources:

• MRC is part of UKRI, which primarily receives funding from the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT).

• NIHR is primarily funded by the Department for Health and Social Care (DHSC).

Broadly speaking, MRC focuses on basic biomedical discovery and early translation, while NIHR’s remit extends further into applied and translational research, including clinical trials and experimental medicine studies.

For BMBR applicants, this distinction matters. NIHR’s systems and terminology have evolved primarily around applied studies. Some of its processes, language, and structures are therefore not optimised for methods research.

Don’t be discouraged, though — methods research remains firmly within the BMBR remit.

Grant or Contract?

A key difference between NIHR and MRC funding lies in the nature of the award. NIHR issues contracts, not grants.

This means the process is more formal, with a stronger emphasis on accountability and legal enforceability regarding the work undertaken. These contractual implications permeate the application, award setup, and project monitoring stages.

If you’re used to the relative flexibility of UKRI grants, NIHR contracts can feel more restrictive and administratively demanding. However, NIHR Programme Managers are available throughout your contract to support delivery and help resolve challenges.

The system is designed to motivate researchers and ensure projects — particularly those involving multiple collaborators — stay on track and meet their agreed milestones.

If you really dislike oversight or have a deep aversion to administration, NIHR funding may not be the best fit.

Applying

Under NIHR, BMBR applications have become longer and more detailed than their previous MRC equivalents. This reflects NIHR’s broader framework and the contractual nature of its awards.

Your application serves as a foundation for the future contract and monitoring process, so you’ll need to define clear objectives and timelines — these will later translate directly into milestones for project monitoring.

It is more work than a typical UKRI application, but this extra detail often results in stronger, more carefully planned proposals — particularly regarding public and patient involvement and engagement (PPIE).

Because your proposed timescales will form the basis of your contractual milestones, be realistic. Discuss risks and mitigation plans, and focus on tangible deliverables.

Importantly do not forget the lay or non-technical summary. This is often left to the last step by many applicants but remember this piece of text is not just read b Public-Patient Involvement and Engagement representatives, but also by NIHR staff, reviewers and panelists who may not be expert in your area (but may have influence on the decision to recommend funding!) and even experts who just do not have a lot of time! It is important that this summary captures the main features of your proposal succinctly and powerfully.

NIHR provides comprehensive guidance for applicants — if you follow their structure closely, you won’t go far wrong.

Public and Patient Involvement and Engagement (PPIE)

PPIE can seem daunting for foundational methods researchers. The development of algorithms, analytical techniques, or computational tools may feel far removed from the concerns of patients or the public.

A common question I’m asked by potential BMBR applicants is:
“What am I going to do about PPIE?” or “What did you do?” — especially since PPIE representatives sit on NIHR funding panels.

If PPIE is new to you, there are some excellent resources available which are more specific to methodology research:

• A recent paper in Statistics in Medicine showcases case studies of PPIE in statistical methodology research.
• Laura Gray and colleagues at the NIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre have created particularly helpful guidance.

If you’re based in a physical sciences department, seek advice from colleagues in medical or applied health sciences — they often have significant PPIE experience and institutional support structures in place.

For methodology work, it is necessary to think quite creatively about PPIE and you may need to do this with PPIE support before you apply. You may need to investigate locally within your university whether there are any funds to support this or externally. Recently, MRC created a new funding stream to support pre-application PPIE activities. If funds are hard to come by, you can also volunteer with local patient support groups. Many are really interested in having scientists come to talk to them about existing and new research.

As with any part of your research, what you propose should be appropriate and useful. PPIE should never be a box-ticking exercise. Your project may benefit from it — or it may not. The key is to think carefully and make a clear, justified case.

In my own BMBR award, there was no PPIE component but the inspiration for the work had drawn on prior PPIE activities I’d undertaken (see here) and also relevant work with collaborators in other projects (see here). I also referenced PPIE efforts by other researchers that directly informed my proposed work. But note, in my case, the decision to not include PPIE, was actually informed by PPIE!

What Happens If You’re Awarded?

If you’re successful — congratulations!

Be aware that NIHR award setup is more involved than a typical UKRI grant. You’ll be asked to refine your research and delivery plan in response to panel feedback and NIHR requirements. This may include providing additional justifications or quotes for expenditure items.

You will need to produce a project timeline with milestones and deliverables, which will form the basis for ongoing monitoring. Your assigned Programme Manager will guide you through this process.

You may also need to prepare study protocols and ethics approvals, where applicable. A study protocol is a comprehensive, detailed document describing exactly how the study will be conducted. The concept and terminology used can feel unfamiliar if you’re from a non-clinical background — much of it stems from clinical studies or trial governance. The key thing is that in this domain, how you conduct your research is as important as what the research is and what discoveries arise from it. As a consequence, for methodology researchers used to more blue skies, foundational research, this can seem very different when the conventional wisdom is to go where the research takes us.

Practically, what does this mean?

Well, you need to be a bit more specific about what you want to do. A statement like “I will develop a prediction model to do X” might need to extend to:

I will develop a prediction model to do X, this will include:

- Defining the target population and inclusion/exclusion criteria, for example, adults aged 18+ presenting with condition Y at UK secondary care centres between 2025–2027.

- Specifying data sources, such as anonymised patient records from [dataset name] or prospectively collected data through [study site/registry].

- Predefining predictor variables, including clinical, demographic, and laboratory factors identified from prior literature or expert consensus.

- Establishing the outcome definition, specifying exactly what outcome the model will predict (e.g., 30-day readmission, treatment response, or survival).

- Describing the statistical and machine learning methods to be used, such as logistic regression, random forests, or gradient boosting, with cross-validation and calibration assessment.

- Planning how missing data will be handled, for example, using multiple imputation or complete-case analysis.

- Outlining performance measures,  e.g., AUROC, sensitivity, specificity, calibration slope/intercept.

- Specifying internal validation (e.g., bootstrapping or k-fold cross-validation) and any plans for external validation using independent data.

- Detailing how model performance and interpretability will be reported, following TRIPOD guidelines.

- Describing governance, data management, and ethical considerations — including data access permissions, patient confidentiality, and approvals from a research ethics committee where applicable.

Most universities have guidance on developing study and ethics protocols, though it may sit in a different department from your own. If you require help, contact your Programme Manager and make much sure you provide them with a plain English description of your project (what it involves and what is to be delivered). Mathematical and computational work may be as alien to them as applied health research is to you!

Finally, study registration is required. This is standard practice in clinical research to ensure transparency, integrity and accountability. For methodological projects that don’t fit conventional registration types, flexible options exist. For example, I registered my project using the Open Science Framework (OSF), which provides an open and adaptable study registration platform suitable for a wide range of research designs.

During the project, your progress will be measured relative to your stated milestones. If you experience any delays or changes need to be made, you should work with your Programme Manager in good time to coordinate these changes. Significant changes may need to be referred to the Programme Director for the BMBR programme for further consideration.

Closing Thoughts

Transitioning from MRC to NIHR funding can feel like stepping into a different world — more structure, more process, and more oversight. But it also brings valuable discipline, clarity, and support for delivering meaningful research.

If you’re undertaking foundational methodological work in the UK and want your research to have clear translational relevance, NIHR’s BMBR scheme is well worth considering.

** Special thanks to a number of friends and colleagues for providing valuable feedback on earlier versions of this article **