Assessment criteria for Frontline Centres at OUH

Evaluation scale:

1	Poor/inadequate (insufficient fulfilment of the assessment criteria)
2	Adequate (minimal fulfilment of the assessment criteria with major flaws)
3	Mediocre (low level of fulfilment of assessment criteria with several substantial flaws)
4	Good (fulfilment of the assessment criteria with some flaws)
5	Excellent (substantial fulfilment of the assessment criteria with few non-essential flaws)
6	Outstanding (extensive fulfilment of the assessment criteria with none or few insignificant flaws)

1. Relevance and strategic importance (Rating 1-6)

1.1 Strategic relevance (Sub-rating: 1–6)

• Does the programme support OUH’s strategic priorities, the national healthcare reform, and the specialty plan?
• Does the programme address significant healthcare challenges or unmet needs relevant to patients, the Danish healthcare system etc.?

1.2 Patient involvement and impact (Sub-rating: 1–6)

• Are patients and relatives actively involved throughout the research process – from idea development to implementation and evaluation?
• Does the programme define a clear and measurable expectation of impact on patients, relatives, healthcare professionals, and society?

2. The research plan (Rating 1-6)

2.1 Scientific quality and ambition (Sub-rating: 1–6)

• Is the programme scientifically ambitious and innovative, addressing significant or complex challenges?
• Are the hypotheses clear and proposed methods relevant?
• Does the programme generate new knowledge, methods, or practices, including e.g., the development of new clinical guidelines or treatment strategies?

2.2 Feasibility and evaluation (Sub-rating: 1–6)

• Are the involved participants well-qualified and well-suited for solving the proposed problem?
• Are the objectives of the programme realistic, and is there a clear plan to achieve them?
• Does the programme include a robust framework for monitoring progress and evaluating outcomes, including risk management and alternative approaches?

2.3 Ethics and regulatory compliance (Sub-rating: 1–6)

• Does the programme comply with ethical and regulatory requirements?

3. Organisation, collaboration, and resources (Rating 1-6)

3.1 Governance (Sub-rating: 1–6)

• Does the programme have a clear governance structure with defined roles and decision-making mechanisms that ensure effective leadership, management, and coordination of activities including e.g. cross-disciplinary and cross-sectoral collaboration?

3.2 Collaboration and knowledge sharing (Sub-rating: 1–6)

• Does the programme have well-defined and valuable collaborations with relevant national and international partners?
• Does the programme have a clear strategy for knowledge sharing and dissemination of results, both internally and externally?

3.3 Financial resources and sustainability (Sub-rating: 1–6)

• Is the budget realistic and aligned with the requirement that 66% of funding must come from external sources?
• Does the programme have a solid plan for securing external funding and ensuring long-term financial sustainability?

3.4 Career development and research mobility (Sub-rating: 1–6)

• Does the programme support career development, particularly for postdocs and mid-level researchers, and promote both international and national research mobility (e.g., exchange programmes, research stays abroad, or at hospitals in other Danish regions)?

4. Overall Assessment (Rating 1-6)

• Does the programme have the necessary strength and potential to achieve its objectives and contribute to the priorities of the Frontline Programme?