Build a Major Health Research Hub in the UK: EPSRC Research and Partnership Hubs for a Healthy Society — Up to £12.5M FEC (Invite Only)

If you lead a team that brings together engineering, physical sciences and health research, this invitation-only funding window is one of the rare opportunities to design a large-scale, multidisciplinary centre focused on prevention, wellbeing and healthier lives. The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) is putting significant money on the table — projects can request up to £12.5 million full economic cost (FEC), with EPSRC covering 80% of that. But you don’t get to apply for the full proposal unless EPSRC has invited you after an approved outline stage. In short: this is for consortia that have already impressed at outline and are ready to scale.

This call is less a one-off grant and more a blueprint for something substantial: a hub that pulls together researchers, health systems, policy makers, industry partners and communities to tackle prevention and improve healthy living at scale. If you can combine deep technical capability (for example sensing, data systems, materials or modelling) with rigorous health research and credible pathways to impact, you should pay attention.

Below I walk through everything you need to know — from what the funding actually buys to the institutional details you can’t ignore, the documents you must prepare, and practical advice that increases your odds of being invited and, ultimately, funded.

At a Glance

What This Opportunity Offers

This is an investment in scale and integration. The grant supports large multidisciplinary hubs that combine engineering and physical sciences expertise with health research to help people live healthier lives and to prevent ill health. Think beyond single-discipline projects: the funding is designed for programmes that require deep collaboration across departments, institutions and sectors.

With up to £12.5M FEC available per project and EPSRC funding 80% of that, you can propose significant staffing plans (senior hires, postdocs, research software engineers), durable infrastructure (shared data platforms, testbeds, sensor networks), long-term community engagement and systems-level pilots with health partners. Importantly, the FEC model means the funding is calibrated to cover the true economic cost of doing the work — not just pocket money for consumables.

The scale of the funding lets you plan multi-year workstreams that combine discovery research, translational activities and demonstrators that connect with NHS organisations, local public health teams, industry partners and third-sector groups. If your habit has been to squeeze big ideas into tiny pilot grants, this fund lets you propose the full programme — recruitment, governance, evaluation, and a route to sustained impact.

Beyond cash, a successful hub becomes a focal point: a convenor of partners, an attractor of further funding, and a base for training the next generation of interdisciplinary researchers. EPSRC often expects hubs to leave a lasting legacy — new methods, standards, datasets, or service prototypes that others can pick up.

Who Should Apply

This isn’t for lone wolves. It’s for coalitions.

Lead applicants must be based at a UK research organisation eligible for EPSRC funding. That usually means universities, eligible research councils institutes or recognised research organisations within the UK. Projects must show genuine collaboration between EPSRC disciplines (engineering, physical sciences, computing) and health research (clinical, public health, social care or health services research).

You should apply if you can demonstrate:

• A strong, multidisciplinary team with complementary expertise (e.g., computational modelling, sensor design, behavioural science, clinical research).
• Clear partnerships with health services, local authorities or commercial actors who will participate in or adopt outputs.
• A plan for meaningful public and patient involvement so interventions are acceptable and practical.
• The institutional backing to host an ambitious hub (space, leadership support, match funding or in-kind contributions).

Real-world examples of good fits:

• A consortium proposing a city-scale connected health testbed combining air-quality sensors, wearables, and behaviour interventions to reduce respiratory illness.
• A team planning a national data platform that integrates physiologic signals from devices with primary care records to enable early detection of chronic conditions.
• A partnership between materials scientists, rehabilitation clinicians and industry to develop low-cost assistive devices that reduce long-term disability.

If you’re a sole PI with a narrow lab project, this call isn’t the right home. If you have strong multi-institution partnerships, health sector buy-in and ambition to scale, read on.

How the Money Works (Full Economic Cost and the 80% Rule)

FEC means you present the entire economic cost of delivering the project: salaries at full cost, estates, overheads, equipment depreciation and any other direct costs. EPSRC will fund 80% of that total. That leaves a 20% shortfall which your institution must cover, either through direct institutional contribution, other funders, or in-kind contributions.

Practical impact:

• Budget realistically. Don’t assume 100% of your requested FEC will be paid; build institutional commitment for the 20%.
• Use the FEC framework to show your project’s long-term sustainability plan (how the hub will continue in some form after the grant ends).
• Make sure collaborators’ costs are clearly justified and mapped to workpackages.

Insider Tips for a Winning Application

1. Start with stories, not technobabble. The strongest proposals explain the lived problem in clear human terms: patients, practitioners, or communities who would benefit. Then map the technical response. Reviewers like to see the problem-behaviour-solution chain spelled out.

2. Build governance before you build the technology. Show how decisions will be made, how conflicts will be resolved, and who is accountable. A steering committee with service partners and public representatives signals maturity.

3. Show credible downstream adoption. Funders want hubs to produce usable outcomes. Get written commitments from NHS trusts, local authorities or industry partners that describe concrete adoption pathways (pilots, procurement, policy change).

4. Budget for translation and community work. Include funds for engagement officers, plain-language materials, workshops and accessibility. Engagement is not optional — it’s core business for a health hub.

5. Design evaluation from day one. Include a mixed-methods evaluation plan with process and outcome metrics, and name an independent evaluator if possible. Show how success will be measured at multiple levels (technical performance, health outcomes, cost-effectiveness).

6. Make the interdisciplinary links explicit. Don’t assume reviewers will infer integration. Use a diagram or narrative to show how different disciplines connect across workpackages and what unique value each partner brings.

7. Protect against technical risk with staged deliverables. If a device or platform might not work as planned, include alternative tracks or phased milestones that keep the project viable.

8. Use early letters of support strategically. Rather than generic praise, ask partners for specific commitments (access to sites, data sharing agreements, hardware, co-funding).

9. Invest in a crisp, one-page impact plan. It’s surprising how many large proposals bury their impact case deep in appendices. Make the case visible and concrete.

10. Recruit the right project manager. Ambitious hubs fail from weak coordination. Fund a senior project manager with experience managing multi-partner grants.

Those ten tips are tactical but they’re also strategic: this grant is judged on technical excellence and on the plausibility of real-world impact. Address both.

Application Timeline (Realistic, Backwards from 17 March 2026)

Work backwards and leave time for institutional checks.

• 17 March 2026 (16:00) — Full proposal deadline for invited applicants. Submit at least 48 hours early to avoid last-minute glitches.
• 2–16 March — Final internal reviews, head of department sign-off, institutional approvals and upload to portal.
• February — Full draft ready for critical review. Circulate to external reviewers, partners and your university research office.
• December–January — Write the full proposal: case for support, workpackages, budget, letters of support, data management plan, ethics plan.
• October–November — Secure letters from NHS/trusts, local authorities, industry and patient groups. Confirm cost-sharing for the 20% FEC gap.
• Summer (prior to outline invitation) — If you’re at the outline stage, prepare a concise, high-impact outline that frames the problem, partners and broad plan. Successful outlines lead to invitations for full proposals.

Most institutions require internal deadlines weeks earlier than EPSRC’s. Check with your research office and the T&F support contacts early.

Required Materials (Detailed)

You’ll need the standard EPSRC documents plus materials specific to a hub. Prepare these with care; incomplete or inconsistent paperwork kills otherwise excellent submissions.

• Case for support / project description: clear narrative, objectives, workpackages, methodology and risk mitigation.
• Detailed budget and justification: itemized costs for staff, equipment, travel, engagement, and institutional contributions to cover the 20% FEC gap.
• Project management and governance plan: roles, responsibilities, decision-making structures.
• Letters of support and commitment: from health partners, industry, local authorities and patient groups — make them specific and dated.
• Data management plan and data-sharing agreements: show how data will be stored, accessed and governed, especially with health data involved.
• Ethics plan and approvals roadmap: explain necessary approvals and timelines for NHS or social care access.
• Impact and exploitation plan: how outputs will be used, adopted, or commercialised.
• CVs or biosketches for senior personnel: show track record in interdisciplinary work.
• Public and patient involvement (PPI) statement: explain how affected communities shaped the proposal.
• Any required institutional approvals or signatures.

Draft these documents in parallel. Letters of support often take the longest; give signatories drafts and deadlines.

What Makes an Application Stand Out

Reviewers look beyond technical novelty. They want evidence that the hub will deliver meaningful, sustainable change. Standout proposals typically combine several of the following:

• Coherent multidisciplinary integration where methods and perspectives genuinely interact rather than sit in parallel.
• Concrete, testable plans for pilot implementation in real health settings with named partners.
• Strong PPI and community involvement that shapes research questions and outcomes.
• A realistic route to continue activities beyond the grant — additional funding streams, industry uptake, adoption by health services, or institutional commitment.
• Robust governance, with named leads for science, operations, engagement and impact.
• Clear scalability: demonstration activities that can be scaled across regions or nationally.
• Measurable success criteria and an independent evaluation framework.

If you can show not just what you will do but how the hub will be run, measured and adopted, you’re in a strong position.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

Many proposals fail on avoidable errors. Here are six pitfalls and how to prevent them.

1. Vague partnerships. A “partner” listed without commitments is worthless. Get signed letters that specify resources, roles and timelines.

2. Underestimating the 20% gap. Your institution must cover the rest. Confirm this early and document it in the proposal.

3. Treating engagement as an afterthought. Engagement should be budgeted, staffed and scheduled, not tacked on in the conclusions.

4. Poor governance structures. Large consortia need clear lines of authority and dispute resolution procedures. Don’t leave governance ambiguous.

5. Unclear evaluation metrics. If you can’t say how success will be measured, reviewers will question the project’s accountability. Include both process and outcome measures.

6. Ignoring data and ethics challenges. Health-related research often involves sensitive data. Missing plans for approvals, data security and consent will harm your credibility.

Fix these before submission and your application will be materially stronger.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Can international partners receive funds from EPSRC under this call? A: Lead applicants and host organisations must be UK research organisations eligible for EPSRC funding. International partners can participate but typically cannot receive EPSRC funding directly. You should describe their role and how costs will be covered (e.g., by their own institutions or matched funding).

Q: How is the 20% funding shortfall normally met? A: Institutions usually cover the 20% through central funds, matched contributions from partners, in-kind support (e.g., access to facilities), or co-funding from industry. Document confirmed contributions in letters of support.

Q: Do we need prior outline invitation to submit a full proposal? A: Yes — only invited applicants who passed the outline stage may submit a full proposal. If you haven’t been invited, focus on preparing a strong outline when the outline competition opens.

Q: Are NHS Trusts required as partners? A: Not strictly required, but partnership with health services strengthens the case. Projects intending clinical pilots or service delivery changes need NHS involvement to access sites, patients and data.

Q: What is the typical award duration? A: The opportunity text does not specify duration here. Large hubs frequently run multiple years. Check the official call documentation for permitted durations and tailor workpackages accordingly.

Q: Will EPSRC provide interim review or project management support? A: EPSRC provides funding but expects funded projects to include their own project management, governance and evaluation. Expect periodic reporting and audits.

Q: Can early-career researchers lead a hub? A: Leading a hub is a heavy lift for an early-career researcher. If an early-career lead is proposed, strong institutional support and experienced co-leads are essential.

Q: How do we protect participant data? A: Include a robust data management and governance plan, follow NHS/Digital guidance for health data, and outline information governance arrangements. If data will cross borders, explain legal safeguards.

Next Steps — How to Apply

If you have already submitted an outline and received an invitation, congrats — your task now is to convert that promise into a detailed, executable plan.

Immediate actions:

1. Contact your institutional research office and confirm internal deadlines and processes for sign-off.
2. Lock down letters of commitment from health partners and confirm how the 20% FEC gap will be met.
3. Hire or nominate a senior project manager to coordinate the full proposal workstream.
4. Draft a data management and ethics pathway and begin discussions with NHS Research & Development (R&D) teams if sites are involved.
5. Reach out to the EPSRC contacts for clarification on any call specifics: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected].

Ready to begin? Visit the official opportunity page for full guidance, documentation and the application portal: https://www.ukri.org/opportunity/research-and-partnership-hubs-for-a-healthy-society/

If you want a second set of eyes on your draft (structure, risk register, impact plan), get one from someone outside your immediate consortium. An informed outsider will spot assumptions the team is blind to. Good luck — this is a big ask, but done well a hub like this can change the way we design and deliver healthier lives across communities.