Download ppt - FH Health Research Intelligence Unit How to Write Successful Proposals and Grants

FH Health Research FH Health Research Intelligence UnitIntelligence Unit

How to Write Successful How to Write Successful Proposals and GrantsProposals and Grants

How to Write Successful How to Write Successful Research Grant ApplicationsResearch Grant Applications

Rosa Haywood (604-587-4436), Research Ethics

Coordinator, Research Ethics Board.

Susan Chunick (604-587-4681), Director, Research

Administration and Development (RAD).

Michael Wasdell (604-587-4637), Grant Facilitator-Writer.

Rae Spiwak (604-587-4438), Epidemiologist.

Who we are:Who we are:

Camille Viray (604-587-4628), RAD Administrative

Assistant.

RESEARCH ETHICS BOARD

STATUS REPORT 01 September 2008Total Studies 492

(From 2005 September 01 to Date)

ACTIVE STUDIES =200 PENDING APPROVAL = 29

48

5

77

10

58

0 20

20

40

60

80

Sponsor FH Grants Non-FHGrants

Grant-Aid Unfunded FH Internal Other

Funding for ACTIVE StudiesType of Ethics Review for ACTIVE Studies

98

102

Full Board

Expedited

Active Studies by Department AreaActive Studies by Department Area

Access & UtilizationAccess & Utilization 11 Family MedicineFamily Medicine 22 NursingNursing 44 PlanningPlanning 11

Acute ProgramsAcute Programs 22 FinanceFinance 11 ObstetricsObstetrics 77 Professional PracticeProfessional Practice 66

AdministrationAdministration 22 Food & NutritionFood & Nutrition 22 Occupational TherapyOccupational Therapy 11 PsychiatryPsychiatry 1414

Biomedical EngineeringBiomedical Engineering 11 Health ServicesHealth Services 33 OncologyOncology 77 Public Health PreventionPublic Health Prevention 11

CardiologyCardiology 3131 Infection ControlInfection Control 11 Operating RoomOperating Room 11 Residency FacilityResidency Facility 22

Chronic CareChronic Care 11 Internal MedicineInternal Medicine 22 OrthopaedicsOrthopaedics 1717 RespiratoryRespiratory 22

Critical Care (ICU)Critical Care (ICU) 88 Material ManagementMaterial Management 11 Palliative CarePalliative Care 22 Social WorkSocial Work 33

Decision Support ServicesDecision Support Services 11 MedicineMedicine 66 PathologyPathology 11 SurgerySurgery 22

Elder ResearchElder Research 22 Mental HealthMental Health 77 PediatricsPediatrics 66 Workplace HealthWorkplace Health 88

EmergencyEmergency 44 Multiple SclerosisMultiple Sclerosis 1212 People ServicesPeople Services 11 Non FH ResearchNon FH Research 33

Environmental HealthEnvironmental Health 22 NephrologyNephrology 66 PharmacyPharmacy 99

EthicsEthics 11 NeurologyNeurology 11 PhysiotherapyPhysiotherapy 22

FH Health Research Intelligence Unit FH Health Research Intelligence Unit How can we help?How can we help?

EpidemiologistEpidemiologist Specifying the research goal, Specifying the research goal,

objectives and hypothesisobjectives and hypothesis Identifying measurable outcomesIdentifying measurable outcomes Specifying the variables for Specifying the variables for

analysisanalysis Identifying sources of dataIdentifying sources of data Developing data collection tools Developing data collection tools

for quantitative or qualitative for quantitative or qualitative studiesstudies

Developing the statistical analysis Developing the statistical analysis planplan

Analyzing the dataAnalyzing the data Understanding how to use Understanding how to use

statistical software, such as SPSSstatistical software, such as SPSS

Grant Facilitator-WriterGrant Facilitator-Writer Conducting a search for Conducting a search for

funding opportunitiesfunding opportunities Automatic notification of new Automatic notification of new

funding sources and deadlinesfunding sources and deadlines Identifying a research teamIdentifying a research team Preparing letters of intentPreparing letters of intent Identifying resources required Identifying resources required

for conducting researchfor conducting research Formulating the research Formulating the research

budgetbudget Writing the grant application in Writing the grant application in

collaboration with researcherscollaboration with researchers Understanding FH and funding Understanding FH and funding

agency requirements agency requirements regarding preparation of regarding preparation of specific documentsspecific documents

The Great IdeaThe Great Idea

Putting your ideas for research down on paper will allow Putting your ideas for research down on paper will allow you to articulate clearly your ideas to othersyou to articulate clearly your ideas to others

Create a program proposal to help present your idea to Create a program proposal to help present your idea to others. others.

Create a program outline that will enable people who are not Create a program outline that will enable people who are not involved in the study to understand exactly what you plan to doinvolved in the study to understand exactly what you plan to do

Review the literature to ensure that your proposal is Review the literature to ensure that your proposal is uniqueunique

Obtain feedback from experts, colleagues and Obtain feedback from experts, colleagues and stakeholdersstakeholders

Develop a Project Management PlanDevelop a Project Management Plan

Prepare an up to date resume/curriculum vitae Prepare an up to date resume/curriculum vitae Identify appropriate sources of funding Identify appropriate sources of funding Select funding source Select funding source Develop a timeline for development of research proposal and Develop a timeline for development of research proposal and

submission of letter of intent and application for funding submission of letter of intent and application for funding Identify the research collaborators Identify the research collaborators Prepare the budget Prepare the budget Prepare the grant application packagePrepare the grant application package Submit grant application to RAD office to obtain Submit grant application to RAD office to obtain signaturesignature of of

authorizing Executive authorizing Executive Submit for and obtain approval by Submit for and obtain approval by FH Research Ethics BoardFH Research Ethics Board

prior to or in tandem with application for funding.prior to or in tandem with application for funding.

How we can help - HRIUHow we can help - HRIU

For assistance with any of the above steps, For assistance with any of the above steps, contact the FH grant facilitator-writer, contact the FH grant facilitator-writer, Michael WasdellMichael Wasdell, 604-587-4637 who can: , 604-587-4637 who can:

Provide overall project management to ensure Provide overall project management to ensure that FH internal and agency requirements for that FH internal and agency requirements for funding applications are met funding applications are met

Co-ordinate the development of the research Co-ordinate the development of the research proposal with the FH epidemiologist, proposal with the FH epidemiologist, Rae Rae SpiwakSpiwak, 604-587-4438, 604-587-4438

Collaborate in the writing of the grant applicationCollaborate in the writing of the grant application

Planning for the Grant ApplicationPlanning for the Grant Application

Funding CyclesFunding Cycles Unique, Annual, Semi-Annual, etc.Unique, Annual, Semi-Annual, etc.

Application ProcessApplication Process Announcement – Request for Applications (RFA)Announcement – Request for Applications (RFA) Letter of intent - LOILetter of intent - LOI

• Signals to the agency that you will be submitting an applicationSignals to the agency that you will be submitting an application• Some agencies may request a brief synopsis of the proposal to Some agencies may request a brief synopsis of the proposal to

screen out inappropriate applicantsscreen out inappropriate applicants• Time between RFA and LOI may only be 1 or 2 monthsTime between RFA and LOI may only be 1 or 2 months

Full applicationFull application• Time between letter of intent and full application is usually 2-3 Time between letter of intent and full application is usually 2-3

monthsmonths Award AnnouncementAward Announcement

May be up to 6 monthsMay be up to 6 months

Planning for the Grant ApplicationPlanning for the Grant Application

Having adequate time to prepare your Having adequate time to prepare your application is essentialapplication is essential

It is best to have your research ideas developed, It is best to have your research ideas developed, team identified and proposal written in advance team identified and proposal written in advance of the RFAof the RFA Unfortunately, this does not happen frequentlyUnfortunately, this does not happen frequently

Keep in mind that the time from RFA to funding Keep in mind that the time from RFA to funding decision can be up to one yeardecision can be up to one year

Tip – begin at least 6 months in advance of Tip – begin at least 6 months in advance of deadlinedeadline

Where to find fundingWhere to find funding

National and regional agencies for health National and regional agencies for health research (eg., CIHR, MSFHR, BCMSF)research (eg., CIHR, MSFHR, BCMSF)

Provincial branches and associations of Provincial branches and associations of health agencies (eg., Canadian Lung health agencies (eg., Canadian Lung Association, Canadian Cancer Society, Association, Canadian Cancer Society, Heart and Stroke Foundation)Heart and Stroke Foundation)

Professional AssociationsProfessional Associations Health/Disease based AssociationsHealth/Disease based Associations

http://www.fraserhealth.ca/Professionals/Research/Investigator/Documents/GrantFacilitationEpidemiologist.pdf

FH HRIU consultation request FH HRIU consultation request formform contains a listing of contains a listing of funding agencies.funding agencies.

Community of Science Community of Science Funding Opportunities Funding Opportunities DatabaseDatabase. . • web basedweb based• 400,000 listings400,000 listings

Contact Rosa HaywoodContact Rosa Haywood

FH Funding ResourcesFH Funding Resources

News NowNews Now has monthly has monthly updates of new funding updates of new funding opportunitiesopportunities

Grant MatchmakingGrant Matchmaking

Your research matches the objectives of Your research matches the objectives of the funderthe funder

They have made previous awards in your They have made previous awards in your area of researcharea of research

They make awards to your institutionThey make awards to your institution You meet basic investigator eligibilityYou meet basic investigator eligibility They have sufficient funds They have sufficient funds The application deadline is achievableThe application deadline is achievable

Request for ApplicationsRequest for Applications

Understanding the funding formatsUnderstanding the funding formats Operating grantsOperating grants Team grantsTeam grants Seed/development grantsSeed/development grants Randomized controlled trialsRandomized controlled trials Research synthesisResearch synthesis Environmental scansEnvironmental scans WorkshopsWorkshops Special initiatives and priority announcementsSpecial initiatives and priority announcements

StrategyStrategy Consider all the funding formats with respect to your Consider all the funding formats with respect to your

proposalproposal Select several funding programs to increase your Select several funding programs to increase your

chanceschances Think of ways to build a program of researchThink of ways to build a program of research ScenarioScenario

Apply for funding for an environmental scan. This helps you to Apply for funding for an environmental scan. This helps you to identify a poorly researched area.identify a poorly researched area.

With this knowledge, you apply for a team planning grant to With this knowledge, you apply for a team planning grant to bring together key stakeholders and researchers with similar bring together key stakeholders and researchers with similar interest to identify a program of researchinterest to identify a program of research

The team submits for a seed grant to obtain pilot data and The team submits for a seed grant to obtain pilot data and demonstrate the feasibility of the research and the likelihood of demonstrate the feasibility of the research and the likelihood of successsuccess

With a solid team, rationale and foundational data, you apply for With a solid team, rationale and foundational data, you apply for an operating grantan operating grant

Eligibility RequirementsEligibility Requirements

Principal Investigator and/or Co-InvestigatorsPrincipal Investigator and/or Co-Investigators Role - academic, clinical or decision making positionRole - academic, clinical or decision making position Degree and professionDegree and profession ExperienceExperience

• Previous awardsPrevious awards• PublicationsPublications• Evidence of completed researchEvidence of completed research• Years of research experienceYears of research experience

TipsTips• For national funding agencies, partner with an experienced For national funding agencies, partner with an experienced

researcherresearcher• Consider participating as a co-investigator to establish track recordConsider participating as a co-investigator to establish track record• Contact funding agency to review qualifications – exceptions may Contact funding agency to review qualifications – exceptions may

be madebe made

Eligibility RequirementsEligibility Requirements InstitutionInstitution

Academic Academic Health servicesHealth services Government or government agencyGovernment or government agency Community agencyCommunity agency

Institutional role - SponsorInstitutional role - Sponsor Administer and account for grant fundsAdminister and account for grant funds Research ethics reviewResearch ethics review Academic oversightAcademic oversight Facility and staff supportFacility and staff support Appropriate research environmentAppropriate research environment

Eligibility RequirementsEligibility Requirements

Type of researchType of research Some agencies may request specific Some agencies may request specific

research formats and exclude othersresearch formats and exclude others• Biomedical, Clinical, Health Services, PopulationBiomedical, Clinical, Health Services, Population• Conclusion Oriented, Decision OrientedConclusion Oriented, Decision Oriented

OtherOther Geographic locationGeographic location Country of citizenshipCountry of citizenship ResidencyResidency Co-SponsorshipCo-Sponsorship

General TipsGeneral Tips

Review funding agency guidelinesReview funding agency guidelines Make sure your proposal fits within the Make sure your proposal fits within the

guidelinesguidelines Look at funding allotment of past competitions to Look at funding allotment of past competitions to

ensure that your financial request is reasonableensure that your financial request is reasonable Check with agency to obtain updates on Check with agency to obtain updates on

changes to guidelines and deadlineschanges to guidelines and deadlines Follow all the rules and requests specified in the Follow all the rules and requests specified in the

application guidelinesapplication guidelines Is the proposal ethical?Is the proposal ethical?

Preparing the ProposalPreparing the Proposal

AbstractAbstractIntroduction Introduction (including statement (including statement of problem, goals, objectives and of problem, goals, objectives and significance of research)significance of research)BackgroundBackground or literature review or literature reviewMethod Method Knowledge DisseminationKnowledge DisseminationList of ReferencesList of ReferencesPersonnelPersonnelBudgetBudget

Typical parts of a research proposal includeTypical parts of a research proposal include

AbstractAbstract

Short paragraph that is a clear, logical Short paragraph that is a clear, logical summary of your proposalsummary of your proposal

Usually does not exceed 250 wordsUsually does not exceed 250 words

IntroductionIntroduction Should begin with a capsule statement of what is being Should begin with a capsule statement of what is being

proposed and then should proceed to introduce the subject proposed and then should proceed to introduce the subject to a stranger.to a stranger.

Should not assume that your reader is familiar with your Should not assume that your reader is familiar with your

subject. subject. Should be comprehensible to an informed lay reader. It Should be comprehensible to an informed lay reader. It

should give enough background to enable the reader to should give enough background to enable the reader to place your particular research problem in a context of place your particular research problem in a context of common knowledge and should show how its solution will common knowledge and should show how its solution will advance the field or be important for some other work. advance the field or be important for some other work.

In introducing the research problem, it is sometimes helpful In introducing the research problem, it is sometimes helpful to say what it is not, especially, if it could easily be confused to say what it is not, especially, if it could easily be confused with related work. with related work.

You may also need to explain the underlying assumption of You may also need to explain the underlying assumption of your research or the hypotheses you will be using.your research or the hypotheses you will be using.

BackgroundBackground

Literature reviews should be selective and critical.Literature reviews should be selective and critical. Reviewers do not want to read through a voluminous Reviewers do not want to read through a voluminous

working bibliography; they want to know the especially working bibliography; they want to know the especially pertinent works and your evaluation of them. pertinent works and your evaluation of them.

Discussions of work done by others should therefore Discussions of work done by others should therefore lead the reader to a clear impression of how you will be lead the reader to a clear impression of how you will be building upon what has already been done and how your building upon what has already been done and how your work differs from theirs. work differs from theirs.

It is important to establish what is original in your It is important to establish what is original in your approach, what circumstances have changed since approach, what circumstances have changed since related work was done, or what is unique about the time related work was done, or what is unique about the time and place of the proposed research.and place of the proposed research.

MethodMethod The heart of the proposal and is the primary concern of The heart of the proposal and is the primary concern of

the technical reviewers the technical reviewers Be as detailed as possible about the schedule of the Be as detailed as possible about the schedule of the

proposed work. proposed work. Objectives/Research Questions/HypothesisObjectives/Research Questions/Hypothesis Methods, study designMethods, study design Sample Selection/Sample SizeSample Selection/Sample Size Data MeasurementData Measurement Data CollectionData Collection Data AnalysisData Analysis Be specific about the means of evaluating the data or the Be specific about the means of evaluating the data or the

conclusions. conclusions. Be certain that the connection between the research Be certain that the connection between the research

objectives and the research method is evident. objectives and the research method is evident.

Knowledge Dissemination PlanKnowledge Dissemination Plan

Knowledge DisseminationKnowledge Dissemination

Very important stepVery important step What will you do with your new found What will you do with your new found

knowledge?knowledge? How will you share this knowledge?How will you share this knowledge? Who will benefit from this knowledge sharing?Who will benefit from this knowledge sharing? ““Applications must include a clear, explicit, and Applications must include a clear, explicit, and

manageable knowledge translation plan, which specifies manageable knowledge translation plan, which specifies the intended audience(s), the means of involvement and the intended audience(s), the means of involvement and communication, and the intended post-grant follow-up”. communication, and the intended post-grant follow-up”. CIHR (2006)CIHR (2006)

ReferencesReferences

Placed at the end of the text Placed at the end of the text Lists text and information included in Lists text and information included in

proposal from other authors/sourcesproposal from other authors/sources The grant guidelines will specify the format The grant guidelines will specify the format

of in-text citations and reference listof in-text citations and reference list

BiographiesBiographies This section usually consists of two parts: an This section usually consists of two parts: an

explanation of the proposed personnel explanation of the proposed personnel arrangements and the biographical information arrangements and the biographical information for co-investigators. for co-investigators.

The explanation should specify how many The explanation should specify how many persons at what percentage of time and in what persons at what percentage of time and in what professional/academic categories will be professional/academic categories will be participating in the project. If the program is participating in the project. If the program is complex and involves people from other complex and involves people from other departments or institutions, the organization of departments or institutions, the organization of the staff and the lines of responsibility should be the staff and the lines of responsibility should be made clear. made clear.

Description of activity Timing Responsibility

PI

Co

-PI

Col

l.

2nd c

oll

3rd c

oll

June July Aug Sept Oct No. of days

1) Research Program Preparation a) purchase equipment b) hire students c) visiting partners

2) Training Delivery 6 x 5day workshops 3) Follow up reporting 4) Administration

2 5 4 10 5 5

4 10 15

4 5

2 5

2 5

Total Days 31 29 9 7 7

CommunicationCommunication Know your audienceKnow your audience

Review panels are often composed of content experts as well as Review panels are often composed of content experts as well as generalistsgeneralists

Consider bias, myths and other unfounded opinionsConsider bias, myths and other unfounded opinions

Put your readers firstPut your readers first Reviewers are usually volunteers so try to make reading your Reviewers are usually volunteers so try to make reading your

application pleasantapplication pleasant Reviewers may have limited time to review your proposal – an easy Reviewers may have limited time to review your proposal – an easy

read is very appreciatedread is very appreciated Your proposal may be one of 20 that the reviewer must evaluate – Your proposal may be one of 20 that the reviewer must evaluate –

make it stand outmake it stand out Compare your proposal to the RFA to ensure that it contains all the Compare your proposal to the RFA to ensure that it contains all the

required elementsrequired elements Bolding of relevant information can help the reviewer make Bolding of relevant information can help the reviewer make

connections to key evaluation categoriesconnections to key evaluation categories Use tables and figures if they are informative and help to reduce textUse tables and figures if they are informative and help to reduce text

Writing TipsWriting Tips Organize the content for logical flow of ideasOrganize the content for logical flow of ideas Use ‘lead’ statements as an opening to any sectionUse ‘lead’ statements as an opening to any section

state briefly the most important concept and then provide state briefly the most important concept and then provide background/contextbackground/context

Check grammar and tenseCheck grammar and tense Cut wordinessCut wordiness Eliminate jargonEliminate jargon Avoid or limit acronymsAvoid or limit acronyms Obtain feedback from peersObtain feedback from peers

This will prevent your proposal from looking like………This will prevent your proposal from looking like………

The BudgetThe Budget

Prepare budget in consultation with: FH Human Resources if it is intended to hire grant staff and

contractors before finalizing budgets. Note that benefits and future salary increases may have to be accounted for in the budget.

FH Departments/Areas, such as Decision Support, Health Records, Laboratory/Pathology, Medical Imaging, Operating Room, Patient Care and Pharmacy if any of these will be asked to provide research-related services. For information on the process for obtaining Departmental Agreement for Providing Research-related Services (DAR), see the DAR webpage.

http://www.fraserhealth.ca/Professionals/Research/Pages/Department%20Agreement.aspx

Budget PlanningBudget Planning

PersonnelPersonnel Salaries and wagesSalaries and wages

• Primary research staffPrimary research staff• Principal Investigator and Co-Investigators not Principal Investigator and Co-Investigators not

usually coveredusually covered Estimated merit increasesEstimated merit increases Anticipated increases in minimum wageAnticipated increases in minimum wage BenefitsBenefits

• Excluded staffExcluded staff• Bargaining unitsBargaining units


Facility ExpensesFacility Expenses TelecommunicationsTelecommunications

• Phone, fax, internetPhone, fax, internet• Installation expensesInstallation expenses

FurnishingsFurnishings Maintenance and CleaningMaintenance and Cleaning Overhead*Overhead*

• Utilities: gas, electricity, waterUtilities: gas, electricity, water

*overhead not usually covered by Canadian agencies*overhead not usually covered by Canadian agencies


Computers and other specialty equipment*Computers and other specialty equipment* Cost of equipmentCost of equipment Installation expensesInstallation expenses Lease, warranty and maintenance contractsLease, warranty and maintenance contracts RepairRepair

* In most cases, equipment purchased through * In most cases, equipment purchased through a grant becomes the property of the sponsor a grant becomes the property of the sponsor institutioninstitution


Office SuppliesOffice Supplies PaperPaper PhotocopyingPhotocopying BindersBinders Storage – file cabinetsStorage – file cabinets

Medical SuppliesMedical Supplies Specimen vialsSpecimen vials Clinical assessment Clinical assessment

suppliessupplies


ConsultantsConsultants Dues, memberships, subscriptionsDues, memberships, subscriptions Staff mileage and parkingStaff mileage and parking Patient expensesPatient expenses PostagePostage CourierCourier Training sessionsTraining sessions MediaMedia Travel, meeting and conference expensesTravel, meeting and conference expenses

Budget JustificationBudget Justification

Explains how the money Explains how the money will be spent and justifies will be spent and justifies the need for the requested the need for the requested amountamount

Without a good budget Without a good budget justification, a funder may justification, a funder may reduce the amount of the reduce the amount of the award, potentially limiting award, potentially limiting the feasibility of the projectthe feasibility of the project

Budget TipsBudget Tips More detail is better than lessMore detail is better than less Prepare both a line-item budget as well as a budget narrative Prepare both a line-item budget as well as a budget narrative

describing each line-item cost in detaildescribing each line-item cost in detail Don’t round out.Don’t round out. Provide bids and estimates for consultants, equipment, supplies etc.Provide bids and estimates for consultants, equipment, supplies etc. Don’t pad or economize the budget – good reviewers know the cost Don’t pad or economize the budget – good reviewers know the cost

of goods and servicesof goods and services Include sources of in-kind contributionsInclude sources of in-kind contributions

Volunteer timeVolunteer time Donated spaceDonated space Borrowed equipmentBorrowed equipment Donated suppliesDonated supplies

Budget GuidelinesBudget Guidelines

Budget guidelines are usually found in the Budget guidelines are usually found in the application guideapplication guide

List allowable costsList allowable costs List excluded costsList excluded costs Specify matching-funding if necessary Specify matching-funding if necessary

(eg., co-sponsored funding)(eg., co-sponsored funding) Provide instructions on how to justify the Provide instructions on how to justify the

costs. costs.

Important AttachmentsImportant Attachments

Curriculum VitaeCurriculum Vitae

ComponentsComponents Academic preparationAcademic preparation Positions/AppointmentsPositions/Appointments Awards/ScholarshipsAwards/Scholarships GrantsGrants CollaborationCollaboration PublicationsPublications PresentationsPresentations

Canadian Common CVCanadian Common CV http://www.commoncv.net/http://www.commoncv.net/

Letters of SupportLetters of Support

•Department and/or sponsor institution•Collaborating institutions•Community partners

•Statement of support•Relevance of proposal to writer/department/institution•Summary of involvement•How the research results will be used

Quotes to Support BudgetQuotes to Support Budget

Include quotes for:Include quotes for: Consultants*Consultants* ServicesServices EquipmentEquipment SuppliesSupplies

*Fee for service consultation for grant funded projects *Fee for service consultation for grant funded projects is provided by the Fraser Health Epidemiologistis provided by the Fraser Health Epidemiologist

Research Ethics Board ApprovalResearch Ethics Board Approval

Some funding Some funding agencies require agencies require notice of REB notice of REB approvalapproval

Some will request Some will request approval before approval before funding is awardedfunding is awarded

Some will request Some will request approval before funds approval before funds are releasedare released

http://www.fraserhealth.ca/Professionals/Research/Ethics/Pages/default.aspx

All done?All done?

Proof read all documentsProof read all documents Have someone else proof readHave someone else proof read

Grant facilitator Grant facilitator ColleagueColleague Lay personLay person

Check that all components have been assembledCheck that all components have been assembled Obtain signaturesObtain signatures

Department HeadDepartment Head Fraser Health Signatory – Geoff Crampton (3 days)Fraser Health Signatory – Geoff Crampton (3 days)

Make necessary number of copiesMake necessary number of copies Courier or email application (retain routing slips/tracking Courier or email application (retain routing slips/tracking

history)history)

Now you can take a break……Now you can take a break……

….before the next grant deadline

The Review ProcessThe Review Process

FUNDING

The ReviewThe Review

Review of the ProposalReview of the Proposal Significance and relevance to health Significance and relevance to health Knowledge of the field (cited literature)Knowledge of the field (cited literature) Clear, testable hypothesis or central research Clear, testable hypothesis or central research

problem, appropriate methodsproblem, appropriate methods Originality and innovation in concept or Originality and innovation in concept or

approachapproach Feasibility of work planFeasibility of work plan

The ReviewThe Review

Review of the ApplicantsReview of the Applicants Qualifications and experienceQualifications and experience Track recordTrack record

Past grantsPast grants PublicationsPublications

Supportive environmentSupportive environment

Example – Reviewer ChecklistExample – Reviewer Checklist

RATIONALE, RELEVANCE, ORIGINALITYRATIONALE, RELEVANCE, ORIGINALITY

Does the proposal explain why this project should be Does the proposal explain why this project should be undertaken? (5 points)undertaken? (5 points)

Does the preamble reflect an adequate review of the Does the preamble reflect an adequate review of the literature? (10 points)literature? (10 points)

Is the project relevant to the funding program? (5 points)Is the project relevant to the funding program? (5 points) Is the proposed project original or unique in any respect Is the proposed project original or unique in any respect

(is it a new problem or question? Does the research (is it a new problem or question? Does the research apply a new or unique study method or evaluation apply a new or unique study method or evaluation technique?) (5 points)technique?) (5 points)

Example – Reviewer ChecklistExample – Reviewer ChecklistSIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESEARCHSIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESEARCH

a) A project scope of major tangible benefit to patient care (e.g. a) A project scope of major tangible benefit to patient care (e.g. potential impact on patient morbidity, mortality, an innovative potential impact on patient morbidity, mortality, an innovative program that advances direct patient care) (10points)program that advances direct patient care) (10points)

b) A project scope of perceptible tangible benefit to patient care b) A project scope of perceptible tangible benefit to patient care (e.g. retrospective reviews, compatibility studies, surveys) (5 (e.g. retrospective reviews, compatibility studies, surveys) (5 points)points)

c) A project scope of limited impact on patient care. (1 point)c) A project scope of limited impact on patient care. (1 point)

(Select the one statement that you believe best describes the (Select the one statement that you believe best describes the significance of the proposed research) Please assign a score significance of the proposed research) Please assign a score between 1 and 10. (Examples below) between 1 and 10. (Examples below)

Example – Reviewer ChecklistExample – Reviewer ChecklistRESEARCH HYPOTHESIS AND OBJECTIVESRESEARCH HYPOTHESIS AND OBJECTIVES Are the objectives for the project clearly stated in terms of the Are the objectives for the project clearly stated in terms of the

end points or outcomes? (5 points)end points or outcomes? (5 points)

RESEARCH METHODOLOGYRESEARCH METHODOLOGY Does the proposal describe in sufficient clarity/detail the study Does the proposal describe in sufficient clarity/detail the study

method to be used (8 points)method to be used (8 points) Is the described method valid for the stated objectives? (8 Is the described method valid for the stated objectives? (8

points)points) Are the sample population, sampling technique and sample size Are the sample population, sampling technique and sample size

valid and clearly described? (8 points)valid and clearly described? (8 points) Is the proposed data analysis appropriate for the nature of the Is the proposed data analysis appropriate for the nature of the

data collected (including statistical tests if appropriate) (8 data collected (including statistical tests if appropriate) (8 points)points)

Is the study ethical, in so far as the potential risks and benefits Is the study ethical, in so far as the potential risks and benefits to the patients and/or society?(8 points)to the patients and/or society?(8 points)

Example – Reviewer ChecklistExample – Reviewer ChecklistPERSONNEL AND FACILITIESPERSONNEL AND FACILITIES Are the professional competencies and experiences of the Are the professional competencies and experiences of the

principal investigator(s) appropriate to carry out the work principal investigator(s) appropriate to carry out the work required? (5 points)required? (5 points)

ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY, PROJECT SCOPE AND ECONOMIC EFFICIENCY, PROJECT SCOPE AND TIMETABLETIMETABLE

Are all the necessary budget inputs defined and costed (e.g. Are all the necessary budget inputs defined and costed (e.g. personnel, supplies,equipment)? (4 points)personnel, supplies,equipment)? (4 points)

Do the amounts allocated to the various components of the Do the amounts allocated to the various components of the budget appear to be appropriate? (4 points)budget appear to be appropriate? (4 points)

Has a proposed work plan been established identifying Has a proposed work plan been established identifying activities, centres of responsibility and target completion dates? activities, centres of responsibility and target completion dates? (4 points)(4 points)

Given the proposed work plan, does it appear reasonable that Given the proposed work plan, does it appear reasonable that the project can be completed within the stated timeframe? (3 the project can be completed within the stated timeframe? (3 points)points)

RangeRange DescriptorsDescriptors4.5 - 4.94.5 - 4.9 outstandingoutstanding4.0 - 4.4 4.0 - 4.4 excellentexcellent3.5 - 3.93.5 - 3.9 very goodvery good3.0 - 3.43.0 - 3.4 solid/significantsolid/significant2.5 - 2.92.5 - 2.9 needs revisionneeds revision2.0 - 2.42.0 - 2.4 needs major revisionneeds major revision1.0 - 1.91.0 - 1.9 seriously flawedseriously flawed0 0 not acceptablenot acceptable

usually funded

may be fundedseldom funded

not fundable

CIHR Rating ScaleCIHR Rating Scale

CIHR StandardsCIHR Standards ALL GRANTS ARE RATED on a scale from 0 to 4.9, within descriptive ALL GRANTS ARE RATED on a scale from 0 to 4.9, within descriptive

categories ranging from "seriously flawed" to "outstanding." Only categories ranging from "seriously flawed" to "outstanding." Only applications rated 3.5 or higher are normally eligible for CIHR funding.applications rated 3.5 or higher are normally eligible for CIHR funding.

Applications rated below 3.0 are flawed in some way, so that they do not Applications rated below 3.0 are flawed in some way, so that they do not represent a good investment of public funds. represent a good investment of public funds.

The range 3.0 to 3.5 is used for applications which, while technically and The range 3.0 to 3.5 is used for applications which, while technically and conceptually acceptable, are not considered to be a high priority for CIHR conceptually acceptable, are not considered to be a high priority for CIHR funding, perhaps because the topic is not considered relevant to an funding, perhaps because the topic is not considered relevant to an important health issue, or because the work proposed seems unlikely to important health issue, or because the work proposed seems unlikely to yield major advances in knowledge, or because the approach is not yield major advances in knowledge, or because the approach is not particularly innovative. particularly innovative.

Nevertheless, a proposal rated less than 3.0 may ultimately be fundable, Nevertheless, a proposal rated less than 3.0 may ultimately be fundable, may even be approved for funding in a resubmission, if the applicant(s) may even be approved for funding in a resubmission, if the applicant(s) adequately addresses the reviewers' concerns. Scientific Officers are asked adequately addresses the reviewers' concerns. Scientific Officers are asked to encourage applicants to resubmit these proposals if this is the case. to encourage applicants to resubmit these proposals if this is the case. Conversely, some proposals, though initially rated highly, may be limited in Conversely, some proposals, though initially rated highly, may be limited in their originality, potential impact, and so on, that their rating is unlikely to be their originality, potential impact, and so on, that their rating is unlikely to be increased above the competition cut-off upon resubmission, even if the increased above the competition cut-off upon resubmission, even if the applicant(s) address the reviewers' comments. applicant(s) address the reviewers' comments.

Common reviewer complaintsCommon reviewer complaints

Forms are not complete or completed Forms are not complete or completed incorrectlyincorrectly

Text is small dense and difficult to read– does Text is small dense and difficult to read– does not conform with formatting guidelines not conform with formatting guidelines

Improper citations, pagination, table Improper citations, pagination, table references and other forms of poor references and other forms of poor organization organization

Too much narrative with unnecessary or Too much narrative with unnecessary or irrelevant information. irrelevant information.

Too much jargonToo much jargon

Why Proposals are RejectedWhy Proposals are Rejected

73%

55%

16%

58%

Approach

Investigator

Other

Problem

University of Michigan Proposal Writer's Guide by Don Thackrey

http://www.research.umich.edu/proposals/PWG/pwgrejected.html?print

Approach (73 percent)Approach (73 percent)

The proposed tests, or methods, or scientific procedures are unsuited to the stated objective. (34.7)

The description of the approach is too nebulous, diffuse, and lacking in clarity to permit adequate evaluation. (28.8)

The overall design of the study has not been carefully thought out. (14.7)

The statistical aspects of the approach have not been given sufficient consideration. (8.1)

The approach lacks scientific imagination. (7.4) Controls are either inadequately conceived or inadequately

described. (6.8) The material the investigator proposes to use is unsuited to the

objective of the study or is difficult to obtain. (3.8) The number of observations is unsuitable. (2.5) The equipment contemplated is outmoded or otherwise unsuitable.

(1.0)


Why Proposals are RejectedWhy Proposals are Rejected Problem (58 percent)Problem (58 percent)

The problem is not of sufficient importance or is unlikely to produce any new or useful information. (33.1)

The proposed research is based on a hypothesis that rests on insufficient evidence, is doubtful, or is unsound. (8.9)

The problem is more complex than the investigator appears to realize. (8.1)

The problem has only local significance, or is one of production or control, or otherwise fails to fall sufficiently clearly within the general field of health-related research. (4.8)

The problem is scientifically premature and warrants, at most, only a pilot study. (3.1)

The research as proposed is overly involved, with too many elements under simultaneous investigation. (3.0)

The description of the nature of the research and of its significance leaves the proposal nebulous and diffuse and without a clear research aim. (2.6)

Investigator (55 percent)Investigator (55 percent)

The investigator does not have adequate experience or training for this research. (32.6)

The investigator appears to be unfamiliar with recent pertinent literature or methods. (13.7)

The investigator's previously published work in this field does not inspire confidence. (12.6)

The investigator proposes to rely too heavily on insufficiently experienced associates. (5.0)

The investigator is spreading himself too thin; he will be more productive if he concentrates on fewer projects. (3.8)

The investigator needs more liaison with colleagues in this field or in collateral fields. (1.7)


Other (16 percent)Other (16 percent)

The requirements for equipment or personnel are unrealistic. (10.1) It appears that other responsibilities would prevent devotion of

sufficient time and attention to this research. (3.0) The institutional setting is unfavorable. (2.3) Research grants to the investigator, now in force, are adequate in

scope and amount to cover the proposed research. (1.5)


The Rejected ProposalThe Rejected Proposal

Review commentsReview comments Identify areas for improvementIdentify areas for improvement Make changesMake changes Resubmit to the same or another funding agencyResubmit to the same or another funding agency

You might have a better chance of obtaining an award with You might have a better chance of obtaining an award with subsequent submissions, but…..subsequent submissions, but…..

…………you have to be in the game to win!you have to be in the game to win!

Practical ExercisePractical Exercise