Transcript Grant Writing - Fraser Health

Fraser Health Grant Application
Preparation Workshop
© Fraser Health Authority, 2009
The Fraser Health Authority (“FH”) authorizes the use, reproduction and/or
modification of this publication for purposes other than commercial redistribution. In
consideration for this authorization, the user agrees that any unmodified
reproduction of this publication shall retain all copyright and proprietary notices. If
the user modifies the content of this publication, all FH copyright notices shall be
removed, however FH shall be acknowledged as the author of the source
publication.
Reproduction or storage of this publication in any form by any means for the purpose
of commercial redistribution is strictly prohibited.
This publication is intended to provide general information only, and should not be
relied on as providing specific healthcare, legal or other professional advice. The
Fraser Health Authority, and every person involved in the creation of this publication,
disclaims any warranty, express or implied, as to its accuracy, completeness or
currency, and disclaims all liability in respect of any actions, including the results of
any actions, taken or not taken in reliance on the information contained herein.
1
FH Health Research Intelligence Unit
How can we help?








Grant Facilitator-Writer
Conducting a search for funding
opportunities
Targeted notification of new
funding sources and deadlines
Identifying a research team
Preparing letters of intent
Identifying resources required for
conducting research
Formulating the research budget
Facilitating proposal
development in collaboration
with researchers
Understanding FH and funding
agency requirements regarding
preparation of specific
documents








Epidemiologist
Specifying the research goal,
objectives and hypothesis
Identifying measurable outcomes
Specifying the variables for
analysis
Identifying sources of data
Developing data collection tools
for quantitative or qualitative
studies
Developing the statistical analysis
plan
Analyzing the data
Understanding how to use
statistical software, such as SPSS
Purpose of the FH Seed Grant

To provide start-up funding to new FH
researchers in an area that is relevant to FH.



Pilot study
Systematic review
Small scale study
ULTIMATE GOAL: To attain preliminary information in
order to demonstrate feasibility and justification for
applications to larger granting agencies, for a larger
scale study.
Purpose of the FH Strategic
Imperatives Grant (SIG)

To provide operating funding to FH researchers
to undertake research that addresses one of the
objectives in the FH Strategic Imperatives
 To support the development of new
collaborations and partnerships
ULTIMATE GOAL: To attain preliminary information in
order to demonstrate feasibility and justification for
applications to larger granting agencies, for a larger
scale study.
FH Strategic Imperatives
 Great
workplaces
 Capacity
 Quality and safety
 Integration
 Research and academic development
 Progressive partnerships
http://www.fraserhealth.ca/AboutUs/Organization/StrategicDirection/Pages/default.aspx
Eligibility
 FH
staff or privileged physician as principal
investigator (PI).
 Has never conducted research before, or
who has never been successful at attaining
research funding as the PI. [Seed Grant]
Ineligible Applicants








Applicants who have received grant funding
before (as the PI) [Seed Grant]
Research that is normally funded by FH budget.
Program Evaluation and Quality Improvement.
Biomedical research.
Team building.
Research for academic requirement.
Student/residency projects.
Community development projects.
Application Deadline
 June
1st, 9 am.
 Completed applications must be emailed to
Magdalena Swanson, at
[email protected]
 Maximum amount for Seed Grant is $5,000
 Maximum amount for SIG is $10,000
Preparing the Application
Application Tips
 Plan
time carefully
 Review the FH Research
Guidelines
 Make sure your proposal fits
within the guidelines
 Follow all the rules and
requests specified in the
Application Guidelines
 Is the proposal ethical?
http://www.fraserhealth.ca/Professionals/Research/Ethics/Pages/default.aspx
Application Sections
Application Sections
FH Grant Application Cover Sheet
Available at the Research Administration and Development website:
http://www.fraserhealth.ca/Professionals/Research/Pages/Forms%20and%20Te
mplates.aspx
Max # of
Pages
1
Proposal:
a. Description
2
b. Team Members
1
c. Research Methods
2
d. Plan for Use of Results
1
e. Timeline
1
f. Budget and Justification
1
g. Bibliographic References
As needed
Appendices: e.g. survey instruments, data collection tools, moderator’s guides
As needed
Applicant’s CV
As needed
Letter of Support from FH administrative supervisor
1
APPLICATION COVER FORM FOR FH GRANT COMPETITION
Name of Applicant:
Date Received by RAD:
Position Title and Department:
Telephone:
Fax:
Email:
Grant Applied For:
Total Amount of Funding Requested:
Seed Grant
Strategic Imperatives Grant
Project Title:
List Co-Investigators, Including Position Titles, Departments, Organizations, and Email:
Administrative Supervisor’s Name, Title and Department:
Applicant’s Signature:
Date:
Administrative Supervisor’s Signature:
Date:
A – Description (2 pages)
purpose of the study
background information including: (1) a review of the literature
to explain what has been done to date in this field, with
references sufficiently detailed to
indicate that an
adequate review of the literature had been conducted (2) size
and extent of the problem and how this applies to FH
justification for study
significance of the proposed research:
- state how the research will be used to contribute to
further research in FH
- clearly state which objective(s) in the FH Strategic
Imperatives will be addressed by the proposed study
(SIG only)
study hypothesis (if applicable)
research objectives
A – Description
Research Question and Objectives



Research question: States what it is you would like to
study
Research objectives: State what you will be doing to
measure the research question
Research hypothesis: State what you expect to find
Example:
 Research Question: Do children who receive the flu shot have a
lower incidence of influenza over the school year?
 Research Objective: To compare flu rates of immunization recipients
to a control group that did not receive the flu shot over the school
year.
 Research Hypothesis: Children who receive flu shots have lower
incidence of influenza compared to children who did not receive flu
shots
A – Description
Objectives and Hypothesis
What is your research question?
Be specific
Make sure your question is measurable
Connect your research question with your objectives
Connect objectives with hypothesis
Make sure your question logically links to your design and
measurement tool
A - Description
Background Review





Literature reviews should be selective and critical
Reviewers do not want to read through a voluminous
working bibliography (include especially pertinent works
and your very short evaluation of them)
Should lead the reader to how you will be building upon
what has already been done and how your work differs
from theirs
It is important to establish what is original in your
approach
APA format for in text citations
A – Description
Significance and Relevance to FH
Size and extent of the problem and how this applies to FH
•How many affected
•Cost of problem
•Future trends
•What is the benefit to FH?
Significance of the research
•Relevance to health outcomes
•Address an important question
•Advance knowledge
•Innovation
A – Description
Innovation











Open up a new area
Provide a unifying framework
Resolve a long-standing question
Thoroughly explore an area
Challenge existing knowledge
Experimentally validate a theory
Produce an efficient system
Provide needed empirical data
Derive superior algorithms
Develop new methodology
Develop a new tool
A – Description
Future Research and References

How the research will be used to contribute to
further research in FH


What are the potential research questions that might
arise from completing your research
References sufficiently detailed to indicate that
an adequate review of the literature had been
conducted




Current
Primary sources (peer reviewed journals)
Review papers
Limited gray literature content
B - Team Members (1 page)

Majority of the team members should be
staff/privileged physicians from FH

Knowledgeable in the content area and in research
methods

For SIG: an external collaborator/partner is required

A profile of proposed team members, and their roles
and responsibilities in carrying out this research

How many persons at what percentage/total amount
of time and in what professional/academic
categories will be participating in the project.

If the program is complex and involves people from
other departments or institutions, the organization of
the staff and the lines of responsibility should be
made clear.
C - Research Methods (2 pages)

Methods - the heart of the proposal and the primary
concern of the technical reviewers

Suggested Methods section components





Study design (retrospective, experimental, survey)
Study Sample
• Sample selection (who/what is included/excluded)
• Sample Size (how many are needed and why)
Measures (what are your measures of primary and secondary
interest)
Procedure
• Recruitment of sample
• Data Collection
Data Analysis
• Plan for analyzing the data
• What measures will be analyzed
• Means of evaluating the data
C - Research Methods

Can the design answer the research question?


Is the sample size justified (power calculation if applicable)



Be certain that a connection between research question, objectives and
research method is evident
For pilot studies, it may be a matter of convenience and budget allowance
Retrospective chart reviews are usually cost and time efficient and may be
amenable to a full power calculation
Method of subject recruitment, if applicable
Subject recruitment methods must meet the FHREB’s requirements for subject
recruitment

Refer to FHREB Guidance Notes for Initial Ethical Review at
http://www.fraserhealth.ca/Professionals/Research/Pages/Forms%20and%20Te
mplates.aspx

C - Research Methods

Proposed data collection method



Data collection tools




Is it feasible?
Will it likely yield the needed data?
Justify use of questionnaires, surveys
Use validated instruments where possible
Attach data collection tools, survey instruments, moderator guides in
appendix
Statistical or qualitative analysis plan, as applicable

Is there sufficient description of plan?
Statistical Test Selection
Selecting the appropriate statistical test requires several
steps

Test selection should be based on:
What is your goal?: Description? Comparison? Prediction?
Quantify association? Prove effectiveness? Prove
causality?
What kind of data have you collected? What are the levels of
data (nominal, ordinal, or continuous)? Was your sample
randomly selected?
Is your data normally distributed? Should you use a
parametric or non-parametric test?
What are the assumptions of the statistical test you would
like to use? Does the data meet these assumptions?
Type of Data
Goal
Measurement Normal
Population
Ordinal, or NonNormal
Population
Binomial
-Two Possible
Outcomes
Survival Time
Describe one group
Mean, SD
Median, interquartile
range
Proportion
Kaplan Meier survival curve
Compare one group to
a hypothetical
value
One-sample t test
Wilcoxon test
Chi-square
or
Binomial test **
Compare two
unpaired groups
Unpaired t test
Mann-Whitney test
Fisher's test
(chi-square for
large samples)
Log-rank test or MantelHaenszel*
Compare two paired
groups
Paired t test
Wilcoxon test
McNemar's test
Conditional proportional
hazards regression*
Compare three or
more unmatched
groups
One-way ANOVA
Kruskal-Wallis test
Chi-square test
Cox proportional hazard
regression**
Compare three or
more matched
groups
Repeated-measures
ANOVA
Friedman test
Cochrane Q**
Conditional proportional hazards
regression**
Quantify association
between two
variables
Pearson correlation
Spearman correlation
Contingency
coefficients**
Predict value from
another
measured
variable
Simple linear regression
or
Nonlinear
regression
Nonparametric
regression**
Simple logistic
regression*
Cox proportional hazard
regression*
Predict value from
several
measured or
binomial
variables
Multiple linear
regression*
or
Multiple nonlinear
regression**
Multiple logistic
regression*
Cox proportional hazard
regression*
D - Plan for Use of Results (1 page)

Identification of specific granting agency that
the applicant intends to apply to for further
funding once the exploratory, pilot work is
complete, including date of intended
application


Identify one or more funding agencies where it is
possible that you might obtain funding
Do not list national funding agencies unless you
have strong linkage with an academic partner
FH Funding Resources
Community of Science
Funding Opportunities
Database
• web based
• 400,000 listings
Contact Magdalena Swanson
FH News has monthly updates
of new funding opportunities
FH HRIU consultation request
form contains a listing of
funding agencies.
http://www.fraserhealth.ca/Professionals/Research/Investigator/Documents/HIURequestForm.doc
D - Plan for Use of Results

Who will receive the results
and by what method

Who
•

Method
•

Departments, programs,
stakeholders, executive, other
Health Authorities,
Government, other
researchers
Written Reports, FH
communications, rounds,
media releases
Future plans for
presentation
•
Publication, conference
presentation
E – Timeline (1 page)

Precise description of key dates from
beginning to end of study completion



Components may include: Ethics review,
recruitment, conducting the intervention, collecting
the data, analyzing the data, reporting.
Additional or fewer components may be required
depending on the nature of the research.
Should cover the entire period of funding


1 year (from time award is received)
May extend beyond the 1 year award period to
account for additional presentations, publications
etc.
E - Timeline
Narrative timeline may be supplemented with visual representation.
F – Budget and Justification
(1 page)

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 web
page.
http://www.fraserhealth.ca/Initiatives/Research/Department+Agreement.htm
F - Budget and Justification

Personnel



Supplies


research staff – data collection, data entry, focus group
moderators, transcription, research coordinators.
backfill of existing positions to provide “protected” time, clerical
support.
Office supplies, standardized questionnaires, audio recording
equipment, software for analyzing qualitative focus group and
interview data, library acquisitions, computer and other
information services provided to FH staff.
Data Collection Activities

Printing, photocopying, postage for mailing.
F - Budget and Justification

Other allowable items
Research subjects (modest incentives)
 Costs related to consultation and planning activities (eg.,
transportation and parking expenses)
 Travel costs outside FH area
 FH Department Services (Health Records, Anatomical
Pathology, Decision Support)
See FH Department Agreement Form

http://www.fraserhealth.ca/Initiatives/Research/Forms+and+Templates.h
tm

Ineligible Expenses



Computer hardware
Conference registrations
Food and beverages
Budget Justification

Explains how the money
will be spent and justifies
the need for the requested
amount
 Without a good budget
justification, a funder may
reduce the amount of the
award, potentially limiting
the feasibility of the project
Budget Tips





More detail is better than less
Prepare a line-item budget as containing narrative describing
each line-item cost in detail (justification)
Don’t round out
Provide bids and estimates for consultants, equipment, supplies
etc.
Don’t pad or economize the budget – good reviewers know the
cost of goods and services
Important Attachments
References


No page limit
Lists text and information included in proposal
from other authors/sources
 APA format


http://www.wooster.edu/psychology/apacrib.html#Intext
http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/
Curriculum Vitae

Components







Academic preparation
Positions/Appointments
Awards/Scholarships
Grants
Collaboration
Publications
Presentations
Letter of Support (1 page)
FH Administrative Supervisor
Statement of awareness of the
project
Statement of support for the
project
Statement of assurance of
applicant’s ability and access to
resources to carry out the
proposed study
Supervisor should read the
proposal and budget in advance
of signing the letter
Appendices
Include
•Data collection tools
•Survey instruments
•Moderator’s guides
•Questionnaires
•Interview scripts
•Bids and quotes to support budget
Writing Tips


Organize the content for logical flow of ideas
Use ‘lead’ statements or subheadings as an opening
to any section






state briefly the most important concept and then provide
background/context
Check grammar and tense
Cut wordiness
Eliminate jargon
Avoid or limit acronyms
Obtain feedback from peers
This will prevent your proposal from looking like………
Format Requirements







Microsoft Word or PDF format preferred [please
password protect]
Times New Roman font (regular), minimum 12 point;
Text, single-spaced;
Pages single-sided;
2 cm (.75 inch) margin on all sides of each page;
A header on each page with the Applicant’s name in
the top left-hand corner and the page number on the
top right;
References must use the American Psychological
Association [APA]
All done?
 Proof
read all documents
 Have someone else proof read


Colleague
Lay person
 Check
that all components have been
assembled
 Email application to Magdalena Swanson


[email protected]
Deadline: 9:00 am, Monday June 1st, 2009
Now you can take a break……
….before the next grant deadline
The Review Process
FUNDING
FH Peer Review Committee
Committee Member
Title and Affiliation
Dr. Arun Chockalingam
Professor and Director of Continuing Public Health
Education, SFU
Rahul Chhokar
Epidemiologist, Health Promotion and Prevention, FH
Dr. Fabio Feldman
Manager, Seniors Fall and Injury Prevention, FH
Dr. Anton Grunfeld
Chief, FH Department of Emergency Medicine
David Keen
Regional Director, Workplace Health People and
Organizational Development, FH
Kemi Odegbile
Director, Health Promotion and Prevention for North
Communities, FH
Gurjeet Sivia
Decision Support, FH
Michael Wasdell
Epidemiologist, FH
The Review
Review of the Proposal
 Significance and relevance to health
 Knowledge of the field (cited literature)
 Clear, testable hypothesis or central
research problem, appropriate methods
 Originality and innovation in concept or
approach
 Feasibility of work plan
Indicators
Research Project










Priority will be given to research studies that focus on studying health
outcomes related to access, quality [effectiveness and safety], and efficiency.
[Seed Grant]
Does the proposed research study address one or more objectives of the FH
Strategic Imperatives? [SIG]
Does the proposal involve a new partner or collaborator? (Preference will be
given to those applicants who form new collaborations or partnerships with
individuals from an academic organization) [SIG]
Is the proposal well-written and focused? Is the purpose of the research
clear and has relevance to FH’s needs been established. (Note: It is the
applicant’s responsibility to write the proposal.)
Does the background literature review support the need for the research?
Has a clear hypothesis/research question been generated?
Are the ideas put forward innovative/original?
Can the research question/hypothesis be answered with the proposed
research design?
Does the applicant have the ability to be an independent researcher with
respect to project feasibility given the resources and support available?
Indicators

Letter of Support

Does the letter of support indicate an awareness of the applicant’s
research and indicate specific support for it?
Applicant’s Ability to be an Independent Researcher





Has the applicant made presentations or participated in related
activities?
Has the applicant shown professional leadership and
accomplishment in their field in FH or elsewhere?
Has the applicant shown an interest in research through the
development of other skills and additional research activities? (e.g.
– has the applicant attended FH or other workshops on learning
how to conduct research?)
Is there evidence of collaboration with other FH or non-FH
researchers in this field?
The Review
Applicants will be rated on the following
scale for each of 12-13 indicators
 5 =excellent
 4=very good
 3=average
 2=needs improvement
 1=incomplete
 0=absent or inappropriate
Scoring System
Average of Indicator Ratings
Fundable
Range
4.5-4.9
Descriptor
Outstanding
Seldom Funded
4.0-4.4
3.5-3.9
3.0-3.9
Excellent
Very Good
Acceptable but low
priority
2.5-2.9
2.0-2.4
Needs revision
Needs major
revision
1.0-1.9
0
Seriously Flawed
Rejected
Not Fundable
Common reviewer complaints





Application is not complete or completed incorrectly
Text is small dense and difficult to read– does not
conform with formatting guidelines
Improper citations, pagination, table references and
other forms of poor organization
Too much narrative with unnecessary or irrelevant
information
Too much jargon
Why Proposals are Rejected
58%
73%
16%
55%
University of Michigan Proposal Writer's Guide by Don Thackrey
http://www.research.umich.edu/proposals/PWG/pwgrejected.html?print
Approach
Investigator
Other
Problem
Why Proposals are Rejected

A. 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)






Why Proposals are Rejected

B. 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 Rejected

C. 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)





Why Proposals are Rejected

D. 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 Proposal




Review comments
Identify areas for improvement
Make changes
Resubmit to the same or another funding
agency
Differentiation Between QI,
Program Evaluation and
Research
FH Research Policy
Research involving human subjects is defined as
any systematic investigation (including pilot
studies, exploratory studies, and academic
course work assignments) designed to
contribute to generalizable knowledge.
Generalizable knowledge consists of facts,
theories, principles or relationships, or the
accumulation of information on which they are
based, that can be corroborated by accepted
scientific methods of observation and inference.
FH Research Policy
Research includes:
• obtaining data about a living individual through
intervention (e.g. a medical procedure) or interaction
(e.g. an interview) with the individual, or the obtaining of
private personal information about the individual;
• secondary use of data (e.g. information, such as medical
records, collected for purposes other than the proposed
research) that contains identifying information about a
living individual, or data linkage through which living
individuals may become identifiable;
• naturalistic observation, except the observation of
individuals in contexts in which it can be expected that
the participants are seeking public visibility;
• the use of human remains, cadavers, tissues, biological
fluids, embryos or foetuses.
FH Research Policy
The types of studies excluded from the definition of
‘research’ include:
• projects, conducted for internal FH use only, that
are undertaken for administrative or operational
purposes such as quality assurance or program
evaluation, and;
• research involving only the use of published or
publicly available information or materials,
performances or archival materials.
Differentiation Between QI,
Research Program Evaluation
Health Services Research
Research with the goal of improving the efficiency and
effectiveness of health professionals and the health care
system, through changes to practice and policy. Health
services research is a multidisciplinary field of scientific
investigation that studies how social factors, financing
systems, organizational structures and processes, health
technologies, and personal behaviours affect access to
health care, the quality and cost of health care, and,
ultimately, Canadians' health and well-being.
Canadian Institutes of Health Research: CIHR
Grants and Awards Policies
http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/22630.html#1-A1
General
Differentiation Between QI,
Research Program Evaluation
Program Evaluation
Program evaluation is the systematic collection of information
about the activities, characteristics, and results of programs
to make judgments about the program, improve or further
develop program effectiveness, inform decisions about
future programming, and/or increase understanding
Program evaluation differs fundamentally from research in the
purpose of data collection and standards for judging quality.
Basic scientific research is undertaken to discover new
knowledge, test theories, establish truth, and generalize
across time and space. Program evaluation is undertaken
to inform decisions, clarify opinions, identify improvements,
and provide information about programs and policies within
contextual boundaries of time, place, values, and politics
Patton, M.Q. (2008). Utilization-focused evaluation. 4th Edition, page 39-40. SAGE Publications, Inc. USA
Differentiation Between QI,
Research Program Evaluation
Program Evaluation
* Note that while evaluation can use research
methods – evaluation using research methods is
still evaluation, not research.
Differentiation Between QI,
Research Program Evaluation
Quality Improvement
QI studies are focused on improved processes, practices,
cost-effectiveness, or productivity for a specific target
audience (e.g. group of patients). One common description
of QI is “rapid cycle testing” through which a sequence of
“Plan-Do-Study-Act” (PDSA) is repeated.
The refined scope of QI means that results cannot be
generalized outside the sample to the population of interest.
Kring, D. L. (2008). Research and quality improvement: Different processes, different evidence. MEDSURG
Nursing—June 2008—Vol. 17/No. 3, 17(3), 162-169.
Case Studies
Which one is program evaluation and which
one is research?
What are the key defining differences between the two
case studies?
What are the similarities?
What is the specific question being addressed?
What is the overall goal?
How will results be disseminated?
Case Study Key
Case Study A:
Excerpt from an evaluation case study
from the American Evaluation Association
http://www.eval.org/GPTraining/GP%20Training%20Final/gp.case1.pdf
Case Study B:
Excerpts from Leah Olson’s successful
2007 FH Seed Grant competition