london school of hygiene & tropical medicine - module 201...

Epidemiology

Module 201Study design: writing agrant application

Study guide and Reader

EPM201

EPM201Sept 2011

v4.0

© London School of H

ygiene & Tropical M

edicine 2011

These study materials for the distance learning Epidemiology course have been prepared by theLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM).

Dean of Studies: Sharon Huttly

Course Directors: Anne Tholen and James Hargreaves (Course Content Director)

Head, Distance Education & Professional Development Office: Sue Horrill

AcknowledgementsLSHTM would like to thank all the staff and associates of the School whodeveloped and wrote these materials.

Any comments on this study pack, favourable or unfavourable, would be mostwelcome and should be addressed to:

Head, Distance Education & Professional Development OfficeLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical MedicineKeppel StreetLondon WC1E 7HTUnited Kingdom

Telephone: +44 (0)20 7299 4658Email: [email protected]

© University of London 2011

The University has made every effort to trace copyright holders. We apologize for any omissionsand will welcome additions or amendments for inclusion in any reprint.

This material is not licensed either for resale or for further copying.

1

Contents

EPM201 Study design: writing a grant application

Study design: writing a grant application

Information Module introduction Module specification

Sessions Session 1 Choosing your funding body Session 2 The cost of doing research Session 3 Elements of a good proposal Session 4 The assessment procedure

Reader Reader contents Reader articles

2 Contents


1

Introduction


Module Introduction

The London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine welcomes you to:

EPM201 Study Design: Writing a Grant Application

We hope you enjoy studying this module.

Contents

Finding out about the module .......................................................................................................... 1

The module in context ....................................................................................................................... 2

Module calendar .................................................................................................................................. 2

Study Guide ......................................................................................................................................... 2

Readings ............................................................................................................................................... 3

Assessment .......................................................................................................................................... 3

How to work through the module ................................................................................................... 4

Completing the EPM201 Grant Application Form ...................................................................... 5

Web conferencing ............................................................................................................................... 6

Website ................................................................................................................................................. 7

Important note for students who studied their core modules before 2006 ............................... 7

Finding out about the module

Before you start going through the module material, we recommend you get an overview of this module and how it is run. To do this, we suggest you first read the Module Specification document which is provided with your course materials and may also be downloaded from the course website. It provides an at-a-glance source of key information about the module such as:

The title and course code for the module (sections 1 and 2).

The overall aim of the module and its learning objectives (sections 10 and 11).

The module content (section 12).

The learning methods used (section 13).

The study resources provided (e.g. LSHTM materials, software, textbooks) you will need to complete the module (section 14).

How learning is assessed (section 15).

2 Module introduction


The Module Specification should be read alongside this Module Introduction which gives guidance on how to go about studying this module, as well as important information about completing your Assessed Assignment. We recommend that you spend some time acquainting yourself with both these documents before you start working through the Study Guide. It is also important to check the messages posted on the EPM201 NoticeBoard conference for key information (see under Web conferencing).

The module in context

Research is the driving force of scientific progress, but it cannot exist without adequate funding and funding is not easy to come by. Epidemiologists and other researchers need to be able to convince funding bodies to support new work – and a skilfully written proposal is the only way of doing this. In this module you will design your own epidemiological research study and prepare a grant application suitable for submission to a funding agency. Unlike previous modules, this study module does not aim to teach you a large number of new concepts and techniques. Rather, the module will enable you to put into practice the concepts and techniques that you have learnt in the other core modules. You will need to refer back to the materials from previous sessions while completing this module. You will design an epidemiological research study and prepare a grant application suitable for submission to a funding agency. At the end of the module, you will submit your completed grant application form as a written assessment.

Module calendar

January Tutoring support begins (web conferencing, email queries).

31 May Final submission date for the outline (may be submitted from January onwards).

31 August Final submission date for AA (may be submitted from April onwards).

Study Guide

This forms the basic learning material. The study materials for the module comprise four paper-based sessions as follows:

Session 1 Choosing your funding body

Session 2 The cost of doing research

Session 3 Elements of a good proposal

Session 4 The assessment procedure.

Module introduction 3


In the paper-based sessions you will learn about the main issues that you need to consider when you prepare a grant application. The sessions discuss how to choose the most appropriate funding body for your research project, how to plan the costs of the study, how to write good, well-presented applications that meet the funder’s requirements, and how your final grant application will be assessed. We suggest that you complete the four paper-based sessions early in the module, as they will help you with your grant application (the Assessed Assignment).

Readings

There is a Reader with articles for you to read while studying this module. This includes

o descriptions of the study topics available this year

o the research articles for each of the study topics available this year

o the EPM201 Grant Application Form, which includes the Abridged Ethics Committee form (EPM201 Grant Application Form.doc, also on CD-ROM and website)

o the EPM201 Grant Application instructions (EPM201 Grant Application Instructions.doc , also on CD-ROM and website).

You will also be reading extracts from grant applications and Internet pages from funding agencies, as well as other selected papers. All these documents are in your reader.

You have been provided with the following textbooks for this module:

o Crombie IK and du V Florey C. The Pocket Guide to Grant Applications

o Smith PG and Morrow RH. Field Trials of Health Interventions in Developing Countries. A Toolbox.

You may also find it helpful to read (available on-line):

o How to Survive Peer Review by E Wager, F Godlee and T Jefferson http://resources.bmj.com/bmj/pdfs/wager.pdf.

We recommend you make use of the LSHTM on-line library resources (access via the University of London International Programmes portal), including electronic databases such as MEDLINE. Details on how to access the library are given in the Student Handbook.

Assessment

This module will be assessed 100% on the basis of the completed EPM201 Grant Application Form and Ethics Committee form. There are no other assignments or written examinations associated with this module.

You should submit your completed EPM201 Grant Application Form, including the abridged Ethics Committee application form, through the on-line Assignment Management System (AMS) no later than 31 August in the year of examination for this module.

http://resources.bmj.com/bmj/pdfs/wager.pdf



Full details of how and when to submit assignments using the on-line Assignment Management System (AMS), can be found in Chapter 8 of the Student Handbook. Detailed instructions on completing this assignment are given below.

Please note also that, for all your assignment work, it is vital that you understand and apply principles of good academic writing, referencing and using source material, as well as avoiding plagiarism. Please refer to the Academic Writing Handbook for guidance on this – this can be found on the General Resources page of the student website http://dl.lshtm.ac.uk/programme/student/ep/student/general.htm.

How to work through the module

In this module you will design a research study on a specific topic in a country, region or community with which you are familiar. Your planned study should take no longer than three years to complete and the overall budget should not exceed 800,000 EPIS (see the Budget section of the EPM201 Grant Application Instructions document in your reader for an explanation of EPIS, which are the currency you should use). You should follow the study schedule below to work through the module: 1. A description of the study topics available this year can be found in your

reader. Read through these descriptions and decide which topic you would like to work on. Do not worry if you do not have any previous experience of any of these topics. The focus of this module is on the process of designing a good epidemiological study, not on the development of the topic itself. It will not be possible for you to work on your own topic.

2. Once you have chosen a topic, email the DL Support Office ([email protected]) to confirm your choice of topic. Some topics may have a limit to the number of students who can sign up. If the topic you have chosen is full, you may be asked to choose an alternative topic. Please also note that the topics are subject to change each year so you must ensure you choose a topic available for the year in which you are submitting your assignment for marking.

3. The Support Office staff will sign you up to a specific WebBoard conference (see WebBoard section below) for the topic you have chosen. In this conference you will be able to share ideas and discuss general methodological issues and questions of common interest with other students working on the same topic. Tutors will facilitate each conference.

4. At this stage you should look at the EPM201 Grant Application Form and the EPM201 Grant Application Instructions so that you are aware of the content and format required for your final grant application.

5. Define your study question, aims and objectives. Follow the EPM201 Grant Application Instructions carefully: these points are under section 2.2 Purpose.

http://dl.lshtm.ac.uk/programme/student/ep/student/general.htm

mailto:[email protected]



6. Decide on your general study design and choose your study population and subjects. Again, follow the EPM201 Grant Application Instructions carefully: these points are under section 2.4 Plan of investigation.

7. Once you have decided on your general study design, study population and subjects, you should write a 250-word structured outline containing the following information:

Title

Objectives

Design

Study population

Study subjects or groups.

8. Your outline must be submitted via the Assignment Management System (AMS) at any time before 31 May. You will receive written feedback on your outline. This will help to ensure that there are no major problems with your study design at this stage. While you are waiting for your feedback, you may want to do further work on the ‘Background’ section of the application.

9. Complete the rest of the points in the EPM201 Grant Application Instructions, including the Ethics Committee form. The structure of the EPM201 Grant Application Form will guide you through the process of designing your study. As you proceed, we suggest you keep separate notes on information you may want to include in each section of a grant proposal. These notes will provide you with a detailed breakdown of how you plan to conduct your study. We suggest that you use these notes to guide you in completing the EPM201 Grant Application Form.

Completing the EPM201 Grant Application Form

The grant application form that you should complete for this module is the EPM201 Grant Application Form. The form is available as a word file (EPM201 Grant Application Form.doc). This form is structured to help ensure that you cover all the key areas. A separate word file gives instructions and guidance notes for filling in this form (EPM201 Grant Application Instructions.doc). Both these documents are in your reader and on your EPM201 CDROM. They can also be downloaded from the DL website. http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/dl/programme/student/ep/student/modules/ep201.htm. Before you complete the EPM201 Grant Application Form, check the EPM201 Grant Application Instructions carefully and follow the specific advice given closely. Use the notes that you have made to help you complete each section of the EPM201 Grant Application Form. Your notes will contain a large amount of detail of how you plan to conduct your study. You will probably not be able to include all the information contained in your notes in each section of the application form. You will have to use your judgement to decide which details of your study design to include. Remember that the focus of this module is on epidemiological study design and that you are trying to convince a funding committee to fund your proposal.

http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/dl/programme/student/ep/student/modules/ep201.htm



As a general guide, you should include enough detail to demonstrate the following points:

The study is worthwhile: you must demonstrate that the research question is important.

The study will succeed: you must demonstrate that you will use appropriate and rigorous methods and that the study is both feasible and ethically sound.

The study provides value for money.

Web conferencing

The ‘WebBoard’ is our current web-based conference system* and an integral part of this course, putting you in touch with other students and with tutors on relevant modules. The WebBoard will be open from 1 January onwards until the AA submission date 31st August.

It is used for:

o Discussion of module content and queries. We strongly recommend that you make use of the EP web conferencing system (WebBoard) to discuss issues relating to the course material. This gives an opportunity for you to ask questions and to take part in discussions initiated by fellow students. The conferences are monitored by tutors who will contribute to the discussions.

There are conferences for each of the two sections of the module, together with a General EPM201 conference, and conferences for discussing each of the topics. You may also find the LSHTM Library support conference helpful in getting advice on accessing and using the online information resources available to you.

You may also email specific queries to the Distance Learning Support Office ([email protected]) who will refer your queries to one of the EPM201 tutors.

o Messages from your Module Organiser and Distance Learning Support Office. We use WebBoard as the primary means of communication of important messages between students and staff, and the student support office will subscribe you to the mailing lists for the EPM201 NoticeBoard (Students). This conference will be ‘read-only’ with only Course Directors, Module Organisers and Student Support Office staff posting messages in these and it is essential that you read all messages posted there. Please log on at least once by the end of January at the latest. Please log on regularly to WebBoard to view this module NoticeBoard, and check you are receiving these messages by email. If you see NoticeBoard messages for this module on WebBoard that have not reached you by email, please contact the distance learning support office ([email protected])

Accessing WebBoard. You can access WebBoard in two ways: i) via the LSHTM DL student website http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/dl (then click on EP) or ii) via the University of London International Programmes (UoLIP) portal



http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/dl



(details on accessing the portal will be sent to you by UoLIP). All students studying EP modules should have their own unique username and password to access the EP WebBoard. Please contact the Distance Learning Support Office ([email protected]) if you do not have this. For information about using WebBoard in general, please see Chapter 7 of the Student Handbook.

*Please note that we may be upgrading our web conferencing software over the next few months. We will keep you informed of any changes.

Website

Assignments and additional resources such as Frequently Asked Questions, list of module tutors, student evaluations etc can be downloaded from the EPM201 module page on the student website http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/dl/programme/student/ep/student/modules/ep201.htm.

There is also a General Resources page which includes documents such as the Student Handbook, list of course materials, general exam guidance and some basic maths resources. http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/dl/programme/student/ep/student/general.htm.

Accessing the student website. You will be provided with the username and password to access the website at the beginning of the academic year. Please email [email protected] if you do not know these.

Important note for students who studied their core modules before 2006

If you studied core module EP104 Research Planning, Scientific Reporting and Refereeing rather than EP105 Writing and Reviewing Scientific Papers, please email [email protected] to ask for advice on the introductory modules for EPM201. Finally, a reminder that we are here to help! Do let us know if you have any queries at all – either by posting in the relevant WebBoard conference, or emailing [email protected].




http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/dl/programme/student/ep/student/general.htm




Module Specification (Distance Learning) In collaboration with University of London International Programmes 1. Title: Study Design: Writing a Grant Application 2. Module code: EPM201 3. Institution: Faculty of Epidemiology and Population Health

London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine Keppel Street London WC1E 7HT http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/eph/

4. Module Organisers: Joanna Schellenberg, Tanya Marchant 5. Mode of study: Distance learning 6. Type: Compulsory for those registered for the MSc Epidemiology course 7. Duration and dates: Deadlines if taken as part of a formal award: Application deadline:

Registration deadline: Course registration duration: Course starts: Module study starts: Assessment submission by:

30 June each year 31 August each year Up to 5 years 1 October each year 1 January each year 31 August each year

Deadlines if taken as an individual module (i.e. not registered for formal award):

Application deadline: Registration deadline: Registration duration: Module study starts: Assessment submission by:

31 August each year 30 November each year 2 years 1 January each year 31 August each year.

8. Credit points: 15 credit points will be awarded on successful completion of this module at Masters level (Level 7).

9. Notional Learning Hours (NLH):

The module should take about 150 hours to complete. On average students will divide these learning hours as follows: Directed self-study 20 hours Self-directed learning 50 hours Assessment, review and revision 80 hours

10. Aim: The module aims to provide students with experience in designing an epidemiological research study and preparing a grant application suitable for submission to a funding agency.

11. Learning objectives: On completing of this module students should be able to: • list appropriate funding bodies, • describe procedures for grant applications and their assessment, • explain the relevance of a systematic review of research evidence to

defining a research question, • critique the existing evidence for a particular research topic, • define a research question and formulate study objectives, • choose an appropriate and ethical study design, • plan field procedures, including sample selection, identification of data to

be collected and data collection methods, • plan a time schedule for the conduct of a study, summarise the logistic

http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/eph/

requirements and prepare a budget, • prepare a detailed grant application of a standard suitable for submission

to a funding agency, including points 2 to 6 above. 12. Content:

In the paper-based sessions students will learn about the main issues that need to be considered when preparing a grant application. The sessions discuss how to choose the most appropriate funding body for their research project, how to plan the costs of the study, how to write good, well-presented applications that meet the funder’s requirements, and how the final grant application will be assessed. Module content is structured around the self-study sessions listed below: Session 1 Choosing your funding body Session 2 The cost of doing research Session 3 Elements of a good proposal Session 4 The assessment procedure.

13. Learning methods: Learning is self-directed against a detailed set of learning objectives using the materials provided. The key learning methods are:

- Reading and reflecting on paper-based materials which introduce, explain and apply the principles and methods covered in the module

- Accessing academic support which is available from the module tutors through the web-based discussion forum in which students are encouraged to participate

- Completing the assessed assignment and reflecting on written feedback from module tutors.

14. Study resources provided:

CD-Rom - EPM201/202 EPM201 Study Design: Writing a Grant Application Study Guide & Reader Software: Stata EpiData Textbooks: The Pocket Guide to Grant Applications (Crombie, Florey) Field Trials of Health Interventions in Developing Countries - A Toolbox (Smith, Morrow). Registered students have access to the School’s online library resources.

15. Assessment procedures:

This module will be assessed 100% on the basis of the completed EPM201 Grant Application Form and Ethics Committee form. There are no other assignments or written examinations associated with this module.

16. Prerequisites: Students should have completed EPM101, EPM102, EPM103 and EPM105 (core modules) or equivalent. Those wishing to study this module must be able to access the internet on average at least once a week to benefit from library facilities, participate in web-based conference discussions and submit assignments. Students must meet the standard of English required to study this course. See http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/prospectus/english.html.

17. Attendance: No maximum number 18. Selection, if applicable:

This module is a compulsory module for those registered on the MSc Epidemiology course, and for those studying for the PG DIploma Epidemiology course under the credit framework scheme. Alternatively, it may be taken as an Individual Module.

http://www.lshtm.ac.uk/prospectus/english.html

19. Fees: For current schedule of fees see http://www.londoninternational.ac.uk/fees/schedules/lshtm.pdf.

20. Scholarships: None available 21. External accreditation:

None

22. Application process: Applications are managed by the University of London International Programmes (website: http://www.londoninternational.ac.uk/).

23. Further enquiries: Enquiries may be emailed to [email protected].

http://www.londoninternational.ac.uk/fees/schedules/lshtm.pdf

http://www.londoninternational.ac.uk/


1.1

Session 1


Choosing your funding body Overview

Getting funding for scientific research is becoming increasingly difficult. Scientific merit is essential but that alone may not be enough to make sure your application is funded. In order to get funding for a project, you need to consider several factors when writing the application. These include choosing the most appropriate funding body for your project, writing a clear, rigorous and well-presented application that responds to the funder’s priorities, planning properly the costs of the study, and understanding the funder’s assessment procedure. You will learn about all these points in Sessions 1 to 4. This session introduces the variety of existing funding bodies and the types of grants for which submissions can be made.

Learning objectives After working through this session you will be better able to:

• list various national and international funding bodies

• suggest ways of finding information on existing funding bodies

• describe different types of grants.

Planning your study For this session you will read from two of your textbooks and the study module reader, and you will carry out a number of activities related to the readings. To complete the work in this session, you need:

• The Pocket Guide to Grant Applications by I K Crombie and C du V Florey

• Field Trials of Health Interventions in Developing Countries: A Toolbox by P G Smith and R H Morrow.

and the following in your module reader:

• document from the Medical Research Council website: Grants (types of grant offered)

• document from the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) – World Bank – World Health Organization (WHO) Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR) website: TDR Grants Page

1.2 Session 1: Choosing your funding body

• ‘How to get a grant funded’ by D Goldblatt (optional). You will find there are some optional exercises in this session that focus on the Internet. If you have Internet access, you are recommended to do these activities. If you do not have access to the Internet, do not worry; you will not be examined on this during the course. However, it would be a good idea to start consulting the Internet when you have a chance. It has become a major source of information that could help you in your future professional career. So, if possible, try to find a place where you can access the Internet. You should allow yourself approximately four and a half hours for this session. A suitable stopping point is indicated if you want to work on it in two sections.

Key terms Applicant Person who applies for grant support.

Call for proposals Call for grant applications on specific topics.

Collaborator Person working with the applicants on the grant, but not listed as an applicant.

Funding body Organization that funds research.

Mini-grant Grant for smaller-scale projects (smaller budgets), usually assessed more quickly by the funding body.

Principal Investigator Lead applicant on the grant.

Programme grant Grant designed to support a large-scale study or a series of closely related research studies.

Project grant Grant designed to support the conduct of a specific project.

Sponsor The agency or institution that provides funding for a grant.

Training fellowship Grant designed to enable professionals to develop necessary expertise through an appropriate training programme and work on a well-defined project.

Two-stage application Grant application including two stages: • submission of an outline of the project (also called letter of intent or concept

paper) • if the outline is shortlisted, submission of a full application.

Funding bodies There are hundreds of organizations that fund medical research. The following activities will give you an idea of the number and range of such organizations.


Session 1: Choosing your funding body 1.3

ACTIVITY 1 You should now read Chapter 2 in Crombie and du V Florey, paying particular attention to the section headed ‘Key lessons’ on pages 11–12. Note that you can ignore the list of websites on page 12, which is very out-dated. Next, turn to Section 2 on page 332 in Smith and Morrow and read to the bottom of page 332. Now, prepare a list of the funding bodies described in your readings.



Feedback

You should have a list of over 20 funding bodies. Remember that this list is not comprehensive. Some of these organizations fund projects on specific topics (e.g. cancer organizations, Alzheimer’s disease societies, etc.). You may need to search some more to find the right funding body for your own project. There are ways to find out about funding bodies, and relevant sources of information are discussed later in this session.

ACTIVITY 2 Task 1 Imagine a study of barriers to using eye services in rural South India. The study aims to investigate the uptake of adult eye services in an area of high service provision in rural South India, and to explore the attitudes, beliefs and behaviours of the local population towards eye problems and their treatment. Suppose that you want to get funding for a similar project in your own country. List two funding bodies you could approach. If possible, try to suggest new organizations, not only those from the list you prepared in Activity 1. If possible, think of agencies found in your own country. Task 2 Now talk to a few colleagues who have submitted grant applications in the past. Try to choose colleagues who have different research interests. Ask them where they have submitted applications and note their answers. If you are in an academic department where many people do research, find out whether the department can give you a list of who is funding the ongoing research.



Feedback

Task 1 Your list will vary according to your country. The following are suggestions for the UK:

• UK Medical Research Council

• Department for International Development (the aid wing of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the UK)

• Wellcome Trust. Other possibilities could include: • the Department of Health of your country, who may be able to fund some projects or

guide you to a potential funding body

• an organization for the blind in your country

• international non-governmental organizations working in the area of blindness. These do not usually fund large research proposals but they may be able to fund small projects, such as pilot work, which meet their own objectives.

Task 2 Talking to colleagues who have experience in writing grant applications is always a good idea. They will help you choose the best funding agency for your research project and give you some advice on how to write your application.

ACTIVITY 3 This is an optional activity. If you can access the Internet, try searching for information on funding agencies. Use key words such as ‘health research grant funding agency’ or ‘health research grant application’. If you want to, you can restrict your search to funding bodies found only in your country. Take note of what you find.



Feedback Almost all funding bodies, and all large grant agencies, have a website where they describe the types of funding they offer. These sites have useful information such as the types of grant offered, closure dates for application, details of what to include in the grant application form, and useful tips. Useful Internet sites that could help you find a funding agency for your project include: • the Association of Medical Research Charities at http://www.amrc.org.uk (gives

information about member charities funding research in the UK)

• the CORDIS website at http://cordis.europa.eu (provides details of research programmes funded by the European Union)

• the joint home page of the UK research councils at http://www.research-councils.ac.uk (a good starting-point to get information from different councils funding research in the UK and/or abroad)

• the COS Funding Opportunities at http://www.cos.com (a comprehensive source of funding information available describing a large number of awards from around the world)

• RDInfo at http://www.rdinfo.org.uk (a source of data on research funding opportunities for health care – mostly but not exclusively British; it also has links with other websites).

The research grant office of academic institutions in your country may also have an Internet site describing different funding schemes available. Libraries (especially those in an academic institution) usually have books giving information on possible funding bodies. It is worth having a look at them. Here are a few possible references (updated in 2010): French, A. et al. (2010). Directory of Grant Making Trusts 2010/2011. 21st edition. London, Directory of Social Change. ISBN: 9781906294 Traynor, T. & Chronnell, C. (2010). Guide to the Major Trusts 2010/11 Volume 1. 12th edition. London, Directory of Social Change. ISBN: 9781906294410 French, A. et al. (2010). Guide to the Major Trusts 2010/11 Volume 2. 12th edition. London, Directory of Social Change. ISBN: 9781906294427 The Grants Register 2010: The Complete Guide to Postgraduate Funding Worldwide. 28th edition. New York, Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN: 9780230206007 Directory of Biomedical and Healthcare Grants 2010. 21st edition. Nashville, Schoolhouse Partners. ISBN: 9780984172542 Annual Register of Grant Support 2010: A Directory of Funding Sources. 43rd edition. Medford NJ, Information Today. ISBN: 9781573873543.

This would be a good point to stop if you want to have a break and continue with the rest of the session later.


http://www.amrc.org.uk/

http://cordis.europa.eu/

http://www.research-councils.ac.uk/

http://www.research-councils.ac.uk/

http://www.cos.com/

http://www.rdinfo.org.uk/


Types of grant and other schemes There is considerable range in the types of grant available. However, the types of grant offered may vary between funding bodies and also over time; the names used to describe the various types of grant may also vary from one funding body to another.

ACTIVITY 4 Turn now to Crombie and du V Florey and read Chapter 3. Make a list of the main types of grants described and then define the following terms: • project grant

• programme grant

• training fellowship

• mini-grant

• call for proposals

• two-stage application.



Feedback Your definitions should look something like the following. Project grant: grant designed to support the conduct of a specific project. Programme grant: grant designed to support a large-scale study or a series of closely related research studies. Training fellowship: grant designed to enable professionals to develop necessary expertise through an appropriate training programme and work on a well-defined project. Mini-grant: grant for smaller-scale projects (smaller budgets) usually assessed more quickly by the funding body. Call for proposals: call for grant applications on specific topics. Two-stage application: grant application including two stages submission of an outline of the project (also called letter of intent or concept paper) if the outline is shortlisted, submission of a full application.

Two-stage applications are becoming increasingly common. This approach is very good for researchers as they do not have to put as much time and effort into preparing the initial application. Remember, the names used for each category may vary among funding agencies. Remember also to check what is available when you start preparing your application. It may be useful to contact the funding bodies you are most interested in regularly. You can check with them the types of grant available and the application deadlines.

ACTIVITY 5 Task 1 Now turn to your reader and read the document from the UK Medical Research Council website and the one from the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) – World Bank – World Health Organization (WHO) Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR) website. While reading, prepare a list of the different types of grant or other schemes offered. Task 2 This is an optional task. If you have Internet access, you might like to visit the following websites. • The UK Medical Research Council at http://www.mrc.ac.uk

• WHO Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR) at http://www.who.int/tdr/index.html


http://www.mrc.ac.uk/

http://www.who.int/tdr/index.html


Feedback

Task 1 The Medical Research Council offers several types of grant, as well as awards, in different areas of research (research grants, partnership grants, programme grants, and many more) The TDR programme also offers various types of research and training grant. You may have noticed that some of the types of grant offered by the MRC or TDR were not described in Activity 4 e.g. programme grants. At this stage, you do not need to worry if you do not know all that is available from each funding agency. The key point to remember is to keep your eyes and ears open (some colleagues may have good advice) and check regularly for existing and new opportunities.

ACTIVITY 6 This is an optional activity. If you would like to read more about how to choose a funding body, you can consult the introduction and first section (‘Choosing a funding body’) of the paper ‘How to get a grant funded’ by D Goldblatt, which is included in your module reader.




Feedback This section of the paper briefly describes the range of funding sources available, from those with major budgets to small charities supporting research in single diseases. Research training fellowship schemes are a useful resource for those starting out in the research world. It is, of course, essential when approaching charitable bodies for funding that you make clear how your proposed research relates to the charity’s interests and aims.

Summary

• A large variety of agencies fund medical research. These funding bodies differ according to the sums of money they give, the types of grant they award, and the topics they prefer to fund.

• You can get information on funding bodies from various sources, including colleagues, libraries, and the Internet.

• Choosing the most appropriate funding body for your particular research project will increase your chances of getting some funding.

• There are several types of grant by which you can obtain funding. They differ among funding agencies and may vary over time. It is important to check regularly as new opportunities may arise.

2.1

Session 2


The cost of doing research Overview

In this session, you will learn about the preparation of a budget for a grant application. Costing is an essential part of an application and it is important to get the cost estimates right. If your budget is unrealistically high, you may be asked to revise it or your project might simply be rejected. If you underestimate the costs of the study, you may have to stop the project before it is finished. A reputation for not getting research finished can harm your chances of being funded in the future. Knowing where to get good advice will help you prepare the budgets of your future grant applications.


• describe different types of costs that can be covered by a grant

• describe how to get information on costing for a project

• prepare a list of items to be included in the budget of a grant application

• prepare a simple budget.

Planning your study For this session you will read from two of your textbooks and the module reader, and you will carry out a number of activities related to the readings. To complete the work in this session, you need:


• Field Trials of Health Interventions in Developing Countries: A Toolbox by P G Smith and R H Morrow


• document from the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) – World Bank – World Health Organization (WHO) Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR) website: Collaborative research project

2.2 Session 2: The cost of doing research

• ‘Low uptake of eye services in rural India’ by A Fletcher et al. You should allow yourself approximately three hours for this session.

Key terms Overheads Costs payable, when the applicants are based in a university, to cover some of the institutional costs (e.g. office space, heating, lighting, library, technology support, etc.).

Running costs Day-to-day costs associated with running the study (e.g. postage, stationery, photocopying, inter-library loans, computer supplies, etc.).

What grants can cover Usually grants can cover staff salaries, equipment, supplies, travel and other expenses. Individual funding agencies have their own rules.

ACTIVITY 1 You should now read Chapter 4 in Crombie and du V Florey. Next, turn to Subsection 4.6 of Chapter 15 (pages 341–46) in Smith and Morrow. Stop reading when you reach Subsection 4.7. While you are reading, prepare a list of all suggested types of costs that could be included in a grant application.

Feedback The list you have just prepared will be a good starting point for any future grant application. Keep it as a reference.

Overhead costs In your reading, you have seen the term ‘overhead costs’ or ‘indirect costs’. These include costs payable, when the applicants are based in a university, to cover some of the institutional costs. Examples of such costs are: office space, heating, lighting, library, technology support, and so on. Overhead costs can be calculated as a proportion of the salaries, as a proportion of more than one type of costs in the budget, or as a proportion of all costs. Overheads are paid only by some funding bodies, particularly research councils and government sponsored research. Before including overheads in your budget, ask the funding agency if you can include them. If you can, they will tell you how to calculate this type of costs.


Session 2: The cost of doing research 2.3

ACTIVITY 2 Task 1 Find in your reader the document from the UNDP – World Bank – WHO. This is a copy of the grant application guidelines provided on the website of the Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases (TDR) sponsored by the United Nations Development Programme, the World Bank and the World Health Organization. Go to page 8 and read Subsection 2 ‘Budget’. Task 2 Now suppose that you are working on a study of the costs of vaccination against tuberculosis (TB) in a developing country. A school-based vaccination programme is being recommended but not implemented, as the regional boards (who have autonomy) are not satisfied with the basis for the recommendation. Extracts from a grant application on this topic are given overleaf.



Description of the project 1 Objectives (a) to estimate the economic burden of tuberculosis and the costs of case finding and treatment for a tuberculosis control programme (b) to compare the costs of vaccination per case prevented to the costs of a case, case finding and treatment for tuberculosis (c) to compare the cost of preventing a case by vaccination and by case finding and treatment. 2 Overall design The costs of delivering the vaccine will be estimated from the costs of running the programme and the costs of adverse reactions. The costs of treatment of tuberculosis will be assessed by following up a sample of patients over the course of the illness. Patients will be stratified according to the disease stage and their usage of health resources. Socioeconomic burden will be assessed by a survey of cases at different stages of the disease. The cost of vaccination per case prevented will be estimated based on the protective efficacy of the vaccine. 3 Population to be studied Cases of tuberculosis at different stages or degree of success of treatment. Tuberculosis Cases would be 80 newly diagnosed cases, 10 cases who defaulted 6 months earlier, and 10 cases who defaulted 1 year earlier. New cases A population of 80 newly identified cases of tuberculosis will be selected to be included in the study. They will reply to a questionnaire once a month, when they come to the health centre for treatment and medication. The questionnaire will investigate the frequency and duration of use of health services, and associated costs: transport, medication, time off work to come to health services, time off work for persons accompanying the case to the health services, etc., expenses related to the disease, and loss of earnings. It is expected that a proportion of cases will default (i.e. not complete the six monthly visits necessary for treatment). These cases will be visited at home two months after their last visit. They will be interviewed at home with a in-depth interview plus a questionnaire, and be encouraged to resume treatment. Defaulters will enable the measurement of the proportion defaulting and estimate of the costs in early default. 4 Data collection Interviews at health facilities The interviews for the cases of tuberculosis at the health facilities will be conducted by health personnel already working at the health facility, during a scheduled visit. Personnel conducting the interviews will be paid a salary supplement to collect the data (6 months per case, 80 cases = 480 interviews). Home visits These will be conducted by trained interviewers. Interviewers will have a degree in social sciences, social work or psychology. It is estimated that the rate of successfully completing an interview will be one a day (110 interviews: 6 person-months of interviewer’s time). An economist will train the personnel, supervise the fieldwork and spend an additional three months collecting and calculating price vectors. 5 Data management and analysis Data will be double-entered in a database and consolidated. An estimate will be made of the costs of case finding and treatment, including costs to the health services, costs incurred by patients and their families; and costs in terms of lost productivity (i.e. days of work missed). The in-depth interviews will be used to inform our understanding of the context in which the above occurred.



One of your colleagues has suggested that you include in your budget the following items: • salaries of the home visitors • cost of local transport for home visitors • salary of a secretary for typing the questionnaires • cost of photocopies of questionnaires, interviewers’ manual and training

material • cost of a computer for data entry • costs for the publication of a paper in a peer-reviewed journal. Using the TDR guidelines, put the different items into the categories in Table 1.

Table 1 Categories of costs from TDR guidelines applied to TB project (to be completed) _____________________________________________________________________________ Personnel _____________________________________________________________________________ Supplies _____________________________________________________________________________ Equipment _____________________________________________________________________________ Patient costs _____________________________________________________________________________ Travel _____________________________________________________________________________ Other expenditures _____________________________________________________________________________

Task 3 Are you satisfied with the list your colleague gave you? What other items would you like to add to the list? Task 4 Preparing a budget is always very hard for someone who does not have a lot of experience in writing grant applications. Take a few minutes to think of how you could get help with selecting the items to be included in the budget and the amounts that you should be asking for.



Feedback Task 1 This reading will give you more suggestions for the types of costs that you could include in a grant application. Add these new suggestions to the list you prepared in Activity 1. Task 2 Your completed version of Table 1 should look something like Table 2.

Table 2 Categories of costs from TDR guidelines applied to TB project _____________________________________________________________________________ Personnel • salaries of the home visitors • salary of a secretary _____________________________________________________________________________ Supplies (none) _____________________________________________________________________________ Equipment cost of a computer _____________________________________________________________________________ Patient costs (none) _____________________________________________________________________________ Travel cost of local transport for home visitors _____________________________________________________________________________ Other expenditures • cost of photocopies of questionnaires, interviewers’ manual and

training material • costs for the publication of a paper in a peer-reviewed journal _____________________________________________________________________________________

Task 3 The researchers who wrote this grant application also included the items in Table 3. Your list of additional items may be similar.



Table 3 Additional items included in the TB project grant application _____________________________________________________________________________ Personnel • salary of the economist • supplement given to the personnel conducting the interviews at the

health facilities • salary for a data entry clerk _____________________________________________________________________________ Supplies _____________________________________________________________________________ Equipment _____________________________________________________________________________ Patient costs _____________________________________________________________________________ Travel • local transport for the supervision of the interviewers • travel of the economist to London twice (plane ticket + subsistence

allocation) _____________________________________________________________________________ Other expenditures _____________________________________________________________________________

Note that the costs will vary, depending on how the project is run. For example, recruitment at clinics, hospitals or from community surveys will have different costs, but would identify cases with varying severity. Travel costs for patients to go to health clinics could be considered. Task 4 Colleagues who have experience in writing grant applications are always a good source of information. Do not hesitate to talk to them. You can ask to see some of their previous grant applications; this will give you ideas as to which items to include in your applications. Ask your colleagues how they estimated the costs of the items they included. Finally, show them drafts of your budget so they can help you to revise them. One other good source of help is the staff in the research office in your institution (if available) or in a nearby academic institution. They can give you good advice and useful examples. They have so much experience that they could also judge whether or not your budget is reasonable. They might also suggest that you add a few items you may have forgotten (e.g. a computer that will be used during the study, some eligible travel costs, etc.). The funding bodies themselves can also help you. Check with them whether or not funding for certain items is permitted (e.g. the TDR programme does not usually permit salary support for the principal investigator). In order to get estimates of the employment costs of the staff members who will be employed by your institution, contact your personnel office. If the study is likely to employ staff members in other institutions or other countries, you will have to contact people locally to obtain employment cost estimates. For the cost of equipment and materials, contact various manufacturers or companies providing medical or laboratory supplies. It is worth shopping around if you can. The prices can vary a lot among companies. If the study is performed in another country, you might also have to contact local companies. Otherwise, you will have to organize the shipment of the material to the fieldwork location.



A real example Do you remember the study of barriers to using eye services in rural South India that was briefly introduced in Session 1, Activity 2, Task 1? The next activity concerns the grant application for that project.

ACTIVITY 3 Find in your study module reader the paper ‘Low uptake of eye services in rural India’ by Fletcher et al. Read the introduction to the paper (the paragraph immediately above ‘Results’) and the ‘Study Design and Methods’ section on page 1394. Write down the different budget items that you think would have been included in the grant application for this project.



Feedback When the researchers prepared the grant application, they took account of: the salaries of project coordinators, fieldworkers (for the preparation of the

community maps, interviews, and focus groups), an ophthalmologist for the eye tests, and a clerical officer for the translation of the documents

tape recorders to tape the interviews (although they were not used during fieldwork as they were not accepted by the participants) and blank cassette tapes

a computer with the required software to analyse the data, and a printer

costs of travel for the investigators to go to India

costs for fieldwork travel. These are listed in more detail in Table 4 along with the cost of each item; this should give you an idea of the amounts requested.



Table 4 Items included in the budget of the study of barriers to eye services in rural South India

Period 1 April 1995 Period 1 April 1996 to 31 March 1996 to 31 March 1997 £ £ Salaries 1 research fellow based in London to coordinate 28958 31591 the study and analyse the data (full-time); salary includes basic salary plus other costs associated with working in London and the UK 1 fieldwork supervisor in India (full-time) 978 978 12 fieldworkers in India (full-time) 9120 2850 1 ophthalmologist in India (part-time) 978 489 1 clerical officer in India for data transcription and translation 217 217 Subtotal 40251 36125 Overheads (40% of salaries) 16100 14450 Total 56351 50575 _____________________________________________________________________________________ Equipment 1 computer 486/33 1450 computer software (qualitative data analysis, word processing) 530 1 HP Deskjet printer 515 12 tape recorders 1200 Total 3695 _____________________________________________________________________________________ Other charges communications (telephone, fax) 250 250 blank cassette tapes 300 100 stationery – specialist materials 400 100 fieldwork travel 400 100 12 air flights London to Madurai economy return 8680 6200 subsistence allowance for research fellow 11499 London travel research fellow 11388 Subtotal 10257 6937 Overheads (40% of other charges) 4103 2775 Total 14360 9712 _____________________________________________________________________________________ Total £74406 £60287 _____________________________________________________________________________________



Summary

• You should now be able to:

o describe different types of costs that can be covered by a grant

o suggest ways of obtaining information on the preparation of a budget for a research project

o prepare a list of items that could be included in the budget of a grant application.

• Remember that the preparation of the budget should include all costs necessary for the project. Do not be tempted to undervalue a project to try increase your chances of getting funded: if your project gets funded, you may then not have enough money to complete it. Funding bodies are interested in good projects and they will fund good projects. They will give you the money you require if they think that your study will answer an important research question, that it will succeed, and that it represents good value for money. You will learn more about these points in the next session.


3.1

Session 3


Elements of a good proposal Overview

Writing good grant applications is not easy. But the more experience you have, the easier it becomes. This session will give you practical advice for writing good quality grant applications and thereby increasing your chances of getting funding.


• describe the funder’s requirements

• outline strategies for writing good quality grant applications.

Planning your study For this session you will be reading from two of your textbooks and the module reader, and you will carry out a number of activities related to the readings. To complete the work in this session, you need:


• Field Trials of Health Interventions in Developing Countries: A Toolbox by P G Smith and R H Morrow.


• documents from the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) website: How to write a good application, part 1 and part 2

• Eye service grant application: ODA RD1

• ‘Low uptake of eye services in rural India’ by A Fletcher et al. (optional)

• ‘How to get a grant funded’ by D Goldblatt (optional)

• a computer

• Internet access, if you have this. You should allow yourself approximately six hours for this session. A suitable stopping-point is indicated if you want to work on it in two sections.

3.2 Session 3: Elements of a good proposal

Key terms There are no new key terms you should be aware of before starting work on this session.

Knowing the funder’s requirements When you write a grant, it is worth checking the funder’s requirements. If you do not meet them, your project will probably not be funded.

ACTIVITY 1 You should now read Chapter 6 in Crombie and du V Florey.


Session 3: Elements of a good proposal 3.3

Feedback The three main questions that funding committees ask of research proposals are those listed under the heading ‘Key lessons’ on page 37. The first two can be expanded a little as follows. Will the study succeed? The study is more likely to succeed if the following points are taken on board:

the project should use appropriate and rigorous methods

the project should be feasible

experienced researchers (as applicants or collaborators) bring credence to the grant. Will the answer be worth having? The answer is more likely to be worth having if the following points are taken on board:

the research question should be important and it should have meaningful implications (for example, reduction in costs, better health care, reduction in incidence of disease, etc.)

the project should be submitted at the appropriate time (timeliness)

the project should describe how the findings will be disseminated.

ACTIVITY 2 Task 1 Try to think of a few research questions that may be considered by reviewers as not being worth investigating, and write down why you think these studies should not be done. Task 2 Now think of a few research questions that would be worth investigating. Write down your ideas. Try doing this first using your own experience and epidemiological knowledge. Then share your ideas with a couple of colleagues or fellow students via the web-based discussion forum, and ask them if they also think that these questions are important enough to investigate.



Feedback

Task 1 Your ideas will depend very much on your experience. Here are some examples. 1 A population-based trial investigating the efficacy of the tetanus vaccine would not

be worth doing. This has been clearly demonstrated in the past.

2 An intervention testing the effect of folate supplementation before conception and during pregnancy to prevent neural tube defects in the offspring (supplementation compared with placebo) would not be acceptable on ethical grounds as there is already evidence that folic acid has a role in the prevention of neural tube defects.

3 Allocating a group of individuals to protected or unprotected sex to assess the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases would not be feasible on ethical grounds.

Task 2 It is not possible to comment on the specific ideas you have come up with from the infinite number of important research questions that still need to be answered. That is why your colleagues’ comments are important here. And every day, new important questions arise. A key point from this exercise is to remember that you should always discuss your ideas with colleagues. First, they might help you clarify your thoughts. Second, they may direct you to other researchers in the field or to recent publications that could help you develop your research question and project.

Strategies for success Knowing how to build strategies for success depends on understanding reasons for failure. The readings in the next activity explain some of the common failings of grant applications and how to increase your chances of writing a successful application.

ACTIVITY 3 You should now read Chapters 7 and 8 in Crombie and du V Florey. Next, turn to the book by Smith and Morrow and read Section 5 of Chapter 15 (pages 347–48). While you read, make a list of the main points that will help your project to be funded. Use the headings: • Content of the project • Format of the application • Other aspects of the application.



Feedback Your list should include most of the following. Content of the project

o allow enough time to think carefully about all aspects of the project – sound theoretical basis, important question, appropriate design, rigorous and feasible methods (refer to pilot work if any), important implications

o do not be over-ambitious o write the application clearly o review the literature carefully, including any systematic reviews on the subject.

Do enough to establish the importance of the topic and to highlight gaps in present knowledge. An exhaustive review of the present knowledge is not necessary.

o include clear and well-formulated objectives o give details of the methods that will be used without including unnecessary

explanations, pay sufficient attention to quality control o describe the implications of the study o include a sample size calculation o choose appropriate statistical methods o prepare a good budget - remember that each item in the budget needs to be

justified. o justify your budget o include a timetable.

Format of the application

o read the instructions carefully o allow enough time to write the application (this is a common problem with most

grant applications) o the application should be well presented – easy to follow (use headings and

subheadings), correct length o avoid repetitions o use the correct balance between sections: e.g. the methods section is usually

the lengthiest part of an application. o use simple terms o all relevant sections should be filled in o all signatures should be there.

Other aspects of the application

o choose the most appropriate funding body for your project o seek advice from colleagues with more experience and from the funding body

itself o if you do not have experience in the field, find experienced collaborators.

This would be a good point to stop if you want to have a break and continue with the rest of the session later.



ACTIVITY 4 Task 1 You should now turn to your Reader and read the documents from the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) website. These give general guidance on how to write research grant applications. List the practical advice given to help you complete your application. Task 2 This is an optional task. If you have access to the Internet, visit the ESRC website at http://www.esrc.ac.uk; you will find other information on the research grants scheme and on how to apply for funding.


http://www.esrc.ac.uk/


Feedback

Task 1 Guidelines for preparing applications vary according to the institution and type of funding sought. Common recommendations for research grant applications include: format of the application:

answer all questions clearly, concisely and completely (or explain why some questions were not answered)

use the recommended font sizes

limit the number of words per page and number of pages to what is recommended content of the application:

explain the background of the topic o indicate the significance of the proposal o the research question should be important o the research question should have a sound theoretical basis o the research question should have important implications.

aims and objective of the study

o these should be realistic. details of the plan of investigation

o the approach should be convincing and coherent o the experimental design and the methodology should be appropriate o the details given should be sufficient such that the study can be conducted from

the information given e.g. sampling frame, sample size etc. o the proposal should be original and should lead to scientific advance.

curricula vitae for each participant

o the expertise of the applicants should be appropriate to the proposed programme of research

o the commitment of the applicants should be sufficient (time spent weekly on the project).

environment in which the work will take place

o it should be appropriate for the research proposed o the collaborators should be well chosen o the host institution should be committed to the project proposed o training and career development of the personnel supported on the grant should

be appropriate. resources requested

o the project should represent good value for money o the resources requested should be justified well.

ethical approvals or licences (for more information on ethics, please refer back to

EP103) o the project should be ethically acceptable o the use of humans or animals should be appropriate.

dissemination of the study results

o the method used should be appropriate and adequate. Compare these with the ESRC’s guidelines and with the list you prepared. Funding bodies always provide advice on what to include in your grant application. Review these guidelines carefully when you prepare your proposal.



Components of the application Do you remember the study on eye services in rural India that was introduced in Session 1, Activity 2 and considered again in Session 2, Activity 3? You are going to consider the components of a good application by examining this application in some detail. The application was sent to the British Overseas Development Administration (ODA), now the Department for International Development (DfID – the aid wing of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom). The personal details of the applicants and collaborators (names and curricula vitae) have been removed, as have the letters from overseas collaborators.

ACTIVITY 5 In the reader, find the ‘Eye service grant application: ODA RD1’. Using the ‘Comments’ column of Table 1, review each section of the application.

Table 1 Review of ODA RD1 (to be completed) ____________________________________________________________________________ Section Comments _____________________________________________________________________________________ Title (Section 1 in the grant application) _____________________________________________________________________________________ Summary (Section 10) _____________________________________________________________________________________ Introduction (Section 8) _____________________________________________________________________________________ Aims (Section 9) _____________________________________________________________________________________ Plan (Section 10) _____________________________________________________________________________________ Sample size (Section 10) _____________________________________________________________________________________ Purpose and potential of the results (Sections 8, 11–13) _____________________________________________________________________________________ Ethics _____________________________________________________________________________________ Timetable (Appendix 4) _____________________________________________________________________________________ Existing facilities Financial plan (Section 7 and Appendix 1) _____________________________________________________________________________________ Justification of requirements _____________________________________________________________________________________ References (end of Section 10) _____________________________________________________________________________________ Supervision _____________________________________________________________________________________ Curricula vitae (Appendix 2) _____________________________________________________________________________________



Feedback Your completed version of Table 1 should include most of the points noted in Table 2.

Table 2 Review of ODA RD1 _____________________________________________________________________________________ Section Comments _____________________________________________________________________________________ Title Slightly longer than recommended (17 words rather than 12–15). Clear and (Section 1 in the informative and gives the study objectives. grant application) _____________________________________________________________________________________ Summary The ‘general outline of the study’ provides a short summary of the methods. (Section 10) It also mentions what the results will be used for. It is not in the conventional ‘summary format’ and does not restate the justification of the study (given in Sections 8a and 8b) or study objectives (given in Section 9). _____________________________________________________________________________________ Introduction Stresses the importance of the study with a short review of the literature. It (Section 8) suggests what types of information will be provided. It also suggests what studies should be done after this project. A more formal review of the literature is presented in Section 14a.

(The subsections required by the funding body are a way of helping applicants to include all the relevant information in their application.)

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Aims The aim of the study (called here primary objective) is clear. The five specific (Section 9) objectives are listed as bullet-points, which makes them easier to grasp. They are clear and measurable (although the first one is more general). _____________________________________________________________________________________ Plan Well organized. First, it gives a short summary of the methodology to be used. (Section 10) Then, it gives details of sampling (including the study participants), the eye camps, data collection and procedures (including a description of the qualitative methods and the process of eye examination), preliminary work done on the project, and data management and analysis. The plan also gives a useful and realistic view of the strengths and weaknesses of the study. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Sample size The researchers estimate a total sample of 380 blind people of whom 300 will be (Section 10) cataract cases. Although no formal calculation is included, the estimated sample size that will be achieved is large compared with other qualitative studies. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Purpose and potential The justification of the study and its potential impact are described in several of the results sections. Section 8 describes how this project will contribute to resolving the (Sections 8, 11-13) problem identified and who will be the beneficiaries of the project. Sections 11– 13 discuss the outputs of the project and their dissemination. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Ethics The project had to be approved by the ethics committees of the researchers’

academic institution and the Indian State where the study took place. However, there is no space in the application where this could be indicated.

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Timetable Clearly describes which activities will take place at specified times. It uses the (Appendix 4) bar chart required by the funding body. (Again, this requirement is to help applicants include all the information needed.) _____________________________________________________________________________________ Existing facilities In Section 7d, it is mentioned that there will be no contributions towards the

costs of the project from other organizations. However, no money was asked for to cover the costs of using existing facilities.

_____________________________________________________________________________________ Financial plan Detailed estimates are provided for salaries (personal emoluments), and (Section 7 and equipment, other charges. Overheads are included in the costs estimates Appendix 1) (including consumables, travel and subsistence). A summary of the financial support requested is presented in Section 7. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Justification of The role of the research fellow was justified in the plan of investigation (‘Role of requirements the study investigators’), but there was no specific place where the funding body asked for the justification of the costs requested.



Table 2 Review of ODA RD1 (cont.) _____________________________________________________________________________________ References The references are numbered in the order they appear in the Plan. (end of Section 10) Sufficient details are provided. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Supervision This information was not asked for by the funding body. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Curricula vitae You can see the format of the curricula vitae. All the required information is (Appendix 2) included. _____________________________________________________________________________________

Why was it successful? This was a strong application and the researchers received the funding they had asked for. But the application you have just reviewed was not the original application sent to the funding body. The original application was changed slightly according to comments made by the examining panel. Among other things, the panel asked for more details on:

• the experience and expertise of the principal investigators and collaborating organizations

• the objectives of the study (the researchers had to clarify whether the proposal was specifically about cataracts or about all eye diseases potentially leading to blindness)

• the target population (the researchers had to clarify whether the proposal included eye care for adults and children or only for adults)

• the sample size calculation (the researchers had to add details of the estimates used in the calculations)

• study design (the initial design of the study was slightly modified according to the recommendations of the committee)

• whether or not alternative delivery strategies would be examined as opposed to improving uptake in the eye camp model

• the way the results of the study were going to be disseminated. The form used for this grant application has since been modified.

ACTIVITY 6 This is an optional activity. Task 1

If you wish, you can finish reading the paper by Fletcher et al. which is in your reader under Session 2. Task 2

If you would like to read more about points to consider when writing a grant application, you can consult the paper ‘How to get a grant funded’ by D Goldblatt, which is included in your reader under Session 1.



Feedback

Task 1 This reading is really for your interest, but it is a good example of the follow-on from a good and successful grant application: thorough work carried out and concisely written up for publication. Task 2 The section of this paper headed ‘Writing the application’ stresses again the main points:

• follow your chosen funding body’s guidelines in all respects

• keep your application focused, relevant and understandable to a non-expert in the field

• highlight any potential practical applications

• summarize the general background and make clear any previous contributions to research that you have made

• reference all cited material

• clarify the proposed research methods and techniques

• justify the specific details of your application.

Summary The most important points of the main strategies for writing good-quality grant applications are:

• take account of the funder’s requirements

• follow the instructions and guidelines provided by the funding body regarding the format and content of the application

• complete all sections of the application form

• write clearly and succinctly

• justify the study well and describe its foreseeable impact

• include a clear description of the objectives and methods used

• obtain the collaboration of experts if you are not an expert in the field you will be investigating

• seek advice from experienced colleagues

• allow sufficient time for the preparation of the application

• learn from your mistakes and keep trying.


4.1

Session 4


The assessment procedure Overview

Once you have submitted a grant application, you have to wait to know whether your project will be funded or not. This can be a very difficult time: the only thing that you can do is wait to hear the decision. Knowing how the assessment process is organized and how long it will take before you hear from the funding agency could help with the writing of your application and may also reduce your worries. In this session, you will read about the procedures involved in the review of grant applications.


• describe the assessment procedure of grant applications

• list issues to consider when your grant has been either accepted or rejected.

Planning your study For this session you will be reading from two of your textbooks and the module reader, and you will carry out a number of activities related to the readings. To complete the work in this session, you need:


• Field Trials of Health Interventions in Developing Countries: A Toolbox by P G Smith and R H Morrow


• The British Medical Research Council (MRC), Extract from Reviewers Handbook 2010-2011

• ‘Peer review of grant applications: what do we know?’ by S Wesseley (optional)

• ethical committee documentation from the LSHTM Ethics Committee. You should allow yourself approximately two hours to complete the session.

4.2 Session 4: The assessment procedure

Key terms External referee Person chosen to assess a grant application because of his or her research experience and expertise on a particular topic; often referred to as simply a referee.

The assessment procedure Grant applications go through a long assessment involving a number of different individuals who bring different perspectives and expertise to the procedure.

ACTIVITY 1 You should now read Chapter 5 in Crombie and du V Florey. Next, read Section 3 in Chapter 15 (pages 334–36) in Smith and Morrow.


Session 4: The assessment procedure 4.3

Feedback Practical points from your reading include:

check the assessment procedures of the funding body

remember to meet the funder’s’ requirements (discussed in Session 3)

remember that the members of the examining committee will not spend much time discussing your project; they should be able to see quickly the importance and scientific merit of your study

remember that not all committee members will be experts in your field of research; make sure that your application can be easily followed by the non-expert

prepare a well-presented application – the appearance does count

follow the guidelines provided in Session 3

nominate external referees if you can, and choose researchers who are most likely to see the merits of your application

if you are an inexperienced researcher, seek support for a small pilot study first, or apply as a member of a proven research team.

ACTIVITY 2 Task 1 You should now turn to your reader and read the MRC Guidance on Reviewing Research Proposals which describes the peer-review methods of the MRC. Task 2 This is an optional task. If you have Internet access, you might like to visit the MRC website at http://www.mrc.ac.uk/ for further information on these procedures.


http://www.mrc.ac.uk/


Feedback

Task 1 For the Medical Research Council, peer-reviewers is the first part of a two stage process. Referees comments help the boards (committees) decide which proposals to shortlist for further assessment at the board meeting. Referees consider proposals against many criteria including “Importance” and “Scientific potential”. The latter includes Research plans, Justification of resources requested, Ethics and research governance, and Dissemination of research results, among other things. As with most funders the main criteria for success are importance and originality of the proposal, appropriateness of the methods and costs, feasibility and the expertise of the applicant(s). Task 2 You may be particularly interested in looking at the MRC research grant schemes and their application and assessment form. Note the almost universal use of electronic application forms by the funding agencies.

What if your application is unsuccessful? Although you might have worked extremely hard to prepare your grant application, your project may not be funded. Do not get discouraged. Most researchers will have to deal with rejection at one time or another, even if they are eminent experts.

ACTIVITY 3 Take a few minutes to think about and prepare a list of what you should do if your application is unsuccessful.



Feedback The first thing to do is to read carefully the reviewers’ comments. These will help you understand why your study was not funded and how you could improve it. The funding agency might invite you to modify your proposal in light of these comments and to resubmit your application. But it usually will not commit itself to funding your re-submitted application. Once you have read the reviewers’ comments, you should get ready to re-submit your application. Consider the following points. 1 Choose another funding body. Talk to colleagues, search the Internet, consult your

library, etc. These sources of information will help you find an agency that is more likely to fund your project (see session 1).

2 Contact the chosen funding body. Discuss your project with advisers at the agency and get some advice. You might also be able to assess how likely your project is to be funded.

3 Modify the application. Take account of the referees’ comments and try to improve both the content and format of the application (see session 3). You may also need to modify the budget if it was judged to be too large (see session 2). Ask colleagues and experts in the field to review the final version of your application. Modify it according to their recommendations.

4 Send your application on time.

What if your application is successful? Congratulations! You can celebrate! However, the acceptance of your project might be conditional on the addition of changes suggested by the funding committee. So, there may be a bit more work to be done before you can formally start the study. At the same time, your budget might have been cut slightly and you may have to adapt your project accordingly. Ethical approval is of course essential before the research starts. Some funding bodies even require ethics approval before submission of the grant application. If you have not submitted your proposal for this approval yet, make sure you do so now.

ACTIVITY 4 Now read the LSHTM Ethics Committee documentation which is copied in your reader - the ‘Ethics Committee Statement of Policy and Principles’ and ‘Guidance notes on completing ethical application form ’ - and look at the ‘Ethics Committee Application to conduct a study involving human participants .form



Feedback Make sure your study conforms to ethics principles and that you obtain full ethical approval before starting your work. The London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine documentation gives examples of the information that is required by an ethical committee in order to obtain approval. These requirements will vary depending on where you submit your application for ethical approval, and multicentre studies may require approval from various separate committees e.g. at least one from each country. Issues to bear in mind include: information for subjects on the research procedures that will be undertaken

(including translation of information sheets and consent forms into different languages if needed)

information on the benefits of the study to the research participants

any risks and inconvenience that participants may experience.

ACTIVITY 5 Now that your project has been funded, think of some issues that you will need to consider by answering the following questions. 1 Now that your grant application has been successful, you will want to start the

project straight away. Why do you think this might not be possible? What extra effects might the delay of funds have?

2 Throughout the duration of your project, you will be required to keep in touch with the funding body. Why is this?



Feedback 1 Unfortunately, there might be an administrative delay before the research funds

arrive at your institution. This can be frustrating if you had planned to start the study before a certain date. For example, you might have wanted to begin a study in Bangladesh before the start of the rains, or to assess the school performance of children before the summer holidays. Delays in receiving the funds would also mean that you cannot start hiring staff members who will work on the project. This might delay the preparation and execution of the project.

Contact the funding body before you apply, to try to get an estimate of these delays. Make sure you have obtained full ethical approval before the work begins. Also consider the need for further ethics approval on revised questionnaires/consent forms/information sheets. Remember it is important to keep a good relationship with the Ethics Committee - this relationship is as important as that which you have with the funding body.

2 There are several reasons why you will have to keep in contact with the funding

body:

(a) funds may not all be sent in one lump at the beginning of the study; continuation of funding may be conditional on the good progress of the study (see next point)

(b) you may have to send interim reports (e.g. yearly progress reports) while the study is being done; the number of these reports depend on the funding body and duration of the study

(c) you will have to send a final report to the funding body describing the project, the findings, their implications and the way they will be disseminated, as well as how the funds were used

(d) you may want to ask the funding body for additional funding if the completion of the project requires it.

Keeping a good relationship with the funding body is important. They may be more likely to fund your future applications if you impressed them with your organization, timekeeping, clarity and rigour in your interim and final reports.

ACTIVITY 6 This is an optional activity. If you would like to read more about the review of grant applications, you can consult the paper published in The Lancet by S Wesseley, ‘Peer review of grant applications: what do we know?’, which is reproduced in the study unit reader.




Feedback This paper is a discussion of some aspects of the peer-review process for grant applications. Points to note are:

empirical data have been available for a relatively short period of time

most applicants seem relatively happy with the system

some reforms could be implemented straight away (e.g. triage processes, reducing the amount of financial data required in the early stages, more use of electronic systems)

there is a perceived need for randomized controlled trials to assess some problems

some institutions now have a limited appeals process

peer-review is not so flawed, biased or corrupt as to need replacement, but there is a need for more research into the fairness and effectiveness of the system.

Summary

• Grant applications are assessed by a mix of individual external referees and a committee.

• You can improve your chances of success by:

o talking to people at the funding agency when you are preparing your application; they will give you information on their requirements and assessment procedures

o making sure that your application is clear and easy to follow by the non-expert

o asking experienced colleagues to act as reviewers for your grant application before submitting it

o nominating external referees if possible.

• If you are an inexperienced researcher, seek support for a small pilot study first or apply as a member of a proven research team.

Finally, remember that your application will be in competition with several others when you submit it. Nothing can guarantee that you will be successful. However, you can slant things in your favour if you follow the advice given in Sessions 1– 4, take enough time to prepare the application, and get help from experienced colleagues. Good luck!

london school of hygiene & tropical medicine - module 201...

Documents