WCHRI Innovation Grants Application information session 2018 February 2, 2018

WCHRI Innovation Grant Program Up to $50,000 in operating funds over 24 month Projects must align with WCHRI strategic roadmap and meet WCHRI relevance criteria Since 2013, WCHRI has funded 30-35% of Innovation applications

Eligibility must be WCHRI academic member must hold a faculty appointment at the U of A (academic or clinical), where the PI is eligible to apply and hold funding according to UAPPOL may submit one application per cycle successful applicants are not eligible to apply the following year

New this year WCHRI has moved!! Please submit applications to ECHA 5-083 presentation of information for WCHRI grants competitions has changed. biomedical panel has been split into 2 committees

Application types Applied Health Chair: Dr. Geoff Ball Art placed here Applied Health Chair: Dr. Geoff Ball aligns with health systems services, clinical, or social, cultural, environmental & population health themes. corresponds to CIHR Themes 2,3, and 4

Application types Biomedical Chairs: Dr. Alan Underhill Art placed here Biomedical Chairs: Dr. Alan Underhill Dr. Catherine Field corresponds to CIHR Theme 1

Committee composition Committees are broadly composed Do not expect an expert reviewer exactly in your field of research Avoid jargon/ specific scientific language

Committee Review Criteria & Ratings Committee Consensus Rating Scale Committee Impression of Application Scientific Merit given Application Cohort Rating Scale Outstanding 4.5-4.9 Excellent 4.0-4.4 Very Good 3.5-3.9 Good 3.0-3.4 Needs Revision 2.5-2.9

Committee Review Criteria Application Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria for Reviewers Percentage contribution to total reviewer score Quality of Proposal 75% Quality of Applicant 15% Impact/KT 10% The review criteria is available at: https://www.wchri.org/innovation-grants

Application Relevance Applications must be: directly related to women and/or children’s health and health outcomes aligned to WCHRI vision, mission and strategic roadmap meets WCHRI relevance criteria Project relevance & vision, mission and strategic roadmap High relevance to WCHRI Moderate relevance to WCHRI Low relevance to WCHRI

Application Relevance Research question directly relevant to women and/or children’s health. Research question specifically targets improving outcomes for women and/or children. Animal models must be clearly justified and provide specific details that include rationale. Methodology must demonstrate benefit, impact, and/or potential for improved health outcomes. Refer to https://www.wchri.org/relevance-criteria

Moderate scientific merit Application Alignment Eligibility to hold WCHRI funds is based on: Relevance to WCHRI Scientific merit Moderate relevance High scientific merit Eligible High relevance Low relevance and/or Low scientific merit Not Eligible Moderate scientific merit

Preparing your application Read the application and guidelines Plan timelines – leave sufficient time to get signatures Ensure you and a colleague proofread the entire application

Co-investigators and collaborators Co-Investigator contributes to the proposed research activities. A maximum of five co-investigators are allowed. Collaborator is an individual whose role in the proposed activities is to provide a specific service or resource (e.g., access to equipment, provision of specific reagents, training in a specialized technique, statistical analysis, access to a patient population, etc.).

Team composition Each team member should have a specific role and bring expertise that is unique to them to drive the section of the work they are committed to completing. Team members may not benefit financially from the grant.

Letters of Collaboration should clearly detail each collaborator’s role or contribution must be signed by collaborator (date and letterhead) NO additional letters of support should be included.

Previous WCHRI funding Include information on outputs from previous funding. Reviewers expect to see successful project completion resulting in: publications, presentations and other K/T outcomes/ outputs leveraging of funding to received additional grants

Lay summary A lay summary is a brief non-scientific summary of your research - written in simple terms for non-experts (grade 8 level). Why it’s important Raises awareness and encourages interest Promotes your research activities to our foundations and the public Fulfills grant requirements

Work Plan Think about feasibility and how the work process will flow Detail: timelines for recruitment, data collection etc. be realistic! be sure to include outputs (presentations, publications, etc.)

Project development Consider… what are your hypotheses/research questions? why is your research/project important? Significant? Novel? potential / immediate / future application(s)? do you plan on using quantitative methods? qualitative methods? Mixed methods? have you discussed with an expert? will you be undertaking experimental research? clinical research? Community?

Typical project organization Background - about 1/3 of proposal: statement of the problem/focus (one/two sentences) background and significance: current state of knowledge, and gaps short and long-term objectives hypothesis/research questions progress / preliminary studies if possible

Typical project organization Proposal itself - 2/3 of proposal: research design and methods characterize sample (cells or people) data analysis clearly describe the role of all team members timelines strengths and weaknesses

Knowledge Translation Plan Knowledge translation activities and plan are worth 10% of total score, include: a K/T plan that details the anticipated outcomes and impact details on knowledge users, how they will be involved in study or K/T process next steps (future grant applications, preclinical or clinical development, impacts on health policy)

Writing the Budget make sure the budget is justified do not request items that are not allowed publication is an anticipated outcome - costs should be included!!!

Grantsmanship can make the difference The quality of science of applications in the 10% below the cut-off for funding is not significantly different from the 10% just above the cut-off Grantsmanship can make the difference Art placed here

Top 3 committee discussion points Feasibility - Can the work be done in the timeframe allowed with the budget available? Methods - Does the research support the question? Will the outcome flow from the methodology? Team Qualifications - Are the investigators qualified? Does the team have appropriate expertise, credentials and experience?

Closing Comments you are responsible for your fundability ask for clarification if necessary you have some very good resources at this university – start with your colleagues or research mentor

WCHRI Can Help! Contact us at wcgrants.ualberta.ca Further information on this program may be located on our website at: www.wchri.org