1. WCHRI Innovation Grants The Art & Science of Grant Writing Presented by Dr. Geoff Ball & Dr. Alan Underhill February 2, 2016

2. WCHRI Innovation Grant Program Provides up to $50,000 in operating funds (over 24 months) to projects that will lead to improved health outcomes for women and/or children Proposed projects must adhere to WCHRI vision, mission and strategic roadmap; Applications are reviewed by either the Applied Health Committee, chaired by Dr. Geoff Ball or by the Biomedical Committee, chaired by Dr. Alan Underhill; Funding may not be used as bridge or top-up; scientific overlap (conceptual or budgetary) must be declared at the time of application

3. WCHRI Innovation Grant Program Application Outcomes Historically, WCHRI has funded around 38% of applications reviewed by the committee.

4. Art placed here Application type Biomedical corresponds to CIHR Pillar 1. Committee is chaired by Dr. Alan Underhill. Art placed here

5. Applied Health aligns with health systems services, clinical, or social, cultural, environmental & pop health themes. Corresponds to CIHR Pillars include 2,3, and 4. Committee is chaired by Dr. Geoff Ball. Application type

6. Applicant Eligibility must be WCHRI academic member must hold a faculty appointment at the U of A may submit one application per cycle successful applicants may not apply the following year

7. Application Alignment 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 (able to hold funds) Project relevance & vision, mission and strategic roadmap High relevance to WCHRI Moderate relevance to WCHRI Low relevance to WCHRI

8. Application Alignment Eligibility to hold WCHRI funds, based on relevance to WCHRI and scientific merit Moderately relevant to WCHRI; High scientific merit Eligible for funding consideration Highly relevant to WCHRI; High scientific merit Eligible for funding consideration Low relevance, Low scientific merit Not eligible for funding consideration Highly relevant to WCHRI; Moderate scientific merit Eligible for funding consideration

9. Letters of Collaboration should clearly detail each collaborator’s role or contribution must be signed by collaborator NO additional letters of support should be included.

10. Committee Review Criteria & Ratings Application Evaluation Criteria Evaluation Criteria for Reviewers Percentage contribution to total reviewer score Quality of Proposal75% Quality of Applicant15% Impact/KT10%

11. Committee Review Criteria & Ratings Committee Consensus Rating Scale Committee Impression of Application Scientific Merit given Application Cohort Rating Scale Outstanding4.5-4.9 Excellent4.0-4.4 Very Good3.5-3.9 Good3.0-3.4 Needs Revision2.5-2.9

12. WCHRI Innovation Grant Program Grantsmanship: the art of acquiring peer-reviewed research funding

13. The peer review process 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. Art placed here

14. 8+ Basic Questions That Reviewers Ask 1.What is the intellectual quality and merit of the study? 2.How novel is the proposal? If not novel, to what extent does potential impact overcome this lack? What is the potential impact? 3.Is the research likely to produce new data and concepts? 4.Is the hypothesis/research question valid? 5.Are the aims logical and feasible? 6.Are the procedures appropriate, adequate, and feasible? 7.Are the investigators qualified? Do they have appropriate expertise, credentials and experience? 8.Are the facilities adequate and the environment conducive to the research?

15. Planning Tips Start early, even before the call for applications; Follow the application guidelines exactly; Consider whether to committee is broadly composed (or not); Be explicit and specific; Be realistic in designing the project and the budget; Make explicit connections between your research questions and objectives, your objectives and methods, your methods and results, and your results and dissemination plan

16. Writing the research proposal State explicitly how the proposal relates to the mission, objectives and priorities of the agency (in this case, WCHRI). Write the proposal with the funder, program and research goals in mind. CLARITY, CLARITY, CLARITY

17. Writing the research proposal Include the following sections: Background - about 1/3 of proposal section Statement of the problem/focus (one/two sentences) Background and significance: current state of knowledge, identify gaps Short and long-term objectives Hypothesis/research questions Progress to date / preliminary studies, if possible

18. Writing the research proposal Include the following sections: Proposed Research - 2/3 of proposal section Research design and methods Characterize sample (cells or people) Data analysis plan Team members’ roles Timeline Strengths and weaknesses

19. Writing the research proposal Proposed Research – consider the following: What is the topic? Why is this topic important? What relevance do your research questions have for the field? What are your hypotheses/research questions? What are your research methods? Why is your research/project important? Significant? Novel?

20. Writing the research proposal Proposed Research – consider the following: 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 partners?

21. Writing the research proposal Take a hard look at your draft Is your proposal hypothesis driven or have a research question? Are your specific aims clearly defined? (stay away from fuzzy, underdeveloped aims and address potential pitfalls) Do you have preliminary data? Show it! Is your research innovative? Is your proposal easy-to-read and well-organized?

22. Writing the research proposal Common mistakes and how to avoid them Proposal is overly ambitious, not realistic or feasible No clearly defined priorities Literature review is uncritical or poorly written Budget is unrealistic (IF relevant to research approach): No clear demonstration of how patient/community stakeholders were consulted and/or will be engaged and with what purpose

23. Writing the Abstract Do the Abstract last - after the proposal Summary of the research proposal Introduction: In one sentence, what’s the topic? State the problem you will tackle How will you tackle the research question? Describe methodology briefly What will be the key impact(s) of your research? Should be polished and an accurate reflection of the proposal Should be written with the same care as the proposal Carefully consider the difference between the scientific and lay abstracts

24. Writing the Lay Abstract This is often the first thing that the committee sees and the source information used by the funder Write without jargon so that a lay audience/ reader can easily understand the importance of the research Should be polished and an accurate reflection of the proposal Should be written with the same care as the proposal Is used by WCHRI as promotional material and for stakeholders

25. Knowledge Translation Plan Worth 10% of the total score Include a KT plan that details the anticipated outcomes and impact Include details on knowledge users, how they will be involved in study or KT process Include next steps (future grant applications, preclinical or clinical development, impacts on health policy) Consider budget limitations or restrictions

26. Writing the Budget Make sure the budget is well documented, realistic, appropriate and justified Do not inflate, over- or under-budget Do not request items that are not allowed For equipment, document why the piece is required Make sure requests for personnel are eligible Ensure that requests for travel, specify who will travel and if they will be presenting a research outcomes

27. Specific Budget Considerations Costs for transcription Costs for putting data into HDRD repository Costs for data management software (NVivo or Atlas.ti) Costs for gift cards, child care Costs for parking and transportation Costs for refreshments for focus groups or meetings with stakeholders Publication is an anticipated outcome - costs should be included!!!

28. Closing Comments The process of applying for grants is a learned process; even the very best applicants suffer rejection. A great proposal takes time to write and re-write Learn from the review process and ask questions. Read through your feedback. Discuss it with your peers and mentors Ask funder for clarification if necessary You have some very good resources at this university – start with your colleagues or mentor

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