1. Grant Writing – Approach What if you don’t get anticipated results
Grant Writing – Approach What if you don’t get anticipated results? Limitations Timeline
Emelia J. Benjamin, MD, ScM
The NHLBI’s Framingham Heart Study
Boston University School of Medicine
No industry relationships to disclose
1R01HL092577
1R01HL102214
Associate Editor, Circulation 1 1

2. Approach Order – Elements
Rationale
Hypothesis
Preliminary results
Methods
Sample
Design
Statistical analysis
Power
Anticipated results
Possible problems and potential solutions
Read grant from paragraph headings
novelty, significance, conceptual model, overly ambitious scope, overdependence of project completion on success of one aim; participant selection, generalizability, power, multiple testing, confounding, questionable project feasibility, key expertise lacking, problematic quality control data, organization, questionable institutional support, inadequate mentoring plan,

3. Approach Expected Outcomes
Outline for each aim
Purpose
Synthesize each of the outcomes of the aim
Reinforce how aim advances field – ROI
Provides reviewer reassurance that you have back up plan if outcome not met
novelty, significance, conceptual model, overly ambitious scope, overdependence of project completion on success of one aim; participant selection, generalizability, power, multiple testing, confounding, questionable project feasibility, key expertise lacking, problematic quality control data, organization, questionable institutional support, inadequate mentoring plan,

4. Approach Potential Problems Alternative Strategies
Purpose
Demonstrates awareness of limitations
Resilience
Types of problems
Generalizability
Multiple testing
Misclassification
Confounding
Over-adjusting
Changing technology
Temporality
Bias
Causality
Specific assay
Correct model
Enrollment problems
novelty, significance, conceptual model, overly ambitious scope, overdependence of project completion on success of one aim; participant selection, generalizability, power, multiple testing, confounding, questionable project feasibility, key expertise lacking, problematic quality control data, organization, questionable institutional support, inadequate mentoring plan,

5. Approach Timeline Purpose Pitfalls
Gives reviewers perspective/flow of work
Pitfalls
Illogical sequence
Not grounded in Specific Aims
Over-ambitious
Unrealistic
Absent timeline
novelty, significance, conceptual model, overly ambitious scope, overdependence of project completion on success of one aim; participant selection, generalizability, power, multiple testing, confounding, questionable project feasibility, key expertise lacking, problematic quality control data, organization, questionable institutional support, inadequate mentoring plan,