Developing and Submitting a Research Proposal in Psychosocial Oncology: Tips on Getting it Funded

1. Mary Jane Esplen, PhD NCIC CCS Research Scientist & Associate Professor University of Toronto Head, Program of Psychosocial and Psychotherapy Research in Cancer Genetics, University Health Network, Toronto, ON Developing and Submitting a Research Proposal in Psychosocial Oncology: Tips on Getting it Funded Anne Leis, PhD NCIC-CCS Research Scientist & Associate Professor Dept. of Community Health & Epidemiology University of Saskatchewan Saskatoon, SK. Canadian Association of Psychosocial Oncology Conference Victoria 2005

2. Outline Introduction Why Submit a Proposal? “What Reviewers Look For” Importance of the Problem Scientific Merit Successful Team Nuts and bolts (format)

3. Why Submit a Proposal? • Grant funds support all aspects of research - operating costs, salaries, trainees, consultants, supplies and services, travel, equipment, publication expenses • Peer-review provides critical evaluation & confers credibility • Deadlines/structure stimulate progress - forces investigator to develop new ideas, work through a plan, forge new partnerships disseminate findings/ publish results • Progression through the ranks

4. Consideration of a Grant Proposal Prior Experience/ Research Stage Educational Level Current Role/ Position Track Record Prior Roles in Research Specific RFAs

5. Rationale for the study Interest to you and others Under-occupied niche Anticipate results Build on a theme Low risk/high risk ratio Go for depth Different from mentor Focus…focus...focus Feasibility

6. Relevance • Timely and important topic (e.g. direct and indirect relevance) • Potential to advance knowledge (theoretical, empirical knowledge) • Build on what is already known • Impact on the cancer burden- specify clearly • Likelihood of uptake • Lead to the next research questions • Clearly Stated in Proposal !

7. Scientific Merit Impression of the science Overall evaluation of the scientific quality of the research Will study lead to significant conclusions? Clearly stated research question? Clearly stated testable hypothesis? Purpose? Inclusion of research questions or aims that convinces of importance of study?

8. Scientific Merit Is the literature well-organized, build a case and support the need for the study? Are the models, conceptual framework clearly explained and consistent with and supported by literature? Do tables, figures, etc. efficiently, accurately and effectively illustrate the literature? Study plan? Is the methodology appropriate for the work presented?

9. Scientific Merit Does the study include relationship between 2 or more variables? Include measurable outcomes? Will the study make a significant contribution to this area of research? Will the study generate new knowledge? Generate hypotheses? How confident can one be that the study is feasible? Foundation for future research?

10. Components of a Proposal • Introduction“Hook them in” • Rationale and relevance“highlight importance and niche” • Objectives“link to mandate” • Literature Review(what is currently known) • Hypotheses(if relevant to stage of research- what do we hope to learn?) • Research Plan(how will we learn it?)

11. Components of a Proposal(cont’d) • Participants(relevant, sufficient N available) • Materials(appropriate, reliable, valid?) • Procedure(valid, feasible) • Design • Management and Statistical treatment of data (valid approach?) • Power Analysis(credible? Sufficient N?) • Ethical Issues(do no harm, benefits, outweigh costs, appropriate checks) • Budget(appropriate, inflated?)

12. Composition of a research team • Principal Investigator • Co-investigators • Contribute to study design, implementation • Special expertise • Facilitate process (e.g. access to patients) • Community representative • Consultants • Trainees • Research Staff • Coordinator, -Research Assistants, Technicians, Interviewers, Data Entry, Translators

13. Necessary Elements for a Successful Research Team • PI with expertise, experience who knows his/her limitations • A clear, common understanding of • the research focus • a willingness to work together and trust • the roles of the co-investigators • each team member’s expected contributions in a timely fashion • the reward system • A team coordinator who acts as a central point for information exchange between team members • Efficient communication mechanisms • Work in a synergistic fashion

14. Sources of Research Funds • Grants • Research councils, government institutes • Private Foundations • Institutional research funds (institutional research office can be very helpful) • Scholarships, Career Awards • Contracts

15. Format of the grant (Nuts and bolts) • Target a granting agency or a specific RFA • Make sure your research project is a fit • Read all the documentation related to the submission process • Prepare your CV in the common CV format • Establish a realistic and well-documented budget that matches the implementation of the study process • Have someone verify the formatting of your grant before submitting

16. Follow the guidelines… • required sections in the grant without forgetting previous experience, ethics and dissemination plan • number of pages, font, spacing • Well formatted references • appendices • examples of publication • KEY: • information should flow • logical order • be consistent throughout… • Internal friendly review before submitting

17. Knowledge translation • Clear outcomes should be identified • Research with and not on cancer patients • Include potential users of the findings in the research process • Don’t foster unrealistic expectations • The research to practice to policy cycle • Publish in both scientific and lay literature

18. Good luck!