PUBLICATION

PROPOSAL

QUESTION

A research proposal is intended to convince others

that you have:
A worthwhile research project
The capability and the work-plan to complete it

For Seeking funds

To get ethical committee approval

 We are trying to get funding for an idea:

Develop clear language to sell that idea.

Include the significance of the idea in that language.
Be realistic in the sales pitch.

Allows problems to be defined and managed before

start

Provides guidance while the research in process

Provides documentary evidence of planned analysis

Ask a FINER Question

Critically Review What is Known
Write a Hypothesis/Aims:
Choose a Study Design:
Write a proposal

 Feasibility
1. Adequate number of
subjects
2. Adequate technical
expertise
3. Affordable in time
and money
4. Manageable in scope

Interesting
1. Something to be
passionate about
2. Something to be an
expert in
3. Something that
makes a difference
in the world

 Novelty
1. Confirms or refutes
previous findings
2. Extends previous
findings
3. Provides new
findings

Ethical
1. Respect for persons
(Informed consent)
2. Beneficence
(Risk/Benefit
Analysis)
3. Justice (Selection of
subjects).

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Cover page (Title)

Table of Contents
Proposal Summary (Arabic )
Proposal Summary ( English)
Introduction
Objectives/Aims
Literature Review

An effective title not only pricks the reviewer's

interest, but also predisposes him/her favorably
towards the proposal.

It should be concise and descriptive.

It should clearly indicate the independent and

dependent variables.

 Relevance
1. To scientific knowledge
2. To clinic, public health or health policy
3. To future research directions

 It is a brief concise summary of the WHOLE project.

It is the first impression a reviewer gets of an
application worth!
It should include :

unique and creative idea

research question
rationale for the study
hypothesis (if any)
methods

Tips:

Do not include unnecessary detail

make each phrase count.
Write and rewrite and refine the abstract to maximize
clarity.
Give it to lots of peers to read

 The main purpose is to provide the necessary

background or context for your research
problem.
It should generally covers the following
elements:
A) What has already been accomplished in the field?

B) What is the rationale behind the study? Why is it worth

doing?
C) Brief description of the proposed study.
D) What gaps would the study fill in the area of
investigation?
E) What relevant work has been done by the investigators (or
others) to indicate the expected productivity of the proposal?
F) Provide preliminary data, if any.
G) The expected benefits and adverse effects to patients, if
applicable.

 This section justifies and builds the case for the project.
This section puts the project into context by providing
essential background information for the content area,
showing how the proposed project builds on previous
work, and identifying gaps in previous knowledge.
For each background area presented, it is important to
show exactly how the background directly links with
the proposed project.
This section should naturally progress from the
description of the current state of knowledge to the gap
that the proposed research will fill.

Is the significance/importance of the work evident? Is

the work innovative?
Does it contribute substantially to previous work in
the field?
Is the need for the study (or all aspects of the study)
well-justified?
Is the significance overstated?
Is there extraneous information?
Does the study address an important problem?

 This section should summarize the principal

investigators
(or co-investigators) previous work related to the
proposed project.
This important section warrants space and detail.
This section allows the investigator to convince the
reviewers about the research teams the expertise and
experience to carry out this work and suitable
groundwork has been done.
Reviewers are particularly interested in detailed
description of preliminary or pilot work that is directly
linked to the proposed study.

 This is the most important section of the grant.

They should explore the issues that you intend to
consider, and how they will impact on the purpose of
the research as a whole.
They must :

be stated as clearly and as specifically as possible.

clearly articulated the hypotheses.
appear balanced.
not overly ambitious or unrealistic?

Tip: Having one very important question presented

as one clear hypothesis is the best.

Primary:
1. To compare recurrence-free survival in patients with
cancer Y on drug X compared to standard treatment.
2. To estimate the sensitivity of a new minimally
invasive approach for detecting cancer.
3. To investigate whether presence of genetic variant X
is associated with Parkinsons disease.
4. To investigate whether a new type of TKA surgery
leads to shorter operating times

Secondary:
1. 1. To compare drug X to standard treatment. Quality
of Life as measured by the Short-Form 36 at 3m
after start of treatment.
2. 2. To compare the proportions of patients
experiencing at least one of the following side
effects.

 The literature review serves several important

functions:

Demonstrates your knowledge of the research problem.

Shows your ability to critically evaluate relevant
literature information.
Ensures that you are not "reinventing the wheel".
Gives credits to those who have laid the groundwork for
your research.
Convinces your reader that your proposed research will
make a significant and substantial contribution to the
literature (i.e., resolving an important theoretical issue
or filling a major gap in the literature).

8.Research Project Design and Methodology

Project Design
Methodology
Population
Case identification
Inclusion criteria
Exclusion Criteria

Data collection
Ethical Considerations
Variables to be
measured
Outcome measures
Statistical Analysis
Appendix

 This part shows the plan to tackle the research problem.

It should provide the work plan and describe the
activities necessary for the completion of your project.
The method section typically consists of the following
sections:

Design
Is it a questionnaire study or a laboratory experiment? What kind
of design do you choose?

Subjects or participants

Who will take part in the study ? What kind of sampling

procedure do you use?

Instruments

What kind of measuring instruments or questionnaires do you use?

Why do you choose them? Are they valid and reliable?

Procedures
How do you plan to carry out your study? What activities are
involved? How long does it take?

This section represents the heart of the grant.

Describe the setting or settings in enough detail so
that reviewers can understand how this setting would
compare or extrapolate to other study settings.
Inclusions and exclusions criteria need to be well
justified.
We advise addressing any potential biases and
assuring that these will not invalidate the study
results.
Provide data and assurance that adequate numbers of
patients will be available for the study in the
proposed setting.

8.Research Project Design and Methodology

8.Research Project Design & Methodology

Data collection/procedures

Are procedures well-described? Are there quality

assurance measures for data collectors?
Is there adequate description of study
instruments/measures? Are standardized, validated
measures used?
Are there concerns about validity or reliability of data
collection methods?
Are all important study variables described and
collected? Are there extraneous variables that are never
used in subsequent analyses?

8.Research Project Design & Methodology

8.Research Project Design & Methodology

8.Research Project Design & Methodology

Intervention (if applicable)

Does the intervention appear potent (that is, is it likely

to be effective as described)
Is the intervention well-describedcan you
understand what was done, or is it a black box?
Is the protocol standardized so that it is likely to be
reproducible in other settings?
Is the intervention administered by a separate
individual/group not involved in outcome assessment?
Is there blinded administration of the intervention
protocol (e.g., double-blinding of drug trial)?

Meet with Statistician: As Early As Possible

Be able to discuss

Findings of key articles

Primary hypothesis/Question of interest
Initial idea (s) for study design
Maximum number of patients feasible

Data Analysis
Are there sample size or power calculations?
Are attrition rates/losses provided? Do they appear
realistic/justified? Do anticipated losses threaten the
validity of the study?
How will missing data and no responses be handled
in analyses?

8.Research Project Design & Methodology

9.Management Plan

9.Management Plan

9.Management Plan

10.Work Plan (Time schedule)

11.References
A numbered list of complete references, in order of
appearance, should be included here.

11.References

12.Utilization of Expected Results

Will your findings form the basis for future health
benefits?
Will the health of many people improve based on
your findings?
How will scientific knowledge be advanced?

12.Utilization of Expected Results

13.Current and Expected Funding

14.Tabulated Budget

15.Detailed Budget

15.Detailed Budget

16.Undertaking of the Research Team

17.Undertaking of P-I Substitute

18.Investigators Specialization Area Key

Words

19.List of Specialists in the area of the

Proposal

20.CVs for Researchers and Consultants

Characteristics of a
Successful Grant Proposal
1.

The proposed work fits the interests and the mission

of the funding agency.

2.

The proposal was prepared with meticulous attention

to the instructions concerning deadline for
submission, length, format (size of print).

3.

The proposal must be well written to be easy to read

and understand.

Characteristics of a
Successful Grant Proposal
4.

Use diagrams and tables to add clarity

5.

Use bullet points and sections

6.

Keep to; page, word and font size restrictions

7.

Activate the spell checker while writing.

8.

It was made very clear that the proposed work can be

done by the applicant.

Important Tips
Never submit a proposal before it is ready to go out
(sufficiently matured).
It is better to take a gap in funding than to be
embarrassed by a marginal proposal.
Have someone else proofread it.
Have a third person critically read it.
Make sure your hypotheses are up front and that your
Specific Aims address them.

Investigators
Is the investigator appropriately trained and wellsuited to carry out this work?
Is the work proposed appropriate to the experience
level of the principal investigator and other
researchers (if relevant)?
Does the investigative team bring complementary
and integrated expertise to the project?

THE PATHWAY

TOO OFTEN TAKEN

The
Idea

YES!

$$
$$
$

WOW

The Funding
Agency

The
Applicant

The
Review
Group
The
Application

Summary
Study design and protocol development is a highly
individualized process
Extensive discussion is often necessary to develop a
strong design and analysis plan
Involve the statistician early in the process

Protocol Development Algorithm

State research objectives
Define Methods
Consult Statistician
Define Variables
Develop Data Collection Forms
Develop Consent Form
Develop Draft Budget
Submit for IRB/Funding