Ulster.ac.uk Applying for research funding for Palliative Care Research: Perils, Pitfalls &...

ulster.ac.uk

Applying for research funding for Palliative Care Research:

Perils, Pitfalls & Pearls

Professor S McIlfatrickInstitute of Nursing & Health Research

1st June 2015

Outline of Session

• Perils- risks/danger PC research• What are key features of funded research?• Pitfalls –common mistakes• Pearls –top tips! • Personal Reflections

• Generates new knowledge• Leads to improvements in practice-

– Eg Symptom management• Service organisation & improvements• Understanding of needs in different groups• Use of research is one factor demonstrates

professional expertise

Palliative Care Research: Why Bother?

Recruitment- Where? How? When?

Heterogeneous group

Retention Issues

Difficulties with prognostication

Gate keeping

Ethical Issues –Vulnerability?

Complexity –eg outcome measures

Palliative Care Research: Considerations/Challenges

“Paternalistic protectionism for this vulnerable population may have resulted in the paradoxical effect of not only limiting progress in palliative care, but also intruding upon the rights of these patients to participate voluntarily in research”

(Fine P Journal of Pain & Symptom Management, 2003)

Your Research

Idea?

1. Familiarise yourself with up-to-date researchWhat are hot topics? How is your idea new, unique, innovative?

2. Where do you feel existing practice is wrong? How will idea address this? Gaps?

3. Network with other researchers & colleaguesCan collaboration help you?Joint proposals?

4. What now? –FUNDING!

Research Idea

• A defined programme that answers a specific question

• A sum of money given to finance a defined programme

• Grants usually awarded competitively• The funder invests in the promises you

make

What are the key Features of Funded Research?

• Your proposal must show how the funder’s investment will pay off

• Your proposed project must meet certain criteria

• You must describe in full what you will do & how you will do it.

• You must propose better projects than other applicants

So what does that mean for the researcher?

Fundable Research Checklist

• Asks an important question• Is likely to succeed• Is likely to provide useable knowledge• Is led by competent investigators • Offers value for money• Has a clear and logical structure• Includes all the evidence and components that

the decision makers (reviewers and funders) need to evaluate it

Four Key Propositions

1. Importance: the proposal asks an important question

2. Success: the project is likely to answer the question

3. Value: the likely gain is worth the resources requested

4. Competence: the applicant & team and are competent to carry out the project as outlined.

Proposition 1 -Importance

• Defined by the agency• Comprehensible to a non specialist• Memorable amongst other projects• Supported by evidence

NB: Your proposal won’t stand a chance if you cannot demonstrate importance in these terms

Proposition 2: Success

A full account of what you will do to answer the question

Explain methods -link with experts! Methodologists; health economists, clinical staff etc etc

Evidence that your work is likely to succeed

Remember: This is the most important and neglected part of an application

Proposition 3: Competence• Self citation is essential• Provide evidence of the ability to use the methods

proposed• Provide evidence of your ability to deliver the

project of the scale proposed• Do not overstate the importance of your

contribution to the field• CVs and team contribution

Remember: Your ‘competence’ is relevant to the scale of the project and your role within it.

Proposition 4: Value

The outputs are worth the sum requested

The project may not be cheap but it must be cost effective

Under-pricing worse that over pricing

Support ‘value’ within the overall proposal (do not just leave to justification of costs section)

NB: Funding agencies will only support projects whose resources are necessary & sufficient

Which section do you write first?INTRODUCTION?

No: the introduction introduces the background & description of the project

BACKGROUND?

No: the background is about the importance of the project.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT?

Yes: until this is written, you cannot write the background or the introduction.

Other reasons: • You can't tell whether the project is do-able until you have described it.• You can't tell whether the project is affordable until you have described it.• You can design the project by writing and testing the description.• You can start working on costings more quickly.

Some common pitfalls

Pitfall 1: Poor Fit: read eligibility criteria & programme call

Pitfall 2: Weak argument- explain why research is needed; build a compelling argument in every paragraph

Pitfall 3: Excessive jargon- use clear, accessible language, want reviewer ‘to get it’; direct statements & active voice; avoid abbreviations and acronyms; use headings/sub headings

PITFALLS

Pitfall 4: Vague research plan: specify major task & timelines; use gantt charts; think reviewer!!

Pitfall 5: Writing solo: get other people to read and review; allow time for rewrites

Pitfall 6: : Deviating from guidelines: follow instructions eg font size; CVs; signatures etc etc

Pitfall 7: TIMETo prepare & plan: signatures; feedback; costings

Pitfall 8: Weak Abstract: Should reflect entire scope of project & summarise project purpose and methods

Pitfall 9 : Ignoring review criteria: learning to decipher this.

Pitfall 10- Choose reviewers carefully: Find a referee who is supportive & does not have a conflict of interest

Personal Reflections!

Still learning! Persistence is vital!

Luck is an element!

Take on board feedback –try, try again!

Costings –think project through!

Clinical links vital

Team essential –think skills & roles

Plan –balance between responsiveness & planned applications

Be aware of success rate

Learning to live with Rejection!

‘Pearls of Wisdom’

• Start small –• eg travel grants; conference awards

• Personal track record• Leading v’s part of team

• Be informed & realistic re different sources of funding

• Thick skin and inquisitive mind• Low lying fruit v’s Horizon 2020!!!

• Edit, edit and edit again!!!• Collaboration & team working

• Trust, relationships, difficulties

And Finally………..•Fit research and grant writing into your job•Find a mentor(s)•Read successful grants; attend workshops & seminars•Find collaborators•Network•Participate in funding panels if possible•Read reviewer’s feedback carefully•Plan applications •Persistence –key to success!!

Questions?

Thank you!

Addington-Hall, J. (2002) Research sensitivities to palliative care patients European Journal of

Cancer Care, 11(3, September), pp 220-224.

Ahlner-Elmqvist, M., Bjordal, K., Jordhøy, M.S., Kaasa, S. and Jannert, M. (2009) Characteristics and

implications of attrition in health-related quality of life studies in palliative care Palliative

Medicine, 23(5) pp432–440

Aldrige and Derrington (2012) the Research Funding Toolkit Sage Publications

Ewing, G., Rogers, M., Barclay, S., McCabe, J., Martin, A. and Todd, C. (2004) Recruiting patients

into a primary care based study of palliative care: why is it so difficult? Palliative Medicine,

18(5), pp452-459

Jordhøy, M.S., Kaasa, S., Fayers, P., Øvreness, T., Underland, G. And Ahlner-Elmqvist, M.

Challenges in palliative care research; recruitment, attrition and compliance: experience from

a randomized control trial. Palliative Medicine, 13(4), pp 299-310.

Ling, J., Rees E., and Hardy, J. (2000) What influences participation in clinical trials in palliative

care in a cancer centre? European Journal of Cancer, 36(5), pp 621-626.

Preston, N., Payne, S. and Todd, C. (2009) Conducting research in palliative care patients: a

burden or an opportunity? International Journal of Palliative Nursing, 15(11), pp. 524-526.

Scottish Partnership for Palliative Care (2011) A beginner’s guide to palliative care research. www.palliativecarescotland.org.uk

References