General application tips
- Know your target funding stream
- Read the Guidance Notes specific to the scheme
- Confirm scheme is appropriate for your career stage and you meet eligibility criteria
- If unsure whether the research is in scope/scheme appropriate to your career stage don’t hesitate to contact the Project Officer for the scheme
- Seek advice from colleagues, potential co-applicants, specialists such as staff in Clinical Research Facilities or other relevant infrastructures, statisticians and other methodologists, and the research office
- Allow enough time
- Understand the assessment process and write with this in mind
- Assemble a strong team and choose collaborators carefully
- Consider our gender policy
- Read the corporate strategy
- Look at our Mission, Vision and Values
- Look at the funder’s website, e.g. position statements and policies
- You will need to convince experts in your field/area/methodology (international peer reviewers) and a mixed audience from a variety of scientific backgrounds (the panel)
- Write the lay summary for the layperson
- Write for international reviewers who are not familiar with the situation in Ireland. Describe the context for your study, how healthcare is delivered and/or funded in Ireland if applicable, provide figures for incidence/prevalence and avoid abbreviations and acronyms
- An important research area where original thinking and innovation in the project is highlighted (where relevant)
- A well-written and clearly presented application
- Timeliness of the topic with relevance to the needs of healthcare in Ireland and/or globally
- Identifiable deliverables within the required timeframe
- An applicant team that has an appropriate track record in research and demonstrates the necessary breadth and depth of expertise in all methodological areas required to deliver the research proposed
- Evidence of appropriate consultation, partnerships and collaborations
- A convincing research design with appropriate research method/s
- A feasible plan where potential problems are identified, discussed and a mitigation plan proposed
- An ambitious proposal but not overly ambitious so as not to be possible within the timelines and/or resources available
- Clear and appropriate objectives, primary and secondary outcome measures
- Demonstrable value for money where the resources requested are clearly justified and are appropriate to the type and scale of the work outlined
- An appropriate dissemination plan that teases out the various target audiences and proposes activities accordingly
- Evidence of meaningful public and patient involvement, where applicable
- A strong and convincing case for potential impact in the short, medium and long term, but not overly-stated to the extent that it no longer aligns with the study aims, objectives and methods
- Attention to detail – e.g. spellcheck complete
- Edit, proofread and make sure all sections are complete
- Ask co-applicants to review the application and ensure that their input is covered appropriately
- If you have tracked changes in the document, accept all changes and make sure to submit a clean version.
- Ensure all related supporting documentation is included
- Ask a colleague to comment on readability and flow
- Be aware of deadlines ahead of the HRB deadline where you are asking others for input, e.g. HRB CRCI, a research infrastructure, and of course the research office.
- Leave time to discuss and finalise the budget section with your Research Office (or equivalent)
- Be succinct yet clear and comprehensive
- Acknowledge all significant concerns and/or weaknesses described in feedback even if the applicant - team does not agree with some of them and/or does not propose to address some
- If the applicant team disagrees with a reviewer’s statement explain clearly why
- Acknowledge and discuss the implications of taking on board some of the feedback (e.g., for applicant team, research personnel, cost, timelines, methods)
- Avoid coming across as argumentative or overly defensive
- Do not propose to change significantly the application following the peer-reviewers comments
- Ethical issues –the need to have research ethics committee approval
- Are you working to a code of Good Research Practice
- Have you thought about Intellectual Property Rights
- Have you considered Data Protection and confidentiality
- Do you have indemnity cover where needed
- Failure to meet eligibility criteria
- Failure to demonstrate importance of the topic or new or original ideas
- Research question is ill-identified, unfocused or unsupported by preliminary data
- The study as designed will not answer the research question
- Theoretical or conceptual underpinning of the study is weak or poorly articulated
- Lack of clarity over objectives or outcomes measures
- Project is overly ambitious and not feasible within timeframe or available budget
- Incomplete or poor literature review where critical references are omitted
- Proposal expects too much from junior research personnel or research team has allocated too little time to deliver project
- Applicant team is missing critical skills or expertise (most common omissions are statistician, clinical trialist, qualitative researcher, behavioural scientist, health economist)
- Insufficient methodological detail to convince the reviewers that the team knows what it is doing
- Intended users of a product or process are not involved in the development
- Detectable effect size is not large enough to be clinically significant or result in a change of practice
- Concerns over sample size, especially where the study is powered based on a previously under-powered pilot study
- Not clear if study is at feasibility stage or a definitive trial and/or it is incorrectly framed as a definitive trial when there is no evidence of previous feasibility studies
- Little or no discussion on control group or intervention – what is usual care?
- Lack of acceptability testing of an intervention
- No discussion of possible problems/limitations and no contingency plan
- Lack of a convincing dissemination plan
- Data analysis and management plan vague or missing altogether
- Lack of research vision and clear career plans in career development schemes
- Training and development plan not well thought out in training and career development schemes
- Lack of appropriate mentorship in training and career development schemes
The National Adult Literacy Agency (NALA) provides a useful checklist to help you review a document to see if it uses plain English and is easy to follow. It can be download from the NALA website at the link below.
https://www.nala.ie/resources/plain-english-checklist-documents
CloseMethodological design tips
- Contact your local Clinical Research Facility/Centre and avail of the study design supports offered to researchers
- Assume that the reviewers are appraising the application looking for a flaw. Search for them yourself by asking “where could it go wrong?”
- The following questions should be addressed in the protocol where using the below methodologies
- Is there a description of the population which will be sampled?
- Is the method of sampling described? random, cluster, stratified.
- Is the method of recruiting subjects described?
- Is the issue of representativeness addressed?
- Is there a strategy to minimise non-response?
- Is the method of collecting data described? Interview, postal questionnaire etc.
- Is an outline given of the data to be collected?
- Is the sample size justified?
- Is there a description of the statistical methods to be used?
- Is the study group clearly defined?
- Is the method of identifying and recruiting subjects described?
- Is the method of follow up described?
- Is the length of follow up justified?
- Is there a strategy to minimise losses to follow up?
- Is the outcome measure clearly defined, clinically relevant and likely to be accurately measured?
- Is account taken of factors which could influence the outcome?
- Is the sample size justified?
- Is there evidence that the desired number of subjects can be obtained?
- Is there a description of the statistical methods to be used?
- Are the cases clearly defined?
- Do the controls come from the same general population as the cases?
- Is the method of recruiting cases and controls described?
- Is the method of collecting data described? i.e. interview or postal questionnaire.
- Will data be collected in the same way for cases and controls?
- Is the sample size justified?
- Is there evidence that the desired number of cases and controls can be obtained?
- Is there a description of the statistical methods to be used?
- Is the theoretical basis of the study described?
- Is the method of data collection described?
- Is the role of the researcher discussed?
- Is it clear how the analysis will be performed?
- Does the person who will conduct the analysis have sufficient experience?
- Is an economist mentioned in the proposal?
- Is the relevant economic theory described?
- Is the method of costing described?
- Is the source of the costing data identified?
- Is the health outcome measure described?
- Where will the trial be registered?
- Is the patient group described?
- Is the method of recruiting study subjects described?
- Is there evidence that the required number of subjects can be obtained?
- Are there procedures for obtaining informed consent?
- Is the method of randomisation described?
- Is the intervention clearly described?
- Is there a good argument why the intervention should work?
- Is the control treatment clearly described?
- Is the study double blind?
- Is the primary outcome measure clearly defined, clinically relevant?
- Is account taken of factors which could influence the outcome?
- Is there a strategy to minimise losses to follow up?
- Is the sample size justified?
- Is there a description of the statistical methods to be used?
- Will the trial be reported using CONSORT criteria?