Tips for writing a grant application

 

General application tips

Here are some things we recommend to our applicants to maximise your chances of success

Before you start writing

• Know your target funding stream, and familiarise yourself with the Guidance Notes
• Confirm that the scheme is appropriate for your career stage, the research is in scope and you meet all eligibility criteria. If unsure, please contact the Project Officer for the scheme (contact details are at the end of the Guidance Notes and on the website)
• Assemble a strong team, potentially including other researchers, knowledge users and PPI contributors
• Seek advice from colleagues, potential co-applicants, specialists such as staff in relevant infrastructures, statisticians and other methodologists, and your research office
• Allow enough time
• Understand the assessment process and write with this in mind
• Consider our gender policy

Know your funder

• Read the corporate strategy, including our Mission, Vision and Values
• Look at our Responsible Research Assessment pages to understand important agendas for the HRB

Know your audience

• Peer reviewers and panel members are typically based outside of Ireland. Write for reviewers who are not familiar with the situation here. Describe the context for your study, how healthcare is delivered and/or funded in Ireland if applicable and provide context
• You need to convince experts in your field/methodology (international peer reviewers) and a mixed audience from a variety of scientific backgrounds (the panel)
• Avoid abbreviations and acronyms. It just makes it harder to read the application
• Write the lay summary and PPI section for the public reviewers without a scientific background. Ideally, ask your PPI contributors to write the lay summary

What reviewers look for

• An important and timely research question with an outlined pathway to impact in Ireland or beyond.
• Evidence supporting the case for the research has been gathered systematically, i.e., as systematic reviews or other evidence synthesis formats. Simple literature overviews are not sufficient. Evidence synthesised systematically should include evidence of (1) a systematic identification of previous work, (2) critical appraisal, (3) synthesis of the evidence and (4) interpretation of findings.
• The applicant team has the necessary breadth and depth of expertise in all methodological required areas
• A convincing research design with appropriate research method/s
• Potential problems are identified, discussed and a mitigation plan proposed
• Identifiable objectives and deliverables within the required timeframe
• An ambitious proposal but not overly ambitious so as not to be possible within the timelines and/or resources available
• An appropriate dissemination plan that teases out the various target audiences and proposes activities accordingly
• Evidence of meaningful public and patient involvement
• A well-written and clearly presented application with attention to detail such as spellcheck, no tracked changes

Be aware of research governance issues

• Do you 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?

Use plain English

The National Adult Literacy Agency (NALA) provides useful tips for writing in plain English at https://www.nala.ie/plain-english/plain-english-tips/

Before you submit

• Edit, proofread and make sure all sections are complete
• Ask co-applicants to review the application and ensure that their input is covered appropriately
• 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, particularly the research office. Leave time to finalise the budget section with your Research Office (or equivalent)

Use the right to respond

• Be succinct and clear
• Acknowledge all significant concerns and/or weaknesses described in feedback even if you do not agree with some of them and/or do not propose to address some
• If you agree with the feedback and want to take it on board, acknowledge and discuss the implications (e.g., for the applicant team, research personnel, cost, timelines, methods)
• If you disagree with a reviewer’s statement, explain clearly why
• Avoid coming across as argumentative or overly defensive
• The response to peer-reviewers comments is an opportunity to refine the application, not to completely re-write it

Common issues

• Doesn’t meet PI, team or scope eligibility criteria
• Doesn’t demonstrate importance of the topic or new or original ideas
• Evidence supporting the application not gathered systematically
• 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 poorly articulated
• Lack of clear objectives or outcomes measures
• Project is overly ambitious and not feasible within timeframe, staffing or available budget
• 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
• 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
• Intended users of a product or process are not involved in the development
• 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
• 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 plan vague
• 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

Methodological design tips

Methodological rigour is a fundamental requirement for funding success.

Assume that the reviewers are appraising the application looking for a flaw. Search for them yourself by asking “where could it go wrong?”

Avail of any the study design supports offered to researchers in your organisation.

Designing surveys

• Is there a description of the population which will be sampled?
• Is the method of sampling described? E.g. random, cluster, stratified
• Is the method of recruiting subjects described?
• Is the issue of representativeness addressed?
• Is there a strategy to minimise non-response or incomplete data?
• Is the method of collecting data described? Interview, postal/online 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?

Designing qualitative studies

• 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?

Designing clinical trials

• Where will the trial be registered?
• Is the patient group or population described?
• Is the sample size justified?
• 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 arm clearly described?
• Is the study double blind?
• Is the primary outcome measure clearly defined, clinically relevant?
• Are you using a Core Outcome Set as described by COMET?
• Is account taken of factors which could influence the outcome?
• Is there a strategy to minimise losses to follow up?
• Is there a description of the statistical methods to be used?
• Will the trial be reported using CONSORT or other relevant criteria?

Designing cohort studies

• Are you using an established cohort? Can you demonstrate access and suitability?
• 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?

Designing case control studies

• 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/online 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?

Designing economic evaluation

• Is an economist part of the applicant team or a collaborator?
• 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