Summary
Brief Background
The proceedings of the webinar was started by Master of Ceremony, Dr. Megha Joshi where she introduced the speaker Dr. Pushpanjali Adhikari and the moderator Dr. Mona Sharma.Dr Adhikari is the Executive Committee member of Nepalese Society of Community Medicine (NESCOM). She is currently the project lead of several international collaborative projects mostly on Non-Communicable Diseases. Dr Adhikari is the lead of a clinical trial on Rheumatic Heart Disease. She is co-investigator in other clinical trials in collaboration with International Vaccine Institute/Bill and Melinda Foundation and Sanofi Pasteur. She has an experience of writing several international grants namely MRC UK, NORAD, NORPART, NIH, NIHR, UKRI, ERAMUS, GACD, GCRF and had worked as a project lead/manager for NIH and GCRF grants. Dr Sharma who was the moderator of the program, is currently working as QI specialist in FHI 360 Nepal for USAID, MPHD Nepal Project. She is Peer Reviewer in Birat Journal of Health Sciences & Annapurna Journal of Health Sciences and expertise in Quality Improvement Family Planning. She was Former Master Trainer in Family planning service. She is life member and executive member of NESCOM.
The session started with quote by Norm Braverman, NIH that says, “There is no grantsmanship that will turn a bad idea into a good one, but there are many ways to disguise a good idea”. Dr. Adhikari gave a brief overview of what is meant by grant, more on practical aspects, regarding why we need it, what is it, where do we find grant opportunities and how do we find grants. She enlightened us about the process of grant writing, which starts from ideas/team/activities, bringing them together along with learning writing requirement, which included decision tree for grant pre-assessment, checklists before starting to write followed by identifying potentials and allocating dedicated times for grant writing. She gave us insight regarding steps before going for full proposal, general format of grant writing (which may differ according to organization) along with developing strong research plan. Special focus was given in significance, specific aims, innovations and grant proposal budgets topics of grant writing. She also highlighted the common reasons of a weak application and reason for proposal fail followed by hallmarks of outstanding grants. On ending note she highlighted on general grant writing tips, tips for the junior investigator and things to do after getting grants were mentioned.
The completion of the presentation was followed by many interesting questions raised by the participants, making it an immensely interactive session. A zoom poll with 5 questions was also put forward after the end of discussions. The webinar lasted for one and half hours. Dr. Adhikari was presented with the certificate of appreciation on behalf of NESCOM. Around 100 participants were present during the webinar.
Objective
- To understand the importance of grant writing in academia
- To understand the process and the steps of grant writing
- To understand the format of grant writing for different donor bodies
Key points that came out during the discussion
1. Grant is seeking resources to support ideas which we need to conduct research to bring scientific benefit to the community, establish teams (both intra and inter disciplinary) and support infrastructures which may include adding or upgrading equipment to facilities. Example includes research grant, program/project grants, planning grants and infrastructure support grants
2. Grant opportunities can be found in government, dedicated organization, philanthropic entities, individuals, and universities via targeted search, email/newsletters, contacts, or networks
3. Grant writing starts with idea (lot of ideas) after which a team must be build (initiate oneself and bring others in the team/be a part of another person’s team) followed by different activities to execute the ideas
4. Writing requirements include creating a list of ideas, identifying potential collaborators, opportunities, creating team and allocating dedicated time
5. Whenever we think to start writing a grant, we should follow a decision tree for grant pre-assessment. We should see whether the proposal is in harmony with the personal and professional goals and meets with the philosophy and goals of agency.
a. If yes, we should see whether the project can be accomplished without hindering the goals, direction and function of the agency, chances of the proposal being funded good enough that it is worth our time and effort and being entirely honest with our self and our agency.
b. If no, it is necessary to reevaluate our project in accordance with our resources, philosophies and goals
6. Process of grant writing starts with letter of intent, followed by pre-proposal and then the full proposal
7. Letter of intent is usually of 2–4 pages and it highlights what we want to do and informs funding agency that we intend to submit- often get back no response other than an acknowledgment
8. Pre-proposal is about 5 pages which is reviewed by panels of reviewer and once approved is then invited to submit the full proposal
9. Full proposal is 10-40 pages which includes forms, attachments and specific formats
10. General format of grant writing differs according to organizations where applied
11. Format of grants include cover letter, executive summary, need statement, goals, and objectives; methods, strategies or program design; evaluation section, funding and sustainability portion, information about organization and project budget
12. Writing tips: Plan ahead (about 6 months pilot work + research questions, involving mentor/co investigators), write and revise a 1-2 pages concept note (share ahead of every meeting, revise between meetings) which may become specific aims section later on
13. Developing a strong research plan is utmost where methods and analyses must match and includes questions like
a) Does your plan flow logically from the literature review and prior studies?
b) How will each hypothesis be tested?
c) Do your measures capture the variables needed to test the hypotheses?
d) Why did you choose those measures?
14. Significance section of grant writing shows overall understanding of the field, demonstrates that the questions are novel, important, and represent a logical step in research and highlights critical gaps that will be addressed by the proposed research. It also explains the importance of the problem or critical barrier to progress in the field that the proposed project addresses, explains how proposed project will improve scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice in one or more broad fields; describe how the concepts, methods, technologies, treatment, services, or field will be changed if the proposed aims are to be achieved
15. Specific aims of grant writing should grab the reader immediately, it should be the roadmap of the applications and the aims should be to organize it in sequential, numeric format. It should begin with a general purpose of the research with some key supporting data, hypothesis, and long-term objectives and expected future impact. It should also tell reviewers what the project will add on.
16. Grant writing should also show that the proposed research is innovative by showing how it refines, improves, or proposes a new application of an existing concept
17. Tips to draft a compelling budget (direct and indirect) for grant proposal focus on uniqueness of study essentials, funding agency guidelines, categorization of each item, value of money, including expenses and revenue. However, one shouldn’t overestimate the budget
18. Grant review focus should be in the overall impact of an application
19. Summary part of the proposal should be able to answer following questions
a) Has the rationale been stated clearly and convincingly? Does the submitting agency indicate awareness of the problem? Is the proposal restricted or natural?
b) Have the objectives been specified operationally and in sufficient detail? Are they feasible? To what extent can the program be expected to oversell? Are they guided by religious, unrealistic hopes?
c) What is the relationship of this proposal to other efforts in that area? Is the problem of enough significance to be worthy of funding? Who is most affected by the problem? How does the proposal fit into the submitting agency and the external funding source philosophy and priorities?
d) Does the proposal suggest sound administrative practices? Does the submitting agency have history of proper administrative procedures? Does the submitting agency have the capability of taking on a project of that magnitude?
e) Are salaries and personal assignments appropriate? Are lines of authority identified appropriately? Does the proposal show fiscal accountability? To whom is the project accountable: consumers, public or agency board?
f) Is the budget realistic? Is it enough to do the job? Is there sufficient slack to provide staff the flexibility to respond to emerging contingencies? Has the budget been supported by other supporting agencies?
g) Should this proposal be submitted to the “funding source? Does it fit better with some other agency? Should it have been submitted to a local giver?
h) Does the proposal meet the technical guidelines and regulations published for this type of proposal?
i) Can the project be effectively evaluated? Are project staff capable of the evaluation or will an external evaluator be needed? On what criteria will the project be evaluated?
j) Is the proposal well organized with completed application forms, proposal narrative, and budget derail indicating project consistency and strength?
20. Reason for proposals fail includes- Deadline not met, Guidelines not followed, nothing intriguing, Did not meet priorities, Not complete, Poor literature review, Appeared beyond capacity of PI, Methodology weak, Unrealistic budget, Cost greater than benefit, Highly partisan, Poorly written, Mechanical defects
21. Hallmarks, Clear of outstanding grant includes strong significance, important problem in public health, high degree of novelty and innovation, strong track record of a well-qualified applicant; compelling publications rationale, relevant, supportive preliminary data, clear and focused approach that provides unambiguous results, careful attention to details- spelling, punctuation, grammar, fonts, clarity of data, error bars, spelling, etc.
22. General grant writing tips-read instructions for application form, be realistic not overly ambitious, discuss potential problem areas and possible solutions and be explicit. Align applications with review criteria (significance, investigators, innovation, approach and environment)
23. Tips for junior investigators include finding a mentor, interdisciplinary collaboration, knowing the experts in the niche area of investigation, getting funding opportunity announcement and program announcement, seeking and building a research team early in career, not underestimating the need for a great statistician and not writing a grant alone. Reading successful grants and sitting on mock reviews
24. Before submitting grant- schedule a peer review (internal), include persons who sit on study sections, do early in the process (e.g. If June submission – review in early May), Determine how to include the feedback, External review- experts in the proposed field of inquiry
25. After getting the grant we should ensure institutional mechanisms to administer it, ensure compliance to its policy, rules and regulations, built a stepping stone, communicate, disseminate and network
26. Recycling the rejected proposals by obtaining reviewer comments, calling the program officer and rewriting, revising , and resubmitting
Point for the policy brief
Grant writing is the need of an hour in the nation. Nepal Health Research Council, the apex body of research in Nepal should take initiative in designing the course for grant writing so that the health professionals get trained to be an independent researcher and contribute in the health system of the country.
Point to be discussed in Executive committee
Role of Nepalese Society of Community Medicine (NESCOM) in organizing courses of grant writing for capacity building of Community Medicine residents and graduates.
Conclusion
Grant writing is an essential step for seeking resources to support ideas for conducting research. Process of grant writing starts with letter of intent, followed by pre-proposal and then the full proposal. An ideal grant should include important problem in public health, compelling publications rationale along with relevant and supportive preliminary data and realistic budgeting.