Research proposal checklist
From the two invitations for funding, 16 full research proposals were included, which covered a balance of service and workforce interventions across a range of health settings and care groups. However, when completing the retrospective review, these were removed from the checklist as it became apparent that it is particularly difficult to describe these in research proposals.
A snowball sampling technique was used to identify literature, which was prompted by reading a patient safety checklist paper . The blurring was recognised as a difficulty for researchers, but it has not been possible to keep the two separate.
Your introduction may include a theoretical starting point, a personal motivation or historical/cultural/ social/political information about the research e and aims of the section describes the objectives and desired outcomes of your work to find the answers for the researched problem. High-quality proposal not just promises success to your project, but also impresses your committee about your potential as a researcher.
All authors read and approved the final s’ affiliations(1)national institute for health research evaluation, trials and studies coordinating centre (netscc), university of archived comments (1). Other recommendations were made, such as giving a weighting to each category, but this was not applicable to meet the aims the checklist, therefore, no further changes were tant advisors from the nihr hs&dr programme fed back that some of the wording needed to be updated due a recent reorganisation within the uk’s nhs, but otherwise they felt the checklist was suitable for researchers to use to make a good quality research final checklist includes six constructs, each with a few bullet points to the background (table 2).
Tentative findings suggest usefulness and acceptability of such a tool but further work is needed for full sa mixed methods approach was used in four stages to meet the aims of the y, an initial checklist was designed by hd and tl, based on a review of existing checklists, reporting standards, and relevant literature. These are all important service developments which need evaluation, but the lack of clarity about the intervention and context prevented these research proposals from obtaining funding.
We asked about their experience of using the checklist, its usability, and the suitability of the content of each checklist item. Successful literature review:Keeps focus on the literature essential to your investigated es various theories, findings and arguments on the the reader enough ties to the literature that you have found and read during the that you can take a critical approach to your area of research design is aimed at describing your plans and methods and should:Indicate the research operations you will use and the way you will interpret the results of these y why these methods are the best way to investigate the pate any potential challenges you may face while finding information or analyzing e a timetable and action plan to explain how each of the tasks will be carried , you don’t have the results when you start writing your proposal, but you should have some suggestions about the possible outcomes.
Lastly, the checklist content was assessed by consultant advisors, who provide professional advice to the nihr hs&dr programme and regularly view research proposals submitted to the key constructs were identified from the literature review – organisation, location, patient group, workforce, staffing, activity, culture/leadership, and costing (figure 1). We have developed a checklist, with a focus on complex health services and delivery interventions and context.
To provide focus, this sample was kept to research proposals received in response to two nihr hs&dr invitations to apply for research funding. Since the checklist concentrates on research employing an intervention, secondary, theoretical, and methodological studies were excluded.
Further validation is needed to demonstrate relevance to a wider range of researchers and funding services and delivery al health al institute for health ledgementsthe authors would like to acknowledge staff at netscc, particularly ruairidh milne and david wright, for their help and advice. One of the main difficulties in health service research is generalising findings from one service to another, given the importance of context and local determinants of practice.
A meeting welcoming those working on newly funded projects to the nihr was used as an opportunity to make contact with researchers. The researchers appreciated having a tool to aid them in writing their research proposals and commented that it made them think about factors that they would not have considered previously.
Firstly, in the retrospective review of research proposals we only included a small selection of research proposals. Consequently, it was essential that these elements of a research proposal are clear and well described.
Disagreements were resolved through consensus discussion supervised by next stage was to validate the content of the checklist and determine whether it was a suitable tool for researchers to use. It gives a good visual cue”“it gives you the confidence to write a good proposal as it is a good starting point”“the checklist reinforced the importance of the big picture rather than a selective focus”“it is a very useful tool and has a good outline and structure”“the checklist enables you to be more explicit about what to write in research proposals and it clarifies the question”“the main question summarises the important core to our research proposals”“it is very applicable to the current proposal currently being worked on, especially as there is lots of patients and workforce information”“i would certainly read over to match this with the research proposals… and would download it off the website”“we used it in our meeting to write the full proposal…the team really liked it!
Examples of failed research proposals include projects to assess integrated care models, use of generic caseworkers, or new specialist nurse services. For instance a couple of the researchers interpreted the meaning of a few words differently to what had been intended, therefore, the wording was changed to improve clarity.
Organisation has been included as a feature in a number of reporting tools such as consort  and other checklists [6, 12]. Foundation trust status, teaching/research beacon site, cqc or other ratings if it clear where the organisation is located?