Successful grant proposals Insights and perspectives

Participatory workshop on grants writing for early career researchers. Organised by Indian Psychiatry Society & NIMHANS

1. Successful grant proposals Insights and perspective Prashanth N S, MBBS, MPH, PhD (Public Health)

2. Overview of our 40 mins interaction Why do some grants fail? What makes a successful grant proposal: some interactive examples Review & funding decisions (typical models in research grantmaking)

3. Ever failed to get a grant?

4. It’s not only about the “writing” Grants fail not only because they’re badly written….

5. Fit to scope: I am good at something so I’ll try that for every grant call opportunity Assess fit Carefully review guidelines, ambit Egs. - Ambulatory care for NCDs - Implementation Research calls

6. Shallow: Limited conceptualization of the core proposal; lacking in originality/innovation Exploration of large number of variables that we will collect in elaborate surveys – mining for associations Unclear reasoning underlying choice of interventions Limited theoretical basis for trying something Novel….but without underlying foundation for novelty Technical jargon understandable only to a niche reviewer Eg. - Descriptive RQs in public health - Incidence/prevalence estimation - Proposals that aim for system change through training

7. Not built/building upon existing work/what’s currently known Limited engagement with literature (who do you cite; whom not?) Claims/assertions that belie lack of understanding of state-of-the-art in the field Overly amplified claims of PI/team’s ability & capacity Eg. - A newly designed Tele-psychiatry solution for rural/remote primary health care settings that does not engage with literature documenting challenges/barriers

8. Wrong person/institution/team for a good idea/proposal - Either due to track-record (or lack thereof), or institutional affiliation - Mentorship/supervisory environment lacking - Specific training proposed is lacking in the PI/team Eg. - Implementation research proposal for scaling up a hospital-based mental health intervention in community settings that is written well but not involving impelementers/public health researchers/community medicine…

9. Coherence: Overpromising aim/objectives but under-delivering plan/activities

10. Lone wolf/champion grants

11. Phasing/staging multi-component research proposals

12. How significant/innovative is what you propose?

13. Thoughts? Aim: To achieve comprehensive screening & treatment for depression and anxiety disorders in the XXX population through the development and implementation of an innovative, multi-modal therapeutic intervention, resulting in improvement in mental health outcomes and sustained remission.

14. Overambitious aims Limit Specific Aims to what you can realistically accomplish during the grant period. Make sure you know how long the grant period is and do not submit proposals that clearly will take longer than that time period. Aims should concisely state how you will test your hypothesis Source: thepsf.org

15. Examples (BEWARE: made up statements) BAD: Lung diseases are a major health issue worldwide with a significant impact on quality of life. Hence, it is of an urgent need to address risk factors of lung disaease and undertake research in this area GOOD: Lung diseases afflict XXX, causing substantial societal and economic burdens. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), for instance, affects approximately XXX in India. It leads to decreased lung function, reduced physical activity, and frequent hospitalizations. COPD-related healthcare costs exceeded XXX in 2020, accounting for medical expenses, lost productivity, and disability.4 With smoking being a prominent risk factor and air pollution on the rise, the incidence of lung diseases is projected to escalate further, necessitating comprehensive interventions to alleviate both the individual and societal impacts.

16. Aims and Objectives Crafting specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART) aims. Defining clear objectives that align with the research goals. COHERENCE!

17. SEVEN DEADLY SINS THAT KILL YOUR GRANT PROPOSAL WRITING FOR EXPERT REVIEWERS NO HYPOTHESIS/CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK EXPLORATORY/SCOPING PROPOSALS STICKING TO GUIDELIENES & SLOPPINESS OVER/UNDER-AMBITIOUS LAZINESS IN ASSESSING SCOPE, VERY NOVEL BUT HIGH RISK Source: https:// smartsciencecareer.com /sins-grant-proposal/

18. Thank you! [email protected] @ prashanthns on Twitter/X Random writing at daktre.com