1. 1 Fraser Health Grant Application Preparation Workshop © Fraser Health Authority, 2009 The Fraser Health Authority (“FH”) authorizes the use, reproduction and/or modification of this publication for purposes other than commercial redistribution. In consideration for this authorization, the user agrees that any unmodified reproduction of this publication shall retain all copyright and proprietary notices. If the user modifies the content of this publication, all FH copyright notices shall be removed, however FH shall be acknowledged as the author of the source publication. Reproduction or storage of this publication in any form by any means for the purpose of commercial redistribution is strictly prohibited. This publication is intended to provide general information only, and should not be relied on as providing specific healthcare, legal or other professional advice. The Fraser Health Authority, and every person involved in the creation of this publication, disclaims any warranty, express or implied, as to its accuracy, completeness or currency, and disclaims all liability in respect of any actions, including the results of any actions, taken or not taken in reliance on the information contained herein.

3. FH Health Research Intelligence Unit How can we help? Epidemiologist  Specifying the research goal, objectives and hypothesis  Identifying measurable outcomes  Specifying the variables for analysis  Identifying sources of data  Developing data collection tools for quantitative or qualitative studies  Developing the statistical analysis plan  Analyzing the data  Understanding how to use statistical software, such as SPSS Grant Facilitator-Writer  Conducting a search for funding opportunities  Targeted notification of new funding sources and deadlines  Identifying a research team  Preparing letters of intent  Identifying resources required for conducting research  Formulating the research budget  Facilitating proposal development in collaboration with researchers  Understanding FH and funding agency requirements regarding preparation of specific documents

4. Purpose of the FH Seed Grant  To provide start-up funding to new FH researchers in an area that is relevant to FH. Pilot study Pilot study Systematic review Systematic review Small scale study Small scale study ULTIMATE GOAL: To attain preliminary information in order to demonstrate feasibility and justification for applications to larger granting agencies, for a larger scale study.

5. Purpose of the FH Strategic Imperatives Grant (SIG)  To provide operating funding to FH researchers to undertake research that addresses one of the objectives in the FH Strategic Imperatives  To support the development of new collaborations and partnerships ULTIMATE GOAL: To attain preliminary information in order to demonstrate feasibility and justification for applications to larger granting agencies, for a larger scale study.

6. FH Strategic Imperatives  Great workplaces  Capacity  Quality and safety  Integration  Research and academic development  Progressive partnerships http://www.fraserhealth.ca/AboutUs/Organization/StrategicDirection/Pages/default.aspx

7. Eligibility  FH staff or privileged physician as principal investigator (PI).  Has never conducted research before, or who has never been successful at attaining research funding as the PI. [Seed Grant]

8. Ineligible Applicants  Applicants who have received grant funding before (as the PI) [Seed Grant]  Research that is normally funded by FH budget.  Program Evaluation and Quality Improvement.  Biomedical research.  Team building.  Research for academic requirement.  Student/residency projects.  Community development projects.

9. Application Deadline  June 1st, 9 am.  Completed applications must be emailed to Magdalena Swanson, at magdalena.swanson@fraserhealth.ca magdalena.swanson@fraserhealth.ca  Maximum amount for Seed Grant is $5,000  Maximum amount for SIG is $10,000

10. Preparing the Application

11. Application Tips  Plan time carefully  Review the FH Research Guidelines  Make sure your proposal fits within the guidelines  Follow all the rules and requests specified in the Application Guidelines  Is the proposal ethical? http://www.fraserhealth.ca/Professionals/Research/Ethics/Pages/default.aspx

12. Application Sections Max # of Pages FH Grant Application Cover Sheet Available at the Research Administration and Development website: http://www.fraserhealth.ca/Professionals/Research/Pages/Forms%20and%20Te mplates.aspx 1 Proposal: a. Description2 b. Team Members1 c. Research Methods2 d. Plan for Use of Results1 e. Timeline1 f. Budget and Justification1 g. Bibliographic ReferencesAs needed Appendices: e.g. survey instruments, data collection tools, moderator’s guidesAs needed Applicant’s CVAs needed Letter of Support from FH administrative supervisor1

13. APPLICATION COVER FORM FOR FH GRANT COMPETITION Name of Applicant: Date Received by RAD: Position Title and Department: Telephone: Fax: Email: Grant Applied For: Seed Grant Strategic Imperatives Grant Total Amount of Funding Requested: Project Title: List Co-Investigators, Including Position Titles, Departments, Organizations, and Email: Administrative Supervisor’s Name, Title and Department: Applicant’s Signature: Date: Administrative Supervisor’s Signature: Date:

14. A – Description (2 pages)  purpose of the study  background information including: (1) a review of the literature to explain what has been done to date in this field, with references sufficiently detailed to indicate that an adequate review of the literature had been conducted (2) size and extent of the problem and how this applies to FH  justification for study  significance of the proposed research: - state how the research will be used to contribute to further research in FH - clearly state which objective(s) in the FH Strategic Imperatives will be addressed by the proposed study (SIG only)  study hypothesis (if applicable)  research objectives

15. A – Description Research Question and Objectives  Research question: States what it is you would like to study  Research objectives: State what you will be doing to measure the research question  Research hypothesis: State what you expect to find Example:  Research Question: Do children who receive the flu shot have a lower incidence of influenza over the school year?  Research Objective: To compare flu rates of immunization recipients to a control group that did not receive the flu shot over the school year.  Research Hypothesis: Children who receive flu shots have lower incidence of influenza compared to children who did not receive flu shots

16. A – Description Objectives and Hypothesis What is your research question?  Be specific  Make sure your question is measurable  Connect your research question with your objectives  Connect objectives with hypothesis  Make sure your question logically links to your design and measurement tool

17. A - Description Background Review  Literature reviews should be selective and critical  Reviewers do not want to read through a voluminous working bibliography (include especially pertinent works and your very short evaluation of them)  Should lead the reader to how you will be building upon what has already been done and how your work differs from theirs  It is important to establish what is original in your approach  APA format for in text citations

18. A – Description Significance and Relevance to FH  Size and extent of the problem and how this applies to FH How many affectedHow many affected Cost of problemCost of problem Future trendsFuture trends What is the benefit to FH?What is the benefit to FH?  Significance of the research Relevance to health outcomesRelevance to health outcomes Address an important questionAddress an important question Advance knowledgeAdvance knowledge InnovationInnovation

19. A – Description Innovation  Open up a new area  Provide a unifying framework  Resolve a long-standing question  Thoroughly explore an area  Challenge existing knowledge  Experimentally validate a theory  Produce an efficient system  Provide needed empirical data  Derive superior algorithms  Develop new methodology  Develop a new tool

20. A – Description Future Research and References  How the research will be used to contribute to further research in FH What are the potential research questions that might arise from completing your research What are the potential research questions that might arise from completing your research  References sufficiently detailed to indicate that an adequate review of the literature had been conducted Current Current Primary sources (peer reviewed journals) Primary sources (peer reviewed journals) Review papers Review papers Limited gray literature content Limited gray literature content

21. B - Team Members (1 page)  Majority of the team members should be staff/privileged physicians from FH  Knowledgeable in the content area and in research methods  For SIG: an external collaborator/partner is required  A profile of proposed team members, and their roles and responsibilities in carrying out this research How many persons at what percentage/total amount of time and in what professional/academic categories will be participating in the project. How many persons at what percentage/total amount of time and in what professional/academic categories will be participating in the project. If the program is complex and involves people from other departments or institutions, the organization of the staff and the lines of responsibility should be made clear. If the program is complex and involves people from other departments or institutions, the organization of the staff and the lines of responsibility should be made clear.

22. C - Research Methods (2 pages)  Methods - the heart of the proposal and the primary concern of the technical reviewers  Suggested Methods section components Study design (retrospective, experimental, survey) Study design (retrospective, experimental, survey) Study Sample Study Sample Sample selection (who/what is included/excluded)Sample selection (who/what is included/excluded) Sample Size (how many are needed and why)Sample Size (how many are needed and why) Measures (what are your measures of primary and secondary interest) Measures (what are your measures of primary and secondary interest) Procedure Procedure Recruitment of sampleRecruitment of sample Data CollectionData Collection Data Analysis Data Analysis Plan for analyzing the dataPlan for analyzing the data What measures will be analyzedWhat measures will be analyzed Means of evaluating the dataMeans of evaluating the data

23. C - Research Methods  Can the design answer the research question? Be certain that a connection between research question, objectives and research method is evident Be certain that a connection between research question, objectives and research method is evident  Is the sample size justified (power calculation if applicable) For pilot studies, it may be a matter of convenience and budget allowance For pilot studies, it may be a matter of convenience and budget allowance Retrospective chart reviews are usually cost and time efficient and may be amenable to a full power calculation Retrospective chart reviews are usually cost and time efficient and may be amenable to a full power calculation  Method of subject recruitment, if applicable Subject recruitment methods must meet the FHREB’s requirements for subject recruitment Subject recruitment methods must meet the FHREB’s requirements for subject recruitment Refer to FHREB Guidance Notes for Initial Ethical Review at Refer to FHREB Guidance Notes for Initial Ethical Review at http://www.fraserhealth.ca/Professionals/Research/Pages/Forms%20and%20Te mplates.aspx http://www.fraserhealth.ca/Professionals/Research/Pages/Forms%20and%20Te mplates.aspx

24. C - Research Methods  Proposed data collection method Is it feasible? Is it feasible? Will it likely yield the needed data? Will it likely yield the needed data?  Data collection tools Justify use of questionnaires, surveys Justify use of questionnaires, surveys Use validated instruments where possible Use validated instruments where possible Attach data collection tools, survey instruments, moderator guides in appendix Attach data collection tools, survey instruments, moderator guides in appendix  Statistical or qualitative analysis plan, as applicable Is there sufficient description of plan? Is there sufficient description of plan?

25. Statistical Test Selection Selecting the appropriate statistical test requires several steps  Test selection should be based on: What is your goal?: Description? Comparison? Prediction? Quantify association? Prove effectiveness? Prove causality? What kind of data have you collected? What are the levels of data (nominal, ordinal, or continuous)? Was your sample randomly selected? Is your data normally distributed? Should you use a parametric or non-parametric test? What are the assumptions of the statistical test you would like to use? Does the data meet these assumptions?

26. Type of Data Goal Measurement Normal Population Ordinal, or Non- Normal Population Binomial -Two Possible Outcomes Survival Time Describe one group Mean, SDMedian, interquartile range ProportionKaplan Meier survival curve Compare one group to a hypothetical value One-sample t testWilcoxon testChi-square or Binomial test ** Compare two unpaired groups Unpaired t testMann-Whitney testFisher's test (chi-square for large samples) Log-rank test or Mantel- Haenszel* Compare two paired groups Paired t testWilcoxon testMcNemar's testConditional proportional hazards regression* Compare three or more unmatched groups One-way ANOVAKruskal-Wallis testChi-square testCox proportional hazard regression** Compare three or more matched groups Repeated-measures ANOVA Friedman testCochrane Q**Conditional proportional hazards regression** Quantify association between two variables Pearson correlationSpearman correlationContingency coefficients** Predict value from another measured variable Simple linear regression or Nonlinear regression Nonparametric regression** Simple logistic regression* Cox proportional hazard regression* Predict value from several measured or binomial variables Multiple linear regression* or Multiple nonlinear regression** Multiple logistic regression* Cox proportional hazard regression*

27. D - Plan for Use of Results (1 page)  Identification of specific granting agency that the applicant intends to apply to for further funding once the exploratory, pilot work is complete, including date of intended application Identify one or more funding agencies where it is possible that you might obtain funding Identify one or more funding agencies where it is possible that you might obtain funding Do not list national funding agencies unless you have strong linkage with an academic partner Do not list national funding agencies unless you have strong linkage with an academic partner

28. http://www.fraserhealth.ca/Professionals/Research/Investigator/Documents/HIURequestForm.doc FH HRIU consultation request form contains a listing of funding agencies. Community of Science Funding Opportunities Database web based 400,000 listings Contact Magdalena Swanson FH Funding Resources FH News has monthly updates of new funding opportunities

29. D - Plan for Use of Results  Who will receive the results and by what method Who Who Departments, programs, stakeholders, executive, other Health Authorities, Government, other researchersDepartments, programs, stakeholders, executive, other Health Authorities, Government, other researchers Method Method Written Reports, FH communications, rounds, media releasesWritten Reports, FH communications, rounds, media releases  Future plans for presentation Publication, conference presentationPublication, conference presentation

30. E – Timeline (1 page)  Precise description of key dates from beginning to end of study completion Components may include: Ethics review, recruitment, conducting the intervention, collecting the data, analyzing the data, reporting. Components may include: Ethics review, recruitment, conducting the intervention, collecting the data, analyzing the data, reporting. Additional or fewer components may be required depending on the nature of the research. Additional or fewer components may be required depending on the nature of the research.  Should cover the entire period of funding 1 year (from time award is received) 1 year (from time award is received) May extend beyond the 1 year award period to account for additional presentations, publications etc. May extend beyond the 1 year award period to account for additional presentations, publications etc.

31. E - Timeline Narrative timeline may be supplemented with visual representation.

32. F – Budget and Justification (1 page)  Prepare budget in consultation with:  FH Human Resources if it is intended to hire grant staff and contractors before finalizing budgets. Note that benefits and future salary increases may have to be accounted for in the budget.  FH Departments/Areas, such as Decision Support, Health Records, Laboratory/Pathology, Medical Imaging, Operating Room, Patient Care and Pharmacy if any of these will be asked to provide research-related services. For information on the process for obtaining Departmental Agreement for Providing Research-related Services (DAR), see the DAR web page. DAR web pageDAR web pagehttp://www.fraserhealth.ca/Initiatives/Research/Department+Agreement.htm

33. F - Budget and Justification  Personnel research staff – data collection, data entry, focus group moderators, transcription, research coordinators. research staff – data collection, data entry, focus group moderators, transcription, research coordinators. backfill of existing positions to provide “protected” time, clerical support. backfill of existing positions to provide “protected” time, clerical support.  Supplies Office supplies, standardized questionnaires, audio recording equipment, software for analyzing qualitative focus group and interview data, library acquisitions, computer and other information services provided to FH staff. Office supplies, standardized questionnaires, audio recording equipment, software for analyzing qualitative focus group and interview data, library acquisitions, computer and other information services provided to FH staff.  Data Collection Activities Printing, photocopying, postage for mailing. Printing, photocopying, postage for mailing.

34. F - Budget and Justification  Other allowable items Research subjects (modest incentives) Research subjects (modest incentives) Costs related to consultation and planning activities (eg., transportation and parking expenses) Costs related to consultation and planning activities (eg., transportation and parking expenses) Travel costs outside FH area Travel costs outside FH area FH Department Services (Health Records, Anatomical Pathology, Decision Support) FH Department Services (Health Records, Anatomical Pathology, Decision Support) See FH Department Agreement Form http://www.fraserhealth.ca/Initiatives/Research/Forms+and+Templates.h tm  Ineligible Expenses Computer hardware Computer hardware Conference registrations Conference registrations Food and beverages Food and beverages

35. Budget Justification  Explains how the money will be spent and justifies the need for the requested amount  Without a good budget justification, a funder may reduce the amount of the award, potentially limiting the feasibility of the project

37. Budget Tips  More detail is better than less  Prepare a line-item budget as containing narrative describing each line-item cost in detail (justification)  Don’t round out  Provide bids and estimates for consultants, equipment, supplies etc.  Don’t pad or economize the budget – good reviewers know the cost of goods and services

38. Important Attachments

39. References  No page limit  Lists text and information included in proposal from other authors/sources  APA format http://www.wooster.edu/psychology/apa- crib.html#Intext http://www.wooster.edu/psychology/apa- crib.html#Intext http://www.wooster.edu/psychology/apa- crib.html#Intext http://www.wooster.edu/psychology/apa- crib.html#Intext http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/ http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/ http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/

40. Curriculum Vitae  Components Academic preparation Academic preparation Positions/Appointments Positions/Appointments Awards/Scholarships Awards/Scholarships Grants Grants Collaboration Collaboration Publications Publications Presentations Presentations

41. Letter of Support (1 page)  FH Administrative Supervisor  Statement of awareness of the project  Statement of support for the project  Statement of assurance of applicant’s ability and access to resources to carry out the proposed study  Supervisor should read the proposal and budget in advance of signing the letter

42. Appendices  Include Data collection tools Survey instruments Moderator’s guides Questionnaires Interview scripts Bids and quotes to support budget

43. Writing Tips OOOOrganize the content for logical flow of ideas UUUUse ‘lead’ statements or subheadings as an opening to any section state briefly the most important concept and then provide background/context CCCCheck grammar and tense CCCCut wordiness EEEEliminate jargon AAAAvoid or limit acronyms OOOObtain feedback from peers This will prevent your proposal from looking like………

45. Format Requirements  Microsoft Word or PDF format preferred [please password protect]  Times New Roman font (regular), minimum 12 point;  Text, single-spaced;  Pages single-sided;  2 cm (.75 inch) margin on all sides of each page;  A header on each page with the Applicant’s name in the top left-hand corner and the page number on the top right;  References must use the American Psychological Association [APA]

46. All done?  Proof read all documents  Have someone else proof read Colleague Colleague Lay person Lay person  Check that all components have been assembled  Email application to Magdalena Swanson magdalena.swanson@fraserhealth.ca magdalena.swanson@fraserhealth.ca magdalena.swanson@fraserhealth.ca Deadline: 9:00 am, Monday June 1st, 2009 Deadline: 9:00 am, Monday June 1st, 2009

47. Now you can take a break…… ….before the next grant deadline

49. The Review Process FUNDING

50. FH Peer Review Committee Committee MemberTitle and Affiliation Dr. Arun ChockalingamProfessor and Director of Continuing Public Health Education, SFU Rahul ChhokarEpidemiologist, Health Promotion and Prevention, FH Dr. Fabio FeldmanManager, Seniors Fall and Injury Prevention, FH Dr. Anton GrunfeldChief, FH Department of Emergency Medicine David KeenRegional Director, Workplace Health People and Organizational Development, FH Kemi OdegbileDirector, Health Promotion and Prevention for North Communities, FH Gurjeet SiviaDecision Support, FH Michael WasdellEpidemiologist, FH

51. The Review Review of the Proposal  Significance and relevance to health  Knowledge of the field (cited literature)  Clear, testable hypothesis or central research problem, appropriate methods  Originality and innovation in concept or approach  Feasibility of work plan

52. Indicators  Research Project Priority will be given to research studies that focus on studying health outcomes related to access, quality [effectiveness and safety], and efficiency. [Seed Grant] Priority will be given to research studies that focus on studying health outcomes related to access, quality [effectiveness and safety], and efficiency. [Seed Grant] Does the proposed research study address one or more objectives of the FH Strategic Imperatives? [SIG] Does the proposed research study address one or more objectives of the FH Strategic Imperatives? [SIG] Does the proposal involve a new partner or collaborator? (Preference will be given to those applicants who form new collaborations or partnerships with individuals from an academic organization) [SIG] Does the proposal involve a new partner or collaborator? (Preference will be given to those applicants who form new collaborations or partnerships with individuals from an academic organization) [SIG] Is the proposal well-written and focused? Is the purpose of the research clear and has relevance to FH’s needs been established. (Note: It is the applicant’s responsibility to write the proposal.) Is the proposal well-written and focused? Is the purpose of the research clear and has relevance to FH’s needs been established. (Note: It is the applicant’s responsibility to write the proposal.) Does the background literature review support the need for the research? Does the background literature review support the need for the research? Has a clear hypothesis/research question been generated? Has a clear hypothesis/research question been generated? Are the ideas put forward innovative/original? Are the ideas put forward innovative/original? Can the research question/hypothesis be answered with the proposed research design? Can the research question/hypothesis be answered with the proposed research design? Does the applicant have the ability to be an independent researcher with respect to project feasibility given the resources and support available? Does the applicant have the ability to be an independent researcher with respect to project feasibility given the resources and support available?

53. Indicators  Letter of Support Does the letter of support indicate an awareness of the applicant’s research and indicate specific support for it? Does the letter of support indicate an awareness of the applicant’s research and indicate specific support for it?  Applicant’s Ability to be an Independent Researcher Has the applicant made presentations or participated in related activities? Has the applicant made presentations or participated in related activities? Has the applicant shown professional leadership and accomplishment in their field in FH or elsewhere? Has the applicant shown professional leadership and accomplishment in their field in FH or elsewhere? Has the applicant shown an interest in research through the development of other skills and additional research activities? (e.g. – has the applicant attended FH or other workshops on learning how to conduct research?) Has the applicant shown an interest in research through the development of other skills and additional research activities? (e.g. – has the applicant attended FH or other workshops on learning how to conduct research?) Is there evidence of collaboration with other FH or non-FH researchers in this field? Is there evidence of collaboration with other FH or non-FH researchers in this field?

54. The Review Applicants will be rated on the following scale for each of 12-13 indicators  5 =excellent  4=very good  3=average  2=needs improvement  1=incomplete  0=absent or inappropriate

55. Scoring System Average of Indicator Ratings RangeDescriptor Fundable4.5-4.9Outstanding 4.0-4.4Excellent 3.5-3.9Very Good Seldom Funded3.0-3.9Acceptable but low priority Not Fundable2.5-2.9Needs revision 2.0-2.4Needs major revision 1.0-1.9Seriously Flawed 0Rejected

56. Common reviewer complaints  Application is not complete or completed incorrectly  Text is small dense and difficult to read– does not conform with formatting guidelines  Improper citations, pagination, table references and other forms of poor organization  Too much narrative with unnecessary or irrelevant information  Too much jargon

57. Why Proposals are Rejected University of Michigan Proposal Writer's Guide by Don Thackrey http://www.research.umich.edu/proposals/PWG/pwgrejected.html?print

58. Why Proposals are Rejected  A. Problem (58 percent)  The problem is not of sufficient importance or is unlikely to produce any new or useful information. (33.1)  The proposed research is based on a hypothesis that rests on insufficient evidence, is doubtful, or is unsound. (8.9)  The problem is more complex than the investigator appears to realize. (8.1)  The problem has only local significance, or is one of production or control, or otherwise fails to fall sufficiently clearly within the general field of health-related research. (4.8)  The problem is scientifically premature and warrants, at most, only a pilot study. (3.1)  The research as proposed is overly involved, with too many elements under simultaneous investigation. (3.0)  The description of the nature of the research and of its significance leaves the proposal nebulous and diffuse and without a clear research aim. (2.6)

59.  B. Approach (73 percent)  The proposed tests, or methods, or scientific procedures are unsuited to the stated objective. (34.7)  The description of the approach is too nebulous, diffuse, and lacking in clarity to permit adequate evaluation. (28.8)  The overall design of the study has not been carefully thought out. (14.7)  The statistical aspects of the approach have not been given sufficient consideration. (8.1)  The approach lacks scientific imagination. (7.4)  Controls are either inadequately conceived or inadequately described. (6.8)  The material the investigator proposes to use is unsuited to the objective of the study or is difficult to obtain. (3.8)  The number of observations is unsuitable. (2.5)  The equipment contemplated is outmoded or otherwise unsuitable. (1.0) Why Proposals are Rejected

60.  C. Investigator (55 percent)  The investigator does not have adequate experience or training for this research. (32.6)  The investigator appears to be unfamiliar with recent pertinent literature or methods. (13.7)  The investigator's previously published work in this field does not inspire confidence. (12.6)  The investigator proposes to rely too heavily on insufficiently experienced associates. (5.0)  The investigator is spreading himself too thin; he will be more productive if he concentrates on fewer projects. (3.8)  The investigator needs more liaison with colleagues in this field or in collateral fields. (1.7) Why Proposals are Rejected

61.  D. Other (16 percent)  The requirements for equipment or personnel are unrealistic. (10.1)  It appears that other responsibilities would prevent devotion of sufficient time and attention to this research. (3.0)  The institutional setting is unfavorable. (2.3)  Research grants to the investigator, now in force, are adequate in scope and amount to cover the proposed research. (1.5) Why Proposals are Rejected

62. The Rejected Proposal  Review comments  Identify areas for improvement  Make changes  Resubmit to the same or another funding agency

63. Differentiation Between QI, Program Evaluation and Research

64. FH Research Policy Research involving human subjects is defined as any systematic investigation (including pilot studies, exploratory studies, and academic course work assignments) designed to contribute to generalizable knowledge. Generalizable knowledge consists of facts, theories, principles or relationships, or the accumulation of information on which they are based, that can be corroborated by accepted scientific methods of observation and inference.

65. FH Research Policy Research includes: obtaining data about a living individual through intervention (e.g. a medical procedure) or interaction (e.g. an interview) with the individual, or the obtaining of private personal information about the individual; obtaining data about a living individual through intervention (e.g. a medical procedure) or interaction (e.g. an interview) with the individual, or the obtaining of private personal information about the individual; secondary use of data (e.g. information, such as medical records, collected for purposes other than the proposed research) that contains identifying information about a living individual, or data linkage through which living individuals may become identifiable; secondary use of data (e.g. information, such as medical records, collected for purposes other than the proposed research) that contains identifying information about a living individual, or data linkage through which living individuals may become identifiable; naturalistic observation, except the observation of individuals in contexts in which it can be expected that the participants are seeking public visibility; naturalistic observation, except the observation of individuals in contexts in which it can be expected that the participants are seeking public visibility; the use of human remains, cadavers, tissues, biological fluids, embryos or foetuses. the use of human remains, cadavers, tissues, biological fluids, embryos or foetuses.

66. FH Research Policy The types of studies excluded from the definition of ‘research’ include: projects, conducted for internal FH use only, that are undertaken for administrative or operational purposes such as quality assurance or program evaluation, and; projects, conducted for internal FH use only, that are undertaken for administrative or operational purposes such as quality assurance or program evaluation, and; research involving only the use of published or publicly available information or materials, performances or archival materials. research involving only the use of published or publicly available information or materials, performances or archival materials.

67. Health Services Research Research with the goal of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of health professionals and the health care system, through changes to practice and policy. Health services research is a multidisciplinary field of scientific investigation that studies how social factors, financing systems, organizational structures and processes, health technologies, and personal behaviours affect access to health care, the quality and cost of health care, and, ultimately, Canadians' health and well-being. Canadian Institutes of Health Research: CIHR General Grants and Awards Policies http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/22630.html#1-A1 Differentiation Between QI, Research Program Evaluation

68. Program Evaluation Program evaluation is the systematic collection of information about the activities, characteristics, and results of programs to make judgments about the program, improve or further develop program effectiveness, inform decisions about future programming, and/or increase understanding Program evaluation differs fundamentally from research in the purpose of data collection and standards for judging quality. Basic scientific research is undertaken to discover new knowledge, test theories, establish truth, and generalize across time and space. Program evaluation is undertaken to inform decisions, clarify opinions, identify improvements, and provide information about programs and policies within contextual boundaries of time, place, values, and politics Differentiation Between QI, Research Program Evaluation Patton, M.Q. (2008). Utilization-focused evaluation. 4th Edition, page 39-40. SAGE Publications, Inc. USA

69. Program Evaluation * Note that while evaluation can use research methods – evaluation using research methods is still evaluation, not research. Differentiation Between QI, Research Program Evaluation

70. Quality Improvement QI studies are focused on improved processes, practices, cost-effectiveness, or productivity for a specific target audience (e.g. group of patients). One common description of QI is “rapid cycle testing” through which a sequence of “Plan-Do-Study-Act” (PDSA) is repeated. The refined scope of QI means that results cannot be generalized outside the sample to the population of interest. Kring, D. L. (2008). Research and quality improvement: Different processes, different evidence. MEDSURG Nursing—June 2008—Vol. 17/No. 3, 17(3), 162-169.

71. Case Studies Which one is program evaluation and which one is research? What are the key defining differences between the two case studies? What are the similarities? What is the specific question being addressed? What is the overall goal? How will results be disseminated?

72. Case Study Key Case Study A: Excerpt from an evaluation case study from the American Evaluation Association http://www.eval.org/GPTraining/GP%20Training%20Final/gp.case1.pdf Case Study B: Excerpts from Leah Olson’s successful 2007 FH Seed Grant competition