This is a quick guide to questions applicants should consider answering in their proposals, and answers reviewers should seek when reading them.  These are in no particular order, but are provided here as prompts.

When reading an application:

1.  Does this sentence make sense?

2.  Does this sentence conflict with previous sentences, or with information I know factually to be true?

3.  Is this sentence supported or could it be possible that it is supported?

4.  Is this sentence presumptive on the reader?

5.  Is this sentence consistent with the rest of the application or the research question, or is it without context?

6. Is this REALLY research or something else?  For example, a service evaluation; evaluating a care provision to assess how well it is working, or not.

Funders reject applications for a number of reasons;

1. There is no tangible patient benefit

2. The cost would be unjustifiable

3. The experience and/or skill mix is imperfect

4. The study can't be completed satisfactorily within the stated time frame.

5. The FTE (Full Time Equivalent expressed as a percentage of time) involvement of key players is inadequate.

6. The outcomes are unachievable

7. The outcomes are unbelievable

8. The variables are too great to arrive at a solid conclusion

9. Recruitment targets are too low

10. Recruitment targets are too high

11. The priorities on which the hypothesis is made has been;

      a) replaced

      b) superseded

      c) covered by subsequent studies

12. The perceived patient benefit is too minimal

13. The value for money isn't there

14. It's overambitious

15. It's unambitious

16. There isn't enough PPI

17. The proposal is badly written

18. The benefits are too vague to be of value

19. Outcomes are unlikely to be translated into practice

20. Outcomes are too local and unlikely to be rolled out to a wider practice.

21. Inclusion/exclusion criteria are too narrow

22. The patient burden is too great

23. There is a risk of sample bias (a study based only in Cambridge or Oxford and not also in Lowestoft or Bolton could mean there is an inherent bias.

24. The supervision is insufficient.

25.  The research question has already been answered by other research teams

Questions that need answers in funding applications for funders to release money

1. Who is wanting money

2. What is the problem for which their research will be the answer?

3. What is the answer?

4. How long will it take to get the answer?

5. How will the question be answered?

6. How will bias be eliminated in getting the answer?

7. Who else will be part of the team getting the answer, are they the right people, and will their contribution be meaningful?

8. What is the sort of participant necessary to answer the question?

9. How will these participants be acquired?

10. How many participants will be acquired?

11. Over what time scale will the participants be recruited?

12. Over what time scale will their cooperation be necessary?

13. What will happen to participants?

14. Will their expenses be reimbursed?

15. Have there been members of the public involved in deciding the question, designing the study, and will they be involved to the end, how, and how many of them have you involved?  Also, what value will co-applicants who are members of the public be bringing to the study?

16. How will data gathered help answer the question?

17. How will data gathered be analysed, and by whom?

18. Will there be a patient benefit?

19. Will it save money, or will it cost more in the end?

20. How will findings from the study change practice?

21. How will people know about the study?

22. What are the risks, or possible risks?

23. (Sometimes they also want to know, what are the stop points along the way - Stop Points are the points in a research plan where the study can be stopped early).

24. What will be the burden to participants?

25. How does this application fit in with current policies, priorities, public conversations, calls for change?

26. What impact will this study have on existing resources, organisations and staff?

When designing an application, the following framework will be helpful.

1. What is the problem for which your grant will be the answer?

2. Why is it a problem?

3. How costly is this problem to the NHS?

4. How much money will your solution save the NHS?

5. How many participants will it take to demonstrate your hypothesis?

6. Why this number?

7. What do these participants look like?

8. Why are these participants representative of the whole affected population?

9. Who will be your supervisors and co-applicants?

10 Why were they chosen and what do they add to your grant?

11. How do you anticipate identifying your training needs?

12. What are the tangible patient benefits?

13. What will be the evidence of the benefits?

14. How will you measure the benefits?

15. How will you measure the endurance of the benefits?

16. What are the risks?

17. How will you modify the risks?

18. What compromises your PPI?

19. How will you recruit, train and support your PPI?

20. How will you choose your steering committee?

21. How transferable will the intervention be to other clinicians.

22. What training will be needed for your intervention to be transferable?

23. How will your intervention be of interest and value to policy makers, educators, commissioners and clinicians?

24. How will you keep your team together?

25. What will be the stop points?

26. What data will be gathered?

27. How will that data be stored, for how long and how will the data be analysed?

28. Will anyone other than you be analysing that data?

29. How will you be supported in this project grant?

30. What difference will this make?

31. How supportive is your employer?

32. When will your project commence?

33. How will it commence?

34. Why will be the timeline of your grant?

35. How many work packages will be needed and what will they consist of?

36. How will previous projects of a similar theme be identified?

37. How has a gap in knowledge been identified (in what way have previous projects left a gap that you will now fill)?

38. Why are you the right person?

39. Why now?

40. What is your ambition after this - to what will this lead?

41. How will participants identify a benefit in their lives?

42. What is your control?

43. How will you avoid cross contamination between groups?

44. What is the risk of bias and how will you modify that bias?

45. What are the most likely adverse events and how will they be managed?

46. How has the intervention been identified?

47. At what point will participants be consented?

48. What are your inclusion/exclusion criteria and how are these criteria justified?

49. Will the participants' GPs be informed or any other clinician supporting them?

50.  How will you be confident that your intervention works if they are also taking medicines or other strategies to manage their condition?

51. Could prescribed medication risk interfering with the results and should there be a washout period?

52. If you intend to use just one site for your study, could the therapeutic benefit be because of that site alone and should other sites be used to eliminate that risk?

53.  Are the cohort a vulnerable group, if so, how will you manage distress and/or conflict?

54. What will be your strategy to minimise exposing team members and participants to risk?

55.  What are the health and safety concerns with the application?

56. If a participant later leaves the group or withdraws consent, how will you manage the data and the change in dynamics?