Considering a rejection rate of 80-90%, the preparation of a research grant is often considered a daunting task since it is resource intensive and there is no guarantee of success, even for seasoned researchers. This commentary provides a summary of the key points a researcher needs to consider when writing a research grant proposal, outlining: (1) how to conceptualise the research idea; (2) how to find the right funding call; (3) the importance of planning; (4) how to write; (5) what to write, and (6) key questions for reflection during preparation. It attempts to explain the difficulties associated with finding calls in clinical pharmacy and advanced pharmacy practice, and how to overcome them. The commentary aims to assist all pharmacy practice and health services research colleagues new to the grant application process, as well as experienced researchers striving to improve their grant review scores. The guidance in this paper is part of ESCP's commitment to stimulate "innovative and high-quality research in all areas of clinical pharmacy".
- Klíčová slova
- Clinical pharmacy, Economics, Funding, Grants, Peer review, Writing,
- MeSH
- farmacie * MeSH
- financování organizované MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- nemocniční lékárny * MeSH
- psaní MeSH
- výzkumný projekt MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
Background Building research capacity of European Society of Clinical Pharmacy (ESCP) members aligns to the organisation's aim of advancing research. Objective To determine members' aspirations and needs in research training and practice, and to explore ways in which ESCP could provide support. Setting ESCP's international membership. Method Cross-sectional survey of members in 2018, followed by focus groups with samples of respondents attending an ESCP symposium. Survey items were: research activities; interests, experience and confidence; and Likert statements on research conduct. Principal component analysis (PCA) clustering of Likert statements from a previous study was used, with scores for each component calculated. Focus groups discussed barriers to research and how ESCP could provide support. Data analysis involved collating and comparing all themes. Main outcome measures Research interest, experience and confidence; attitudinal items; barriers to research; ESCP support. Results The response rate was 16.7% (83/499), with 89.2% (n = 74) involved in research and 79.5% (n = 66) publishing research in the preceding 2 years. While overwhelmingly positive, responses were more positive for research interest than experience or confidence. PCA component scores (support/opportunities, motivation/outcomes, and roles/characteristics) were positive. Thirteen members participated in focus groups, identifying barriers of: insufficient collaboration; lack of knowledge, skills, training; unsupportive environment; insufficient time; and limited resources. ESCP could support through mentorship, collaboration, education and funding. Conclusion Study participants were highly active, interested, experienced, confident and positive regarding research. There is an opportunity for ESCP to harness these activities and provide support in the form of mentoring, education and training, and facilitating collaboration.
- Klíčová slova
- Barriers, Clinical pharmacy, Enablers, European Society of Clinical Pharmacy, Research,
- MeSH
- analýza hlavních komponent MeSH
- budování kapacit * MeSH
- dospělí MeSH
- kooperační chování MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- mladý dospělý MeSH
- průřezové studie MeSH
- průzkumy a dotazníky MeSH
- školitelé MeSH
- společnosti farmaceutické organizace a řízení MeSH
- výzkum v lékárnictví organizace a řízení MeSH
- zjišťování skupinových postojů MeSH
- Check Tag
- dospělí MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- mladý dospělý MeSH
- mužské pohlaví MeSH
- ženské pohlaví MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- Geografické názvy
- Evropa MeSH
