Version 2: 2020.02.04 1/16

2020/2021 FRASER HEALTH $5,000 SEED GRANT GUIDELINES

1. Purpose

The purpose of the Seed grant program is to provide ‘start up’ funding to new Fraser Health (FH) researchers who have never received funding as a Principal Investigator (PI) or co-PI to conduct research. Note: team members who have received a research grant in the past can participate so long as they are NOT the PI. The proposed research is to be in an area that is relevant to FH. Program Evaluation and Quality Improvement projects are not eligible (See Appendix II). Objectives: To enable the research team to become more competitive when submitting applications to other granting agencies by, for example:

Demonstrating the feasibility of the project

Providing preliminary data to demonstrate the need for further research or to provide justification for the required sample size based on a power calculation

Providing evidence of preliminary work and demonstrating that the researcher can conduct research from beginning to end by providing a ‘deliverable’, e.g., a completed research report, manuscript, etc.

Examples of studies that can be funded through this funding opportunity include studies that collect pilot data to support an application for funding by an external granting agency, studies involving primary or secondary data and intervention studies, chart reviews, and systematic review activities.

Important Notes:

It is expected that study Principal Investigator(s) be the chief writer of the grant proposal and not delegate significant amounts of writing to others (e.g., trainees, external academics).

An academic partner is required for the project. This could be someone acting as a mentor/advisor to the application team or someone who is integral to the project.

Meaningful engagement of patients/clients/the public is highly encouraged. If interested in learning more about patient-oriented research, please see: BC SUPPORT Unit Fraser Centre.

Deadlines (each step is required – see section 3 for more details)

Note: late submissions will not be accepted

Oct. 7, 2020 - 4pm

Letter of Intent Deadline

By Oct. 30,

2020

Consult with Library Services (See section 3.3)

Consult with DERS (See section 3.2)

By Nov. 20, 2020

Literature Search Complete (in consultation with Library Services)

Library Services Form Signed (Appendix IV)

Dec. 18, 2020 - 4pm

Full Application Deadline

By Feb. 26, 2021

Awards Announced

Mar. 10, 2021

Workshop (Awardees must attend)

By Apr. 30, 2021

Ethics application

By May 14,

2021

Budget review

Version 2: 2020.02.04 2/16

1.1 Funds Available

This funding is meant to support studies lasting up to 1 year, plus 1 year for knowledge dissemination activities. The maximum award for a single grant is $5,000. The total amount of funds available for this grant opportunity is $35,000. Up to 7 projects will be funded. Table 1. Funding Partners and Requirements

Funding Partner Contribution Requirement

Professional Practice Department (PP)

$5,000 Team must include an RN, a point-of-care leader from any discipline, and a health care provider who provides direct patient/client care. Topic must be relevant to patient/client/family care. Priority funding will be given to the following topics: (a) care delivery (b) education projects that are relevant to practice (c) workforce innovations. See Appendix I for further detail.

Mental Health and Substance Use (MHSU)

$5,000 A member of the MHSU program must be a co-applicant and the topic must be in the area of mental health and/or substance use.

Peace Arch Hospital Foundation

$5,000 Lead applicant must work at PAH or the project must directly benefit the population of White Rock/South Surrey

Ridge Meadows Hospital Foundation

$5,000 Lead applicant must work at RMH or the project must directly benefit the population of Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows

Fraser Health Department of Evaluation and Research Services

$5,000 Lead applicant must be a FH employee or privileged physician working at any FH site

Fraser Health Innovation and Virtual Health

2 x $5,000 Award #1: Research on using new technology or new service models (including virtual health) in any of the following areas: - Palliative care - Depression - Population / public health Award # 2: Research on using machine learning / AI in health care.

NB: Proposal must meet the requirements of at least one of the above funders

1.2 The following types of studies are not eligible for funding:

Studies that are normally funded from the FH operational budget, for example, program evaluation and quality improvement (see Appendix II)

Team building or project planning activities

Research conducted as part of an academic requirement (e.g., student projects)

Trainee residency projects

Community development projects Please note: the Seed grant is not to be used as a top-up for other grants. It is expected that $5,000 be enough for the activity that is being proposed, without the requirement of other grants to make the project feasible.

Version 2: 2020.02.04 3/16

2. Eligibility Criteria The Principal Investigator (PI - project lead and primary applicant) must be a FH staff member or privileged physician who has never been a PI or co-PI on a grant before. Applicants previously awarded a FH research grant or an external research grant are therefore not eligible as PIs. Note: Individual team members who have received a research grant in the past can participate so long as they are NOT the team leader/PI.

3. Application & Post-Application Processes The application process consists of the following:

Submission of a Letter of Intent

Initial Consultation with Department of Evaluation & Research Services (DERS) staff

Consultation with Library Services and completion of literature search

Submission of full application The post-application process consists of the following (i.e., if the application is successful):

Workshop on ethics submission process and grant and study management

Submission to FH Research Ethics Board

Budget approval

3.1 Letter of Intent A Letter of Intent (LOI) must be submitted in order to be eligible to submit a full application. Receipt of the LOI will be acknowledged by email. If the LOI falls within the criteria for ineligibility as specified in section 1.2, the applicant will be advised that they are not eligible for the competition. The LOI should be no longer than 1 page and include the following information/sections:

Study title

Research Team members (names and affiliations)

Suggested funding partner (see Table 1)

Purpose of the research

Gap in the literature that the study will address (demonstrates a knowledge of the literature in the topic area)

Research question statement

Relevance to FH

Preliminary study design and methodological approach

Deadline for Submission of the LOI: All LOIs must be received by: 4:00pm Wednesday, October 7, 2020. Applicants who submit after this deadline will not be eligible for the competition. Please submit the LOI by email to Ashley Kwon at Ashley.Kwon@fraserhealth.ca

3.2 Initial Consultation with Department of Evaluation & Research Services (DERS)

An initial consultation with Evaluation and Research Services is required to ensure that the study plan will meet scientific reviewer expectations. Please book a joint appointment with Ashley Kwon, Research Development Specialist, and Samar Hejazi, Research and Implementation Specialist, by emailing Ashley.Kwon@fraserhealth.ca. The meeting must take place before Friday, October 30, 2020. Ashley and Samar can work with you on the development of specific research methodology and provide resources for developing pilot or feasibility studies and improving grant writing, as appropriate.

Version 2: 2020.02.04 4/16

3.3 Consultation with FH Library Services and Completion of Literature Search All applicants must consult with FH Library Services by Friday, October 30, 2020 and complete a literature search (in consultation with Library Services) by Friday November 20, 2020. You must complete this step even if you are conducting your own literature search or use a non-FH Librarian. This consultation is intended to ensure applicants conduct a thorough literature search so they:

a) Are aware of the current state of the literature in the research topic of interest b) Are able to provide relevant background information to application reviewers c) Can be sure that the answer to the proposed research question is not already known Please contact library@fraserhealth.ca indicating that you are a Seed grant applicant requiring a consultation.

A Librarian will be assigned to you. Complete your initial consultation with the Librarian by Friday October 30, 2020 in order to ensure that your literature search is completed by Friday November 20, 2020. These dates have been selected in order to allow time for a consultation and literature search to be completed and used to support preparation of the grant application. Please allow sufficient time to initiate and complete the consultation and literature search by connecting with Library Services as early as possible in the grant application process.

Record the date of initial consultation on the form in Appendix IV (must be on or before Friday October 30, 2020) and provide your Librarian with the consultation form to sign indicating that the initial consultation took place and the literature search has been completed (by Friday November 20, 2020) to the satisfaction of the FH Library Services Librarian. This signed form must be included with your full application.

4. Full Application

To be eligible for review, all applications must include the following documents in the order below. Applications will be returned if not submitted according to these instructions. Table 2: Required Documentation

Application Sections Maximum Number of Pages

Seed Grant Proposal Form See form

Bibliographic References As needed

Appendices: e.g., survey instruments, data collection tools, interview scripts As needed

Letter of Support from FH Director 2

Team Member Descriptions (including signatures) (Appendix III) As needed

FH Library Services Consultation Form (Appendix IV) 1

Application checklist (Appendix V) 1

In addition, all applications must adhere to the following instructions for presentation and content in appendices:

PDF format [can password protect content editing but not viewing or printing]

Arial font (regular), minimum 10 point font

Text, single-spaced

Pages single-sided

Minimum 2 cm (0.75 inch) margin on all sides of each page

A header on each page with the Applicant’s name and study title

A footer on each page with the page number

References must use the American Psychological Association [APA] format, except in the case of citing a publication with 3 or more authors within the text, in which case the format “Author Name et al., date” can be used. See http://apastyle.apa.org/.

Use titles to introduce each section and sub-section

Please note: all items in Table 2 must be included in the application. INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED.

Version 2: 2020.02.04 5/16

4. Letter of Support from Director

The letter of support from the Program or Department Director must clearly indicate that he/she is confident that the applicant has the necessary ability and access to resources to carry out the intended research study. The letter should contain the information required to assess criterion #2 in section 8.2. The letter should specify whether any in-kind resources are promised, and that the applicant will have sufficient time and support to conduct the study.

5. Submission Process

Please email your application to: Ashley Kwon, Research Development Specialist, Ashley.Kwon@fraserhealth.ca. PDF format is preferred [if password protecting file, please ensure that only content editing is protected but not viewing or printing]. Please send all items as one file. If file size is too large to email, please “Zip” the file. Deadline for Submission: A complete application must be received by 4:00pm Friday, December 18, 2020. Applications received after 4:00pm will not be considered in the review.

6. Other Requirements

Once applicants have been notified of application approval, the following three requirements must be met before funds will be released:

a. Ethics Submission Process, Grant and Study Management Workshop An Ethics and Grant Management workshop will take place 1pm – 3:00pm Wednesday, March 10, 2021 at the Fraser Health Corporate Offices: Tahimi Room, Central City 4th floor or Virtually (to be confirmed). This workshop is required for all teams awarded a Seed grant. Register by emailing Ashley.Kwon@fraserhealth.ca.

b. Research Ethics Review For help with submission to the FH Research Ethics Board, please contact Sara O'Shaughnessy, FH Research Ethics and Regulatory Specialist, Sara.OShaughnessy@fraserhealth.ca or Sarah Flann, FH Harmonized Research Ethics and Regulatory Specialist, Sarah.Flann@fraserhealth.ca. Ethics applications must be submitted by Friday, April 30, 2021.

c. Budget Review For budget review, applicants must contact Ashley Kwon, Research Development Specialist, Ashley.Kwon@fraserhealth.ca. Review to be completed by Friday, May 14, 2021.

7. Eligible Expenses Applicants may apply for up to $5,000 per research proposal. The following allowable costs apply to the operating support for specific research-related activities undertaken by the team:

Costs of data collection such as printing, photocopying, distribution and return of mailed questionnaires

Research staff salaries, such as for data collection and data entry, focus group moderators, transcription services, research assistants (note: applicants are not considered research staff)

Back-fill of existing position to provide ‘protected’ time for applicants

Fees paid to research participants, such as modest incentives to participate, as long as approved by the FH Research Ethics Board

Costs related to research team meetings, such as transportation and parking expenses

Travel costs for the purposes of data collection, participant recruitment, etc.

Conference registration and travel costs (e.g., flight, accommodation, meals) if chosen to present a poster or oral presentation (Must abide by FH Travel Policy guidelines)

o Written confirmation of presentation must be supplied from conference organizers o Pre-approval for travel is required if out of province o Conference hotels are often not the most economical choice so it is encouraged to find alternative

options o Meals require itemized receipts and follow daily rate maximums

Version 2: 2020.02.04 6/16

The following allowable costs apply to the purchase of supplies required to conduct the research:

Office supplies

Standardized questionnaires

Audio recording equipment

Software for analyzing qualitative focus group and interview data

Please note: all equipment purchased by a research grant is the property of FH

Ineligible expenses include:

Travel will be reimbursed to and from regular work sites only, not from home (as per FH policy)

Applicants will not be paid a salary (only back-fill to replace them with another staff member is offered to their department)

Purchase of computer hardware

Purchase of alcohol

8. Review Process 8.1 Peer Review Applications for the FH Seed grant are evaluated by a peer review committee. Each application is reviewed by two Scientific Reviewers and one Patient Reviewer. The applications, written reviews and evaluation committee discussions are confidential and participant to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). In order to maintain the integrity of the peer review process, the identity of reviewers assigned to review applications is kept anonymous. All reviewers are required to observe the FH Policy on Conflict of Interest. 8.2 Review Criteria Scientific Criteria Criterion #1: Research Approach

• Clarity and appropriateness of the research question. Note: The goal of the research should be specified (i.e., to describe, associate, predict or compare).

• Clarity and appropriateness of the research objectives. Note: objectives should be specific, measurable, achievable, and able to answer the research question.

• Completeness of the literature review and relevance to study design/research plan. • Clarity of rationale for the research approach and methodology. • Appropriateness of the research design/methodology and potential for answering the research question.

The following specific components will be assessed:

- sampling design

- inclusion/exclusion criteria

- sample size justification (is it explained how the sample size is achievable in the 1 year grant period?)

- recruitment procedures

- measurements to be taken, data collection methods and instruments

- analysis plan • Feasibility of the research approach (including recruitment of participants, project timeline, preliminary data

where appropriate, etc.). Is the design achievable in the 1 year period, plus 1 year for dissemination? • Anticipation of difficulties that may be encountered.

Version 2: 2020.02.04 7/16

Criterion #2: Applicants and Environment • Qualifications of the applicants, including training, experience and independence (relative to career stage). • Appropriateness of the applicant team to carry out the proposed research, in terms of complementarity of

experience with proposed methodology, expertise and synergistic potential. See productivity in Team Membership page(s) and curriculum vitae(s).

• Ability to successfully and appropriately disseminate research findings, as demonstrated by knowledge translation activities (publications, conference presentations, briefings, media engagements, etc.).

• Adequacy of descriptions of roles/team tasks for each team member and collaborator. • Availability and accessibility of personnel, facilities and infrastructure required to conduct the research (see

letter of support) • Suitability of the environment to conduct the proposed research

Merit and Feasibility Criteria Criterion #3: Research Impact

• Clarity of the proposal writing • Research proposal addresses a significant need or gap in health research and/or the health care system • Potential for the creation of new knowledge. Note: gap in literature should be clearly identified. • Potential for a significant contribution to the improvement of people's health in Canada and/or to the

development of more effective health services and products • Potential for generalizability of study findings outside of Fraser Health • Relevance of the study to Fraser Health: patients/clients, caregivers, population or decision makers

Criterion #4: Research Study Feasibility • Appropriateness and adequacy of the proposed plan for knowledge dissemination and exchange • Appropriateness of study budget • Appropriateness of study procedures pertaining to patients/clients/families/caregivers • Any feasibility aspects not addressed by other criteria above

See Appendix VI for a Study Feasibility Checklist to assist you in planning your project, team composition, and resources required to complete your proposed project.

8.3 Application Scoring 1) The Scientific Criteria and the Merit/Feasibility Criteria will each be given an overall score out of 5, using up to

one decimal point (e.g., 4.5) 2) Scientific reviewers provide comments and a score for technical aspects of the proposal (Overall Score for

Scientific Criteria), and score and comment on the merit and feasibility of the proposal (Overall Score for Merit Criteria).

3) Patient reviewers provide comments and a score on the merits and feasibility of the proposal (Overall Score for Merit Criteria), and can also comment on the technical aspects if they wish to.

4) Combining scientific review with patient review:

The Merit Criterion is therefore scored by 3 people: 2 scientific reviewers and a patient reviewer. These merit scores are averaged and then added to the average of the two scientific scores for a total score out of 10 for each application.

Example Proposal Scoring:

Scientific Reviewer Score 1 = 4.0 Average Overall Scientific Score = 4.5

Scientific Reviewer Score 2 = 5.0

Patient Reviewer Score = 4.0

Average Overall Merit Score = 4.5 Scientific Reviewer Score 1 = 4.5

Scientific Reviewer Score 2 = 5.0

Total Proposal Score = 9.0

Version 2: 2020.02.04 8/16

What the scores mean:

Range (# out of 5) Range (# out of 10) Descriptor

Fundable 4.5-5.0 9.0-10.0 Outstanding

4.0-4.4 8.0-8.9 Excellent

3.5-3.9 7.0-7.9 Very Good

Not Fundable 3.0-3.4 6.0-6.9 Acceptable But Low Priority

2.5-2.9 5.0-5.9 Needs Revision

2.0-2.4 4.0-4.9 Needs Major Revision

1.0-1.9 2.0-3.9 Seriously Flawed

0 0 Rejected

The criteria and scoring system were developed based on the best practices used by federal and provincial funding agencies (e.g., Canadian Institutes of Health Research [CIHR] and the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research [MSFHR]).

9. Completion and Reporting Requirements Seed grant projects must be completed within a 24 month period. A final report must be submitted to Ashley Kwon, Research Development Specialist (Ashley.Kwon@fraserhealth.ca), within 6 weeks of study completion. In addition, the team will be expected to present their research at a future FH Research Week or at a FH Researcher’s Café.

Version 2: 2020.02.04 9/16

APPENDIX I

Eligibility Criteria for Professional Practice Award

To support first-time researchers at the point of care (providing direct care) conducting a research project that is relevant to patient/client/family care. The overall aim of the research challenge is to improve health care and the patient/client experience to demonstrate the link between research and practice. Priority funding will be given to the following topics:

a) Care delivery (e.g., health promotion, prevention, treatment, care management, congestion, care delivery models, patient/client adverse events, clinical decision support tools, etc.)

b) Education projects that are relevant to practice (e.g., innovations in education that respond to the needs of diverse patient/client populations, skill development, clinical judgement or changing competencies for direct care staff, quality/safety of patient/client care, and psychologically safe work environments)

c) Workforce innovations (e.g., inter-professional team mix or skill mix for achieving optimum team composition for safe, effective and efficient care and enhancing recruitment and retention of the health workforce)

** All topics require a research question that has not been answered in the research literature. Team must include an RN, a point-of-care leader from any discipline, and a health care provider who provides direct patient/client care (can be same or different people). Teams comprised of multiple disciplines are strongly encouraged to apply.

Version 2: 2020.02.04 10/16

APPENDIX II

Differentiation of Research, Quality Improvement and Program Evaluation1,2,3,4

RESEARCH QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM EVALUATION Which phrase best describes the purpose of your project?

To generate new knowledge, [e.g. pilot testing, new therapeutic interventions, behavioural research] in order to expose & understand the basic laws according to which the world operates.

To improve internal processes, practices, costs or productivity for a specific intervention [i.e. determine how this intervention affected this participant group in this setting].

To inform decisions, identify improvements [i.e. formative evaluation], and provide information about the success of programs [i.e. summative evaluation] according to predefined goals and objectives

What are you trying to accomplish with this project?

To test a new, innovative practice or understand phenomena to formulate general ‘laws’.

To measure an existing practice that is an approved procedure or that has been shown effective in the literature.

To make judgments about the program, improve or further develop program effectiveness, inform decisions about future programming, and/or increase understanding.

Who will most likely benefit from your project? How generalizable will your results be?

Results can be generalized to future individuals with the same characteristics as the study sample/population.

Decision-makers; program management; Current and future program participants. Results cannot usually be generalized outside of the existing practice.

Decision-makers; program management; Current and future program participants. Results cannot usually be generalized outside of the existing practice.

Will participants be placed at risk during the project?

There will likely be some risk incurred by participants, e.g. physical, emotional, privacy risks of harm, as a result of change in the usual standard of care/intervention.

There will be no risks beyond the usual intervention [i.e. improve usual care and not place participants at risk; n.b. privacy may be a concern].

There will be no risks beyond the usual intervention; n.b. privacy may be a concern.

How will you determine how many participants to include?

Through a formal power analysis [n.b. pilot testing does not require power analysis]. Typically, the research participants must reflect the characteristics of the total population that is being studied.

Will use a convenience sample of participants exposed to the practice [i.e. small sample size, but large enough to observe change; depends somewhat on size of practice].

Sample size will depend on the # of program participants and to what degree it is necessary to determine if the success of the program can be attributed to the program itself versus confounding factors.

Will you try to randomize participants into different groups?

Yes or will design sampling strategies to match the targeted population

No Only if an experimental or quasi-experimental design can be used.

Could your project be done with participants outside your setting?

Yes, having participants outside the setting would add strength to its external validity, e.g. multi-site clinical trials.

No, having participants outside the setting would not make sense because another setting would not deliver the practice in the same way.

No, having program participants outside the program would not make sense because another program would not deliver the practice in the same way. However stakeholders/experts external to the program can provide useful evidence.

What kind of tool/instrument will you use to collect data?

Valid & reliable instruments that measure concepts of interest.

Data collection tools that allow simple & easy recording of information

May use a combination of valid & reliable instruments as well as program specific data collection tools.

Version 2: 2020.02.04 11/16

Will you be able to vary your protocol during the study?

Design is tightly controlled in order to limit the effect of confounding variables on the variables of interest – essential to determine causality.

Design is flexible and may vary during course of project as feedback is provided throughout the Plan Do Study Act cycle. Changes in design are encouraged for quick identification of the best process to achieve a desired goal. Confounding variables are acknowledged but not controlled.

Design is tightly controlled to the degree that statistical analysis may be able to control confounding variables or a quasi-experimental design is used. The existence of confounding variables may emerge which may cause a change in design – i.e. may choose to conduct a qualitative analysis to understand program outputs & outcomes.

Will you be using an experimental or quasi-experimental design or generating theory from qualitative analysis?

Yes No Quasi-experimental ; non-experimental design; qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods analysis

How will you handle extraneous variables [factors that might confound your results]?

Try to control them, or measure them. Acknowledge them, but do not try to interfere with them. They are part of any real life experience.

Use multiple lines of evidence to answer evaluation questions (related to program implementation and/or success) and to minimize the factors that confound results.

Will the data from participants be kept confidential?

Yes, deidentified, anonymized or anonymous

Yes, deidentified, anonymized or anonymous

Yes, deidentified, anonymized or anonymous

How will you analyze the data?

With inferential statistics to test for significant differences or a qualitative methodology that can compare and contrast qualitative data.

With descriptive statistics that demonstrate change/trends.

Quantitative (inferential and descriptive analysis) and qualitative may be used.

How long do you anticipate your project will take?

It will take considerable time. It will be done quickly through rapid cycles. It depends on the size & scope of the program. The complexity of the evaluation design depends on the information necessary to make decisions & influences the length of the evaluation process. The resources available may limit the evaluation design.

What do you plan to do with your findings? How will they be applied?

Findings will be applied as wide as possible to increase the body of scientific knowledge by publishing or presenting for others within the discipline. This process has a longer time frame & is dependent on the research meeting scholarly criteria for publication.

Communicate findings within the organization primarily by providing specific feedback to decision makers responsible for managing the practice. Findings may be published with organizational approval [i.e. QI is carried out for purposes of meeting organizational goals]. This process has a short, more immediate time frame.

Communicate findings within the program and organization primarily by providing specific feedback to those who commissioned the evaluation. Findings may be published with organizational approval [i.e. Program Evaluation is carried out for purposes of meeting organizational goals. FH also does accountability focused evaluation to answer questions from funders, not necessarily exclusively organizational goals]. The length of this process may be dependent on whether the evaluation includes recommendations or whether evaluation results are used by the

Version 2: 2020.02.04 12/16

evaluation commissioner’s to make recommendations.

Is Research Ethics Board approval required?

Yes

No

No

How will your findings change practice/policy?

Findings will contribute to scientific body of knowledge which collectively adds to evidence that will inform practice/policy. Will change practice slowly as often multiple studies validate the results.

Will change practice in my setting immediately.

Improve program design and implementation (i.e. redefine target population), and identify efficient practice, unintended benefits and risks.

1 Kring, DL. Research and Quality Improvement: Different Processes, Different Evidence. MEDSURG Nursing. June 2008. Vol. 17, No. 3, p. 162-169. 2 Rozalis, ML. Evaluation and Research: Differences and Similarities. The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation. 2003. Vol. 18, No. 2, p. 1-31. 3 Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research: Alberta Research Ethics Community Consensus Initiative (ARECCI). ARECCI Ethics Decision-Support Tools for Projects 4 Vancouver Coastal Health. Draft Project Screening Tool. October 2008.

Version 2: 2020.02.04 13/16

APPENDIX III

Team Member Description

Team Descriptions For each team member, include the information requested below. Please copy and paste this table as many times as needed to capture each team member. Note: An academic co-applicant is required. It is expected that a majority of the team members be staff/privileged physicians from FH and that support is obtained from individuals who are knowledgeable in the content area and in research methods.

Study Title Name Role on team (Principal Investigator, co-Principal Investigator, co-Investigator) Discipline and job title Department / Program Work site(s) List professional leadership and other accomplishments List knowledge exchange activities, such as presentations, publications, etc. List research skill development activities (such as attending workshops) List other research-related activities, such as participating in research studies (be sure to specify if the activity was research, evaluation or quality improvement) List other collaborative projects that demonstrate your ability / experience in completing projects and working in teams

Signature of Team Member (must be signed)

NOTE: Team members can supply an annotated CV instead if preferred – however, please ensure that the content above is covered within the CV. Please list most recent and relevant information only. Please also ensure that a signature is included from each team member in the final application package.

Version 2: 2020.02.04 14/16

APPENDIX IV

FH Library Services Form (Consultation and Literature Search)

Principal Applicant Name

Grant Application Title (Name of Study)

Date of Initial Consultation Literature Search Completed By (Check all that apply):

Applicant (Reviewed by Library Services) FH Library Services External Librarian

Other _____________

This grant applicant has consulted with FH Library Services on a literature search to support a Seed grant application to the FH Department of Evaluation and Research Services. The search has been completed to the satisfaction of FH Library Services staff:

FH Library Services Staff Name

FH Library Services Staff Signature

Date of Signature (Literature Search Required to Be Completed by Friday November 20, 2020)

Version 2: 2020.02.04 15/16

APPENDIX V

FH Grant Application Checklist

Lead Applicant Name: Please indicate which funder criteria your team/project fits:

Funding Partner Requirement

Professional Practice Department

Team must include a RN, a point-of-care leader from any discipline, and a health care provider who provides direct patient/client care. Topic must be relevant to patient/client/family care.

Mental Health and Substance Use Program A member of the MHSU program must be a co-applicant and the topic must be in the area of mental health and/or substance use.

Peace Arch Hospital Foundation Lead applicant must work at PAH or the project must directly benefit the population of White Rock/South Surrey

Ridge Meadows Hospital Foundation Lead applicant must work at RMH or the project must directly benefit the population of Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows

Department of Evaluation and Research Services

Lead applicant must be a FH employee or privileged physician working at any FH site

Fraser Health Innovation and Virtual Health

Award #1: Must be research on using new technology or new service models (including virtual health) in any of the following areas: - Palliative care - Depression - Population / public health Award # 2: Must be research on using machine learning / AI in health care.

NB: Proposal must meet the requirements of at least one of the above funders to receive funding Ensure that your full application contains all of the follow components: Seed Grant Proposal Form [Follow individual section length requirements] References [No page limit; as needed] Appendices: survey instruments, data collection tools, moderator’s guides [No page limit; as needed] Letter of Support from FH Director [1-2 pages] Team Member Descriptions (including signatures) (Appendix III) [No page limit; as needed] FH Library Services Form (Consultation and Literature Search) (Appendix IV) [1 page] This Page (FH Grant Application Checklist (Appendix V)) [1 page]

Version 2: 2020.02.04 16/16

APPENDIX VI

Study Feasibility Checklist

Items to Consider Yes/ No/ Needs improvement

Comments

Does the applicant’s background enable them to conduct this research? (e.g., training, experience)

Is the team comprised of members with the appropriate and required qualifications/skills to carry out the proposed research?

Have roles and responsibilities of team members been determined?

Does the team have access to appropriate participants? (will recruitment be an issue?)

Are project timeline and milestones achievable within a 12 month timeframe (+ 12 months for KT)?

Are there adequate resources available?

Suitability of environment

Access to personnel

Access to facilities and infrastructure

Support of management/executive

Is the proposed budget reasonable?

Is back-fill an option in this department?