La Trobe University Research Office

NHMRC Grants – Application Toolkit

ContentsGeneral................................................................................................................................................................. 2

1. Purpose of this toolkit...................................................................................................................................22. NHMRC Formatting requirements and tips...................................................................................................23. General writing tips.......................................................................................................................................34. NHMRC Open Access Policy..........................................................................................................................65. Targeting assessors and the most appropriate Grant Review Panel (GRP)....................................................75.1. Writing the Synopsis (2000 characters for many schemes)...........................................................................75.2. Nominating external assessors......................................................................................................................85.3. Excluding external assessors.........................................................................................................................8

Scheme Specific Information................................................................................................................................. 9PROJECT GRANTS...................................................................................................................................................9PARTNERSHIPS FOR BETTER HEALTH - PARTNERSHIP PROJECTS GRANTS............................................................20FELLOWSHIPS AND AWARDS (GRANTS TO BUILD AUSTRALIA’S FUTURE CAPABILITY).........................................25Research Fellowships...........................................................................................................................................25Practitioner Fellowships.......................................................................................................................................26Career Development Fellowships (CDFs).............................................................................................................27Early Career Fellowships (ECFs)............................................................................................................................30Translating Research Into Practice Fellowship (TRIP)...........................................................................................35Applicants of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander Descent...................................................................................39General Tips.........................................................................................................................................................39

Acknowledgment: This guide is partly based on work produced by Tim Haydon, Write Media.

August 2015

1

2

General

1. Purpose of this toolkit

Obtaining NHMRC funding is becoming increasingly difficult. In the last two years the success rate for Project Grant funding has dropped below 20%, first to 17% in 2013 and then to 13.7% in 2015. Around the cut‐off mark, any objective difference between what gets funded and what doesn’t is marginal, so how you write and present your proposal is increasingly important. As well as being scientifically sound, a successful proposal will be well‐argued and carefully designed and written.

A major focus of this guide is strategic advice for writing the Grant Proposal section (i.e. PDF attachment) of your NHMRC application, namely, as applicable for the scheme:

Research Proposal References Chief Investigator Track Records Career Disruption

Note: Updated information will be provided when the 2016 application round opens.

Intending applicants may wish to subscribe to the NHMRC Research Tracker, which is emailed approximately fortnightly.

The guide also contains strategic advice on matters such as project length, new investigators, translation, the assessment criteria, and targeting the most appropriate assessors and Grant Review Panel (GRP).

2. NHMRC Formatting requirements and tips

2.1. RequirementsThe NHMRC has strict requirements about fonts, margins, etc. If you don’t comply, your application will be

ruled ineligible. For full details, see content and format requirements in NHMRC Funding Rules 2016 when available.

Note: NHMRC is now strictly enforcing these requirements! You need to adhere to the criteria or risk your application being ruled ineligible.

You must use the Word template – for the proposal sectionA Word template for the Grant Proposal can be downloaded from the NHMRC website. In this template the

main formatting requirements (e.g. margins, headers and footers) are pre-set. You will, however, still need to format and label any diagrams, tables, graphs and images manually; and the instructions for these will be provided in detail in the NHMRC Funding Rules 2016 when available. Please be aware, there will be strict rules about formatting diagrams, graphics and images as well as the text in tables.

Do not use RGMS Offline Application for Part A or Part B of your Proposal. These PDFs do not talk to RGMS and are hard to work with through a reviewing process; they will likely cause you to age prematurely.

Avoid referencing other documentation and/or web linksThe NHMRC has been strict on these points and failure to comply will be regarded as an eligibility issue. As a

result, the application should contain all information necessary for assessment without the need for further written or oral explanation or reference to additional documentation. Applicants must not include the following in any part of their application:

Links to external websites, apart from references to published or peer reviewed journal articles that are only available online. Where such links are included, ensure the URL is

3

presented in full. For further information please see Section 10.3 of the NHMRC Funding Rules 2015

2.2. Tips

Make diagrams and graphs legible and effectiveNHMRC warns that when your proposal is printed and photocopied for the assessors and panel, it may end up in

black‐and‐white and as a result there will probably be some loss of image quality. In addition, assessors often complain about images being unreadable for various reasons. If you include images, diagrams or graphs of any kind, make sure (1) they are not too small or complicated, (2) they are clearly named and labelled, and (3) they will not be rendered illegible if translated from colour to black‐and‐white. We need to make the job of busy readers easier.

Differentiate between headings and sub headings‐Most proposals require several levels of heading, but it’s not always easy to distinguish one level from

another. For the reader this can be confusing. We therefore recommend either of these two

approaches:

Aim for clear, uncluttered presentationYou should try to incorporate plenty of white space and break up the text using subheadings, diagrams, graphs, flow charts, tables, and bullet points for lists. Above all, avoid pages of solid, unbroken text with no spaces between paragraphs – or no paragraphs at all. Blocks of text with the margins set to fully-justified are harder to skim, therefore left-justification margin is recommended.

The proposal should therefore demonstrate the ability to distinguish between what is significant to the project rather than simply compressing all the information into a handful of pages. Be selective and thorough with what information is necessary to understanding your proposal and warrants inclusion.

3. General writing tips

3.1. Make your proposal reader‐friendlyConsider how busy your assessor will be and make life easy for them. You have a huge investment in the

application and your assessors less so; you will need your primary spokesperson (1SP) to offer strong support for your proposal! Therefore, communicating to assessors, and making it as easy for them to read as possible is important. If you don’t put in the effort to make your research proposal easy to read, you risk alienating your reviewers, who may have neither the time nor the energy to unravel what you are trying to say. Here are a few tips to make your research proposal reader‐friendly.

Visually distinct Legal numbering system

BACKGROUND [level 1]Subheading [level 2]Sub subheading‐ [level 3]

1 Background [level 1]1.1 Subheading [level 2]1.1.1 Sub subheading‐ [level 3]

4

Structure information for several ‘levels of reading’Your proposal will be read by people with various levels of ‘commitment’ to it. Some, such as your primary and

secondary spokespersons (SP1 and SP2) on the panel, will read your proposal in great detail. Other members of the panel may only have time to skim through it.

With this in mind, you can structure information to suit all these readers by organising it into subsections that follow a logical sequence and by using carefully chosen subheadings and topic sentences (the first sentence in a paragraph that outlines what the paragraph will argue). A reader in a hurry will be able to grasp the main points of your proposal merely by looking at the subheadings. Topic sentences will then encapsulate the next level of detail.

Use concepts and language appropriate to readers’ levels of knowledgeReaders of your proposal will have different levels of knowledge about your research area. External assessors

are likely to have highly specialised knowledge.

Members of the panel may have only general knowledge of your research area. This is partly because panel members with specialist knowledge frequently find themselves in a ‘conflict of interest’ and are unable to review a proposal they know a great deal about. It is also partly because the composition of panels can be mixed, leading to quite considerable disparities in knowledge about a given research topic.

In writing your proposal you should try to cater to all your prospective readers – the experts as well as the less expert on the panel – both in terms of the concepts and the language you use. One way to do this is by adopting the ‘hourglass’ approach as presented in Tim Haydon’s Master Classes:

Introduction

Aims Background

Research plan:

Methods & technique

Outcomes

Significance

The ‘hourglass’ approach means that the Research Plan (methods and techniques), which is technical and detailed, is neatly situated within a broader framework that is intelligible to all and of general appeal. Even if non‐expert readers have to rely on the advice of expert assessors regarding the methods and techniques, they are at least able to judge for themselves (at a non‐technical level) the proposal’s significance – both in terms of the importance of the problem/question being addressed and of the anticipated impact of the research – as well as its innovativeness.

The middle section is for the expert assessor so denser technical language and concepts are fine.

Use ‘everyday’ ideas and language for the opening, so as to capture the interest and attention of all readers. Begin broadly, with what you’re sure is known to everyone and then lead into greater complexity step by step.‐ ‐

Start shifting back to ‘everyday’ ideas and language, especially with Significance, again so that you appeal to all readers.

Start introducing technical details, but make sure you also explain them for the non expert.‐

5

Further information regarding the ‘hourglass’ approach is available from: https://psyc450.wordpress.com/2011/12/08/the-hourglass-structure/

3.2. Make it informative, even educationalSome external assessors and many grant review panel (GRP) members will not have expertise in your research

area. Feel comfortable about teaching them about it, at least in the first page and in the Background section. Some reviewers have indicated that they quite enjoy learning about a new area.

3.3. Make it interesting- and enjoyable read

Applicants’ enthusiasm and excitement for their research projects often get lost in the process of drafting and redrafting these proposals. So, once you’ve reached a point where the content is substantially correct, take a break for a few days, before revisiting your prose. This is especially important on the first page of the proposal. Include important statistics such as prevalence data, cost to the Australian Health care system (AIHW), and burden of disease are included, in order to establish the essential case for the research and why it is crucial this project is funded. Use “pilot study” in place of preliminary data to indicate a cogent exploration of the area of need.

Make Page One lively and interesting. Find adjectives and verbs that are fresh and have an impact – get that thesaurus off the shelf! For example, ‘This result exceeded all expectations’ rather than ‘This was a very positive outcome’, or ‘Our research may unlock the door to...’ rather than ‘Our research may provide appropriate and relevant information to...’

Common issues raised by Grant Review Panels (GRP)

The GRP members noted some common weaknesses with application:

Project feasibility Experimental subject numbers (Clinical trials & basic research) Trial recruitment and numbers have been a focus of GRPs. Explain why your trial has the

requisite power to achieve your goals. Vague presentation of animal numbers looked on poorly. All costs must be properly justified. There may be questions as to why or why not include a bio-statistician in the project. Project deliverables must be worthwhile and relevant to NHMRC. Lack of rationale for experiments scores poorly. Don’t spend too much space on the Background, particularly at the expense of the Research

Plan techniques, methodology etc – need to establish feasibility. Don’t present a case that is “statistically naïve”, you need to present valid statistics and show

that you will analyse them appropriately.

Significance &/or innovation Project does not have to score well on both. A great idea is not enough – you must show feasibility and focus. Less may have more impact; perhaps reduce the number of aims

Team

“At times reading this application felt like a hard slog and it should feel like an interesting and engaging read.”

Assessor’s comment

6

Chief Investigators (CI) Role should be clear Take career disruptions seriously. Your 1SP will handle these and NHMRC takes these very

seriously; they maybe “in confidence” without prejudicing your application. Early Career Researchers may be included in the team. If there are excellent mentors as CIs then

this will be looked on favourably. International CIs are not necessarily deal-makers. An international CI may cause concern

regarding feasibility. Show that you have carefully planned project management across the sites.

Budget Only discussed after the Grant Review Panel (GRP) has scored the application. Personnel requests (Personnel Support Packages) are carefully considered (incl. rationale for EFT

chosen.) These need to be justified in terms of skills (i.e. PSP level), nature and complexity of the tasks

required to complete the project (as outlined in the Project Plan). Budgets will be trimmed where the GRP considers aspect not to be justified. Animal costs may be queried (numbers and assignment charges). Break down costs so that the GRP can determine that they are reasonable. Consumables may be cut if they are not well justified.

RebuttalYour Rebuttal is important:

Review of rebuttals is built into the GRP process; it is the job of your 2SP to present this to the GRP.

Answer all issues raised. Feasibility is a major issue. Dependant aims (i.e. aims that are dependent

on the results defined from the other aims outlined by the project) will generally detract from feasibility and if these are present they need to be support by preliminary data, justification, or track record.

Preliminary (pilot) data is viewed favourably. If the Rebuttal is missing at the GRP - it is noticed. The panel will think that if you cannot be

bothered leading to possible questions like “why should you be taken seriously?” You can acknowledge controversy in the area and explain and justify the path you have taken.

4. NHMRC Open Access Policy

NHMRC wants to ensure the widest possible dissemination of the research supported by NHMRC funding, in the most effective manner and at the earliest opportunity.

Compliance with the NHMRC Open Access Policy is a condition of holding an NHMRC grant.

NHMRC’s Research Grants Management System (RGMS) has been modified so that when Chief Investigator As’ (CIA) update their publication records, they can now link it to the relevant grant ID, and indicate whether the metadata (this term refers to author, title, volumes and affiliations of the articles) of the publication has been deposited into an institutional repository. CIAs can also indicate whether the publication is freely available via an open access repository. CIs are encouraged to do this for all publications, not just those published since July 2012.

CIs must link research outputs to their funded grants in RGMS. RGMS now has ‘Functionality’ tab to do this (in CV-Pub). CI publications can be populated or updated from an Endnote library (.xml output); see NHMRC instructions.

“I was more convinced once I saw the Rebuttal; it answered my questions.”

Assessor’s Comment

7

Research Online is the university’s open resource managed by the Library and CIs should use this to ensure compliance.

You can view NHMRC’s policy on the dissemination of research findings .

NHMRC requires that any publication arising from NHMRC supported research must be deposited into an open access institutional repository and/or made available in another open access format within a twelve month period from the date of publication.

NHMRC understands that some researchers may not be able to meet the requirements initially because of current legal or contractual obligations. NHMRC is sensitive to copyright and licensing arrangements currently in place between authors, institutions and publishers.

The policy applies to all peer reviewed journal publications published after the 1st of July 2012, regardless of the start date of the relevant grant.If your publication is already freely available through the publisher or another repository (e.g. PubMed Central), you are not required to deposit a copy in the institutional repository, however, you must deposit the publication metadata and affiliated NHMRC Grant ID in your institutional repository.

So, your responsibilities if a Chief Investigator A (CIA) or a fellowship/award applicant are: Submission of metadata to institutional repository Submission of NHMRC Grant ID to institutional repository Submission of a copy of the publication to the institutional repository if an open access version is

not already available elsewhere (e.g. PubMed Central, publisher website)

The La Trobe Online repository is managed by the Library and can be accessed via Research Online where La Trobe staff can search to see which of your publications are already uploaded.To ensure compliance with the NHRMC policy, La Trobe staff can request upload of publications using an online form to self-submit research outputs or alternatively email the repository group with the files attached and information about the item.

5. Targeting assessors and the most appropriate Grant Review Panel (GRP)

Who will judge your application? Certain external assessors and GRPs may be more interested in, or knowledgeable about and receptive to your proposal than others. Also some GRPs may be less competitive than others. It is therefore important to steer your proposal to where it is likely to get the best score. To do this, you need to choose carefully what you enter in the following fields (which appear under A‐RC: Research Classification in RGMS) and how you write the Synopsis, because all this information may be used to determine which external assessors and GRP your proposal is assigned to:

Guide to peer review areas – this is the primary determinant Broad research area Field of research Field of research subcategory (methods) Research keywords/phrases

While there is no guarantee that your proposal will go exactly where you want it to, it is certainly worth doing all you can to steer it where you would like it to go.

Note: all the information pertinent to assigning your proposal to assessors and GRP is shown in the Summary snapshot report. Print this report to review your targeting strategy. Discuss strategies with someone who has been on a GRP in the past.

8

5.1. Writing the Synopsis (2000 characters for many schemes)The Synopsis may also be used to assign your proposal to external assessors and GRP. It ‘may also be considered

in the assessment process ’, which presumably means it may contribute to your score. You should therefore write it with both these purposes in mind. The instructions are straightforward:

The synopsis should accurately, and briefly, summarise the research proposal.

Essentially, then, the Synopsis is an abstract with a touch of salesmanship to engage and hopefully excite the readers. Reread your synopsis for clarity, accuracy and succinctness.

Be careful to keep the emphasis of the Synopsis consistent with the information you’ve provided in the fields in the Guide to Peer-Review area, Broad Research Area, Fields of Research and Research Keywords; otherwise it might undermine all that careful targeting. In other words, if your cardiovascular project includes a small proof‐of‐concept clinical trial and you don’t want it to go the Clinical Trials GRP, make sure you don’t put ‘clinical trial’ front and centre of the Synopsis.

Ensure that your aims & hypotheses clearly reflect those in your research plan, highlight the feasibility of the project, and clearly state what you hope to achieve (outcomes). The overall pitch should be seamless with no logic jumps – only make realistic outcome claims.

Note: you are now also required to write a Plain English Summary of your project, but this is entirely separate to the Synopsis. Ask yourself if your Plain English Summary is accessible to the general public; is it catchy and suitable for a media release. Consider asking someone from a non-academic background to read it for clarity.

5.2. Nominating external assessorsYou are also given the opportunity to nominate up to two national and two international assessors whom

you would like to review your research proposal (see 4.6 B‐NPA: Nomination of Possible Assessors, Project Grant Scheme Specific‐ Advice & Instructions 2015 for more details). We recommend taking this option, but make sure your nominees don’t have any conflict of interest with your proposal. The NHMRC is diligent about checking this. Also bear in mind that you want consider an assessor who is reasonably likely to say good things about the project. Our experience has been that in some cases North American assessors may not be the best choice as some may only give lukewarm reviews. Take care in your choice, if you nominate an Assessor that gives a poor or mediocre review, the feedback from GRP member is that such applications are unlikely to be funded.

5.3. Excluding external assessorsYou can nominate one person whom you would not like to assess your proposal. This can be on the grounds

that there is a conflict of interest or that you believe they ‘would be incapable of giving a fair assessment due to unreasonable bias.’

5.4.

9

Scheme Specific Information

PROJECT GRANTS

Critical dates Mid-January 2016 New Investigator eligibility forms (online) due to NHMRC

18 January 2016 Peer Review deadlines for Project Grants17 February 2016 Minimum data due in RGMS16 March 2016 Applications close in

RGMS 1‐early June to early July Rebuttal periods

(These dates are approximate and may be subject to change)

Further informationFor further information about the Grant Proposal and all other aspects of your Project Grant application, please

refer to the documentation available from the NHMRC website .

Note: since the NHMRC documentation is now in a combination of html (online) and pdf formats, the cross‐references in our guide are to sections (not pages), which works consistently for both formats.

Strategic advice

Make your proposal cohesiveThe entire application must tell one clear, simple story. It should present a mature research plan ready for

implementation. A Project Grant application is made up of many separate sections, but the reviewer is looking for cohesion. Even minor internal inconsistencies between one section and another are noticed. While there are distinct assessment criteria, nothing is scored in isolation. Track record influences feasibility. Scientific quality influences significance – to have impact, the experiments or trials must work. Innovation equates to risk, which can be offset by a strong, reassuring track record & preliminary data. High risk, high return is a worthy strategy as all GRPs must choose such applications for the Warren-Marshall award. The quality of the budget, though not in itself an assessment criterion, will influence the reviewer’s perceptions of the team’s professionalism, experience with the proposed research, thereby affecting the score. If your budget doesn’t fully reflect management of your project plan assessors may question feasibility.

In summary, every aspect of the proposal must be strong, and all aspects must work together as an integrated whole.

Objective of Project Grant scheme emphasises ‘new knowledge’In 2014 the objective of the scheme was revised to:The objective of the Project Grants scheme is to support the creation of new knowledge by funding the best

investigator‐initiated research project plan of five years, or less, in any area relevant to human health … A Project Grant application must outline a research proposal that describes the investigation of a new research idea/s as outlined in 1.1 Description and 1.2 Objectives, Project Grants Scheme Specific‐ Funding Rules 2015

Note the focus on ‘new knowledge’ and ‘new research idea/s’. In your application therefore you should highlight the novelty of your project and how it will create new knowledge.

10

How long should the project be?Some applicants have interpreted the words ‘research project plan of 5 years, or less’ in the scheme’s objective

(above) as encouragement to submit 5‐year project plans. This is not necessarily the case. Assessors criticise research plans where timelines and/or budgets appear excessive to the requirements of the aims and methods. If you have a 3‐year project, don’t try to pad it out to 4 or 5 years. On the other hand, if your project will genuinely take 4 or 5 years to complete, don’t feel constrained to cut it back to 3 years in the belief that only shorter projects get funded.

Here are some recent trends to consider:

2013 2014

4‐year grants funded 65 121

5‐year grants funded 28 71

2014 saw a dramatic increase in the number of 4‐ and 5‐year projects funded, but the number of 4‐ and 5‐year projects submitted also increased. The result was that the success rate for these longer projects was not substantially different from that for 3‐year projects.

Project duration Number of applications Funded Success rate Funding Average funding per grant

One year 9 0 0%

Two years 137 16 11.7% $5,487,766 $342,985

Three years 2304 345 15.0% $203,145,360 $588,827

Four years 768 121 15.8% $107,357,041 $887,248

Five years 482 71 14.7% $103,992,786 $1,464,687

Total 3700 553 14.9% $419,982,953 $759,463

Respective GRPs play a role, however as a very general guide, clinical and public health projects are more likely to succeed with 5‐year applications than are basic science applications. This is because they often have a longitudinal component that naturally lends itself to a longer grant. Basic science applications usually don’t have this, and 5‐year basic science proposals can end up sounding like lots of small projects put together, which adds significantly to risk. For a 5‐year basic science application to be successful, it must be coherent and focused. The project must also avoid the trap of having dependent aims, which can prove difficult over 5 years (and for the 9-page limit!).

New Investigator grantsThe NHMRC seeks to ensure that the success rate for New Investigator (NI) applicants is approximately the same

as that for standard Project Grant applications (5.1.3 New Investigators, Project Grants Scheme Specific‐ Funding Rules 2015). Funding awarded to New Investigator proposals as a proportion of funding awarded to all Project Grants has hovered around 8% over the past 6 years, with some NI grants being funded irrespective of their NI status.

Whether to submit a proposal as a NI team (see below for eligibility), or whether to bring more experienced CIs on board and submit a standard Project Grant, can be a real dilemma. The advantage of going as a New Investigator team is that the funding cut‐off for these applications is lower – only slightly – than for standard Project Grants. The disadvantage is that you are competing directly against other teams of CIs who have more experience and stronger track records. Every case has to be assessed on its merits.

Note: applicants who wish to apply as a New Investigator must seek confirmation of their eligibility by

11

mid-January 2016 (expected).

Indigenous research To qualify as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander health research, at least 20% of the research effort and/or

capacity building must relate to Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander health. For further information see Section 6.2 Health Research Involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in the NHMRC Funding Rules 2015 .

If the Indigenous focus of your proposal is well over or well under the 20%, there is no dilemma. But if it’s hovering around the 20% mark, there is a choice to be made.

From a strategic perspective, the advantage of having your proposal qualify as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander health research is that the success rate is higher. In 2014, 18.9% of Indigenous Research Project Grants were funded, compared to 14.9% of standard Project Grants.

The disadvantage is that the application process becomes more onerous. In addition to the standard assessment criteria, your proposal will have to address the Indigenous Research Excellence Criteria: Community engagement; Benefit; Sustainability and transferability; and Building capability. For details, see

6.2 Health Research Involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples in NHMRC Funding Rules 2015.

If you are interested in addressing an issue of Indigenous Health please contact the Grants Office. There are many considerations to be addressed and we will put you in touch with researchers experienced in the area.

TranslationTranslation can mean different things to different panels, indeed it can mean different things to different people

on the same panel: The more clinicians and/or public health researchers there are on a panel, the more important it

will be to demonstrate that the project is translational or translatable (either to clinic or policy). For basic science projects it might be appropriate to demonstrate that translational considerations

have been taken into account in shaping the type of work to be done – e.g. testing drugs that are easily delivered, cheap or widely available; focusing on proteins that have a specific function or can be easily targeted; dealing with questions that clinicians or drug developers want answers to.

As appropriate to the research plan, the translational aspects must be integral to the project, and a well‐considered plan for translation presented.

The team must have the expertise and experience to deliver on the stated translational aims. Assessors will look at track records to determine, for example, whether CIs are members of peak bodies, on committees, or have written guidelines before. If an economic analysis is proposed, reviewers will want to know that a health economist has been consulted or is on the team.

Assessment Criteria and Category DescriptorsFor Project Grants NHMRC have three Assessment Criteria:

Scientific Quality (50%) Significance of the expected outcomes and/or Innovation of the concept (25%) Team Quality and Capability relevant to the application and relative to opportunity (25%) For a complete description of these criteria see Appendix A. Assessment Criteria.

To have any chance of being funded, your proposal will need to score a combined total of well above 5 – so aim for 6. Since the GRPs are constantly reminded to use the Category Descriptors to determine scores, you should also familiarise yourself with them thoroughly – see Appendix B. Category Descriptors for a complete description.

12

1. Scientific Quality (50%)

If the research plan is flawed in any but the most trivial ways, it is very unlikely that the proposal will be funded, regardless of its significance, innovation and team. In a sense this is the most important criterion – one that you can work on and improve.

2. Significance and/or Innovation? (25%)

Applications need not be rated on both significance and innovation. Truly innovative ideas and research may not reveal their significance until sometime in the future (this is the case for many Nobel Prize winning discoveries). Similarly research of the highest significance such as important randomised clinical trials or public health intervention studies may use ‘tried and true’ methods only, yet be of immense significance to health. For further details see Attachment B: Guidance for applicants to address the project grants assessment criteria.

Most proposals have elements of significance and innovation. Provided it’s within the bounds of credibility, find ways to demonstrate that your project is both significant and innovative. Some reviewers tend to view significance as more important than innovation. Determine a strategy to pitch your application and write to that end. For example, if you consider the project is significant but not necessarily innovative highlight the significance.

It is worth carefully constructing this section as the word from Assessors/GRPs is that if a choice is to be made between two worthy applications, this section may be used to distinguish between applicants.

3. Significance

Significance relates to the project outcomes and not the disease or size of the health problem.

The NHMRC guidelines explicitly state that the ‘significance of the study is not a measure of the prevalence/incidence of the health issue (e.g. cancer versus sudden infant death syndrome)’. Rather, significance refers to whether the project’s outcomes will advance knowledge and/or have an impact on the health issue and/or generate interest from other researchers, conference organisers, journals, community groups, and policy makers (see Attachment B ‐ Guidance for applicants to address the project grants assessment criteria). Nevertheless, many reviewers continue to think of significance in terms of the scale of the health problem. If you are working on a rare disease, you may need to work harder to develop a strong rationale for the project.

4. Innovation

The NHMRC has also been more explicit about innovation recently, with discrete bullet points describing what constitutes innovation in both the Assessment Criteria and Category Descriptors. Essentially, it is understood in terms of innovative concepts and/or innovative approaches. But even if your project is not introducing advances in concept or using new approaches, it will be producing or contributing to new outcomes (knowledge, applications, technologies, policies), so you can always appeal to this aspect of innovation. Innovation doesn’t necessarily mean ‘complex’. Innovative solutions can be very simple and low cost.

For some readers, innovation will equate to ‘risk’. So you need to balance innovation with feasibility: the more innovative the project, the more persuasively you will need to argue that it is also feasible.

5. Feedback and revision

After drafting your proposal, get feedback from non‐experts as well as experts. Non‐experts sometimes notice errors or omissions that experts have become ‘blind’ to through over‐familiarity. Also, try to consider it from a reviewer’s perspective: that is, in terms of the Assessment Criteria and Category Descriptors, and whether it represents value for money. If your proposal is inadequate in any respect, revise it.

13

6. Make the most of the months between submission and rebuttal

Ideally you will include in the Grant Proposal (submitted in March) the publications as well as any unpublished, preliminary data that are necessary to providing the strongest possible rationale for your proposed project. Bear in mind that between March and June/July, when you’ll write your rebuttal, you have the opportunity to publish more papers and generate more preliminary data, which you may include in the rebuttal.

7. Web links

You are allowed to use web links for ‘published or peer reviewed journal articles that are only available online’. Where you do include such links, you must provide the URL in full. (See 10.3 Content and Format Requirements in the NHMRC Funding Rules 2015.)

Writing the Team Quality & Capability statement and CI Track Records1. It’s the team that counts

Carefully form your team at the outset as track records cannot be changed overnight. This is one section where you can seek to score a “6” or more from the outset.

The fact that the assessment criterion formerly known as ‘Track Record’ is now called ‘Team Quality & Capability’ tells you that the emphasis falls squarely on the team as a unit, not on the individual team members. In a sense, the whole must be greater than the sum of its parts.

For this reason it is highly desirable to demonstrate as much as possible that the CIs (and Associate Investigators AIs) can already work together successfully as a team. Draw attention to previous collaborations, co‐authored publications, co‐supervised students, and so on.

How you present the Team Quality & Capability statement and CI Track Records also creates an impression about the extent to which the CIs form a coherent, professional team, or a grab‐bag of individuals thrown together at the last minute. So, aim for consistency in content, formatting and writing style. It may help for the CIA to write their 2‐page Track Record first, then send it to the other CIs as a model to emulate.

2. Relevance to the project: feasibility

Team Quality & Capability (TQC) needs to be relevant to the work outlined in the application. Reviewers want to see that every aspect of the proposed work is covered by the expertise of someone on the team, because this is a crucial indicator of feasibility:

Team quality and capability is considered in terms of whether an applicant’s previous research demonstrates that the investigator(s) is capable of achieving the proposed project and/or ability to deliver the proposed project in terms of having the appropriate mix of research skills and experience. See Attachment B: Guidance for applicants to address the project grants assessment criteria, Project Grants Scheme‐Specific Funding Rules 2015 for more details.

In combination, then, the 1‐page TQC statement and the 2‐page CI Track Records should clearly demonstrate that all the skills and experience necessary to the project’s success are available in the team. This is why CIs should tailor their Track Records to the proposed project; but you may find that some CIs are reluctant to do this. Update CV to include anything relevant such as community involvement, memberships of professional organisations, and contributions to your field as these provide evidence of leadership as well as engagement. The skills and experience of AIs can be discussed in the TQC statement.

A useful exercise is to draw up a matrix which lists, on one axis, all the methods and techniques to be used in the project, and, on the other, all your CIs and AIs. You should be able to tick off every method and technique against at least one of the CIs and AIs; if you can’t, find a CI or AI to fill the gap. (You could even include such a matrix in the TQC statement itself.)

14

3. Chief Investigators and Associate Investigators

Your final score for Team Quality & Capability will be based exclusively on the track records of the CIs. In this respect, AIs don’t count. Where AIs do count is towards your score for Scientific Quality, principally in terms of their contribution to the project’s feasibility. But although AIs can fill some gaps in expertise, they shouldn’t be relied on to provide the core skills required for the project’s success.

The NHMRC defines AIs variously, as follows:An Associate Investigator (AI) is defined as an investigator who provides some intellectual and practical input

into the research and whose participation warrants inclusion of their name on publications.7.2.4 Research Support Schemes, NHMRC Funding Rules 2015

And:

An AI is an investigator who provides intellectual input into the research and whose participation warrants inclusion of their name on publications.

5.7 A RT:‐ Research Team and Commitment, NHMRC Advice & Instructions to Applicants 2015

4. Senior and junior members of the team

The Team Quality & Capability statement requires information about how ‘junior’ members contribute to the team, and the category descriptors for scores of 5 and above distinguish between ‘senior’ and ‘junior’ team members. For example, the category descriptor for a score of 6 now includes this:

Relative to opportunity, the applicant team … has senior members with excellent national and/or international reputations in the field of research relevant to the application … [and] may involve junior members who are strong contributors to the overall team quality & capability or will have the capacity to do so due to the availability of strong mentoring. See Attachment A 2015 NHMRC Project Grants Category Descriptors.

The NHMRC does not, however, define ‘senior’ and ‘junior’ and this is left to your discretion. For ‘junior’ a rule of thumb is that it is synonymous with ‘ECR’, which usually means up to 10 years postdoc.

Project Grant Assessment Criteria(You may want to print this and stick it on your wall once the new Funding Rules are available.)

1. Scientific Quality (50%)

This includes the clarity of the hypotheses or research objectives, the strengths and weaknesses of the study design, and feasibility.

Applications may be assessed in terms of, but not limited to the following questions:

a. Clarity of the hypothesis or research objectives:i. Has the method/framework/approach been partially tested?

ii. What outcome is sought in the proposed study? What exactly is the outcome measure?iii. Is it well integrated and adequately developed?

b. Is there a clear and appropriate research plan?i. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the study and its design?

ii. Have any major pitfalls or problems been overlooked? Have alternative approaches been considered?

iii. Is the plan well informed by knowledge of the literature?iv. Is the design appropriate for the aims of the research?

15

c. Feasibilityi. Will the research plan successfully address the stated hypothesis or research objectives?

ii. Are the goals concrete and achievable?iii. Is the investigating team appropriate – is it capable of achieving the goals? Does it have

the right skills and expertise?

Note that the assessment of feasibility can include the contribution of Associate Investigators.

2. Significance of the expected outcomes and/or Innovation of the concept (25%)

This includes the potential to increase knowledge about human health, disease diagnoses, or biology of agents that affect human health, or the application of new ideas, procedures, technologies, programs or health policy settings to important topics that will impact on human health. Applications need not be rated on both significance and innovation.

Applications may be assessed in terms of, but not limited to, the following questions:

Significance

Will there be advancement in knowledge from the outcomes of this study? If successful, will the study have a significant impact on the health issue at question? Impact could be measured by advancement in general scientific knowledge, clinical and/or public

health applications, policy development or change NB: The significance of the study is not a measure of the prevalence/incidence of the health issue

(e.g. cancer versus sudden infant death syndrome) What is the likely interest from other researchers, conference organisers, journals, community

groups, and policy makers in the outcomes of the research?

Innovation

Is the proposed research new/novel or creative (has imagination been used)? Are the aims transformative? Are the techniques cutting edge? If successful, could the research result in a paradigm shift? Will the research affect current practices or approaches and other researchers within this field of

research? Is the research proposal a strong candidate for the Marshall-Warren Award? Is the proposed study innovative enough that it will be the subject of invited plenary presentations

at international meetings? Is it likely that the results from the study will yield highly influential publications? How well does the proposal describe the new ideas, procedures, technologies, programs or health

policy settings?

3. Team Quality & Capability (25%)

Team Quality & Capability (TQC) is judged:

Relevant to the application

Relative to opportunity – with regard to factors such as career disruption, administrative and clinical/teaching load, and typical performance (including publications) for the field in question

On the most recent five years work – except where there is a career disruption.

Note that the track records of Associate Investigators do not contribute to the Team Quality & Capability score.

16

Note also that journal impact factors or person centric‐ citation metrics such as the H index‐ should not be used, but citations can be used.

Team Quality and Capability is considered in terms of whether an applicant’s previous research demonstrates that the investigator(s) is capable of achieving the proposed project and/or ability to deliver the proposed project in terms of having the appropriate mix of research skills and experience.

Where an application involves a CI team, the track record of all CIs is considered and will be assessed relative to opportunity (including career stage), based on relevance to the research being proposed and taking into account time commitment.

Team Quality and Capability may encompass the national and international standing of the applicant(s) based upon their research achievements, including but not limited to:

Research outputs relevant to the proposed field of research – most recent significant publications; publications that illustrate innovation and significance to past accomplishments; impact or outcome of previous research achievements, including effects on health care practices or policy; awards or honours in recognition of achievements;

Contribution to discipline or area – invitations to speak at international meetings, editorial appointments, specialist and high‐level health policy committee appointments; and

Other research related‐ achievements – influence on clinical/health policy or practice, or provision of influential advice to health authorities and government; impacts on health via the broad dissemination of research outcomes, e.g. via mainstream media, the community or industry involvement.

Note: The optional sections on Priority Driven Young Investigator and Indigenous Research Excellence Criteria are not discussed in this guide because they are applicable to a few applicants only. Contact the Research Office for further details if this is applicable to your project.

Category DescriptorsWe include only the Category Descriptors for scores of 4 and above. Scores of 4 and below are deemed not competitive.

Scientific Quality (50%)Feasibility can include contribution of AIs

Significance and/or Innovation (25%)Significance of the potential outcomes&/or Innovation of the concept

Team Quality & Capability relevant to application and relative to opportunity (25%)

Does not include AIs7Outstanding by international standards

The proposal has a research plan that:

Is well defined‐ , highly coherent and strongly developed Has a near flawless study design Is highly feasible with all of the required expertise, research tools and techniques established Would be highly competitive with the best, similar research proposals internationally.

The planned research: Will result in a highly significant advance in knowledge in this field which addresses an issue of great importance to human health Will result in fundamental outcomes in the science underpinning human health issuesOR Will translate rapidly into transforming fundamental outcomes in the practice of clinical medicine, public health or in health policy Will almost certainly be the subject of invited plenary presentations at national and international meetings Will almost certainly result in highly influential publications

Is highly innovative and introduces advances in concept(s) Will use very advanced approaches which will optimise outcomes.

Relative to opportunity, the applicant team: Has expertise that specifically targets the proposed research both in terms of its depth and/or breadth Has over the last 5 years, a combined record of research achievement quality (as exemplified by the top 5 publications of each CI) and productivity (totality of outputs) and/or translation into practice that is outstanding by international standards commensurate with their field of research Has senior members with outstanding national and international reputations in the field of research relevant to the application May involve junior members who are very strong contributors to the overall team quality & capability or will have the capacity to do so due to the availability of very strong mentoring by other members of the team.

17

6Excellent

The proposal has a research plan that:

Is clearly defined, coherent and well developed Has a strong study design Is feasible with all of the required expertise, research tools and techniques established Is likely to be competitive with strong, similar research proposals internationally.

The planned research: Will result in a significant advance in knowledge in this field which addresses an issue of importance to human health Is likely to result in fundamental outcomes in the science underpinning human health issuesOR Is likely to translate into fundamental outcomes in the practice of clinical medicine, public health or in health policy Will likely be the subject of invited plenary presentations at national and international meetings Will likely result in influential publications

Is highly innovative in concept Will use advanced approaches to enhance outcomes.

Relative to opportunity, the applicant team: Has expertise that is highly relevant to the proposed research both in terms of its depth and/or breadth Has over the last 5 years, a combined record of research achievement quality (as exemplified by the top 5 publications of each CI) and productivity (totality of outputs) and/or translation into practice that is excellent by international standards commensurate with their field of research Has senior members with excellent national and/or international reputations in the field of research relevant to the application May involve junior members who are strong contributors to the overall team quality & capability

OR Will have the capacity to do so due to the availability of strong mentoring.

18

5Very good

The proposal has a research plan that: Is generally clear in its scientific plan and is logical Raises only a few minor concerns with respect to the study design Is feasible in all, or almost all areas – required techniques and tools either established or nearly established May not be highly competitive with similar research proposals internationally.

The planned research: Will advance knowledge in this field which addresses an issue of importance to human health May result in fundamental outcomes in the science underpinning human health issuesOR May translate into fundamental outcomes in the practice of clinical medicine, public health or in health policy Could be the subject of invited plenary presentations at international and national meetings Is likely to result in some very strong publications

Is innovative in concept Will use well established approaches to good effect.

Relative to opportunity, the applicant team: Raises only minor concerns regarding the depth and/or breadth of expertise relevant to the proposed research Has over the last 5 years, a combined record of research achievement quality (as exemplified by the top 5 publications of each CI) and productivity (totality of outputs) and/or translation into practice which places it well above average for their peers or cohort Members have very good and growing national and/or international reputations in the field of research relevant to the application May involve junior members who arevaluable contributors to the team quality& capability or will have the capacity to do so due to the availability of some mentoring.

4Good

The proposal has a research plan that: Is generally solid in its scientific plan, but may not always be clear in its in its intent and may lack some focus Raises several concerns regarding the study design Raises doubts about the feasibility in some areas Is not likely to be competitive with similar research proposals internationally.

The planned research: May incrementally advance knowledge in the field which addresses an issue of some importance to human health Is unlikely to result in fundamental outcomes in the science underpinning human health issuesOR Is unlikely to translate into fundamental outcomes in the practice of clinical medicine, public health or in health policy Is unlikely to be the subject of invited plenary presentations at international meetings May result in some good but not excellent publications.

Is solid in concept Will in the main use standard approaches.

Relative to opportunity, the applicant team: Raises some significant concerns regarding the depth and/or breadth of expertise relevant to the proposed research Has, over the last 5 years, a combined record of research achievement quality (as exemplified by the top 5 publications of each CI) and productivity (totality of outputs) and/or translation into practice, that places them at an average level for their peers/cohort Members have good and growing national and/or international reputations in the field of research relevant to the application May involve some junior members who would have the potential to add to the team with mentoring, but there is little or no evidence of a mentoring framework to support them.

19

PARTNERSHIPS FOR BETTER HEALTH - PARTNERSHIP PROJECTS GRANTS

Objectives of the Partnership Projects Grant scheme: The specific objectives of the scheme are to:

Meet the need for a more effective integration of research evidence into health policy and service delivery;

Create partnerships among policy makers, managers, service providers and researchers; Provide support to answer often complex and difficult questions that policy makers, managers and

service providers face when making decisions and implementing policies that affect Australians’ health and health care; and

Enable applicants to apply for funding at any time during the year to allow researchers and partner organisations to develop timely collaborations.

Note that NHMRC Partnership Projects will not fund the evaluation of clinical interventions on individual patients, e.g. new treatments, diagnostic techniques, pharmaceuticals or surgical procedures.

Assessors will be looking for evidence of how the application demonstrates the capacity to build or sustain a strong partnership.

There are three rounds of Partnership Projects Grants per year (based on 2015): note however that there are dates by which minimum data must be entered on the RGMS system for each round.

Assessment criteria

Something for applicants to consider is that track record has a lower weighting than for many other NHMRC schemes (25%).

Track Records of the Chief Investigators Relative to Opportunity (25%) Scientific Quality of the Proposal and Methodology (25%) Relevance and Likelihood to Influence Health and Research Policy and Practice (25%) Strength of Partnership (25%)

Criterion One - Track Records of the Chief Investigators Relative to Opportunity (25%)CIs should have an excellent record of achievement and encompass a broad range of achievements, which include but are not limited to:

A record of having worked successfully with policy and/or practice organisations; Demonstrable effects of previous research on health care practices and policy; Other related service achievements (such as research development, health or clinical policy or

practice and influential advice to health care authorities); Books and other relevant forms such as government reports; Publications in peer-reviewed journals; Invitations to present work nationally or internationally; and Previous funding relative to opportunity (e.g. from NHMRC, other Australian peer-reviewed

sources, other Australian funding, international peer-reviewed funding and private sector funding).

20

You are encouraged to include investigators from the partner organisation and they will be assessed on the basis of:

Relevant experience and authority to support the partnership; and Experience of translating research findings into policy and/or practice.

Criterion Two - Scientific Quality of the Proposal and Methodology (25%)Assessment of scientific quality will include the following considerations:

The clarity of hypotheses and objectives; Strengths and weaknesses of the experimental design and/or the appropriateness and the

robustness of the proposed methodology; and Feasibility. You need to show that the project can be completed effectively with the time and

resources requested and contributed.

Criterion Three - Relevance1 and Likelihood to Influence Health and Research Policy and Practice (25%)Assessment will focus on the extent to which the findings from the research are likely to make a significant contribution to influencing health and wellbeing through changes in the delivery, organisation and funding of services that affect health. This will include consideration of factors such as the extent to which:

The aims and concepts of the project are innovative; The project is likely to yield new methods and techniques for addressing issues; The project has the potential to contribute significantly to health policy and decision making; The capacity of the partner organisation(s) may use the findings to influence policy decision making

and health system performance. This will be assessed by reference to, for example, the roles and/or areas of responsibility of the organisation or the partner organisation’s demonstrated record of achievement in effecting such changes; and

The application addresses issues which are of national or regional significance in improving health or health care.

Criterion Four - Strength of Partnership (25%)Assessment will focus on the extent to which the application demonstrates the capacity to develop and/or sustain a strong partnership. Factors such as the following will be considered:

Evidence of co-development of the proposal; The cash and/or in-kind commitment of the partner(s); The roles of staff in the partner agency or agencies in the research process; Previous evidence of effective working relationships with partner organisations; and The proposed governance or partnership arrangements.

Applications should show how the team will foster and maintain a collaborative approach between the researchers and decision makers, over the course of the initiative.

In evaluating the strength of the partnership, applications will be assessed on the extent to which the proposal is achievable through the provision of skills, linkages, infrastructure and milestones. NHMRC will also take into account value for money in terms of justification for equipment and facilities and other items of expenditure to sustain the partnership.

Proposal structureThe proposal PDF consists of the following parts (rounds closing in 2015):

A. Introduction (maximum one A4 page)B. Research Proposal (maximum eight A4 pages)

The Research Proposal should describe the following:1. Aims of the proposed project including a clear statement of hypotheses to be tested.

21

2. Background to the proposed project including the importance of the problem and rationale for this research. How will this project be relevant to a real life problem and how will outcomes improve health care?

3. Detailed experiment design where appropriate including the techniques to be used, methods of statistical analysis and justification of sample-size including power calculations, details and justification of controls, strategies for randomization and/or stratification, ethical implications of the research, community involvement and/or plans to transfer knowledge to stakeholders into practice and a timeline for the project.

4. Role of the partner organisation.5. Expected outcomes and significance of the proposed project.

Note: regarding points 4 and 5, ensure that you make it clear that there is a genuine partnership and that the outcomes will be of use to policy or practitioner partners. Remember that you need to communicate the strength of the partnership; how did you and the partner/s co-develop the project?

References cited in the Research Proposal should be listed separately under References.

C. Team Quality and Capability Relevant to this Proposal (maximum one A4 page)D. CI Track Record (including top five publications in the last five years) (maximum of two A4 pages per

CI)E. Track Record of Translation into Policy/Practice (maximum one A4 page per CI)F. Chief Investigator Participation and Time Commitment to this Proposal (maximum of half A4 page

per CI)G. Associate Investigator (AI) Contribution (maximum ¼ A4 page per AI)H. Career Disruption (if applicable)I. Indigenous Research Excellence Criteria, if applicableJ. References (maximum two A4 pages)

Grant Proposal Formatting RequirementsA Microsoft Word template for the Grant Proposal can be downloaded from the NHMRC website. Applicants may use this template when creating their Grant Proposal PDF. The formatting requirements for the template/PDF are listed at section 10.3 of the NHMRC Funding Rules 2015 . Applicants and RAOs are advised to retain a copy of the PDF file.

PartnersYou must list your partners on the application. Ensure that they are eligible to be partners by checking the Funding Rules (currently section 5.2).

It’s essential to indicate to the assessors that you have or will build strong relationships with the partners as Strength of Partnership has a weighting of 25%. Factors that will be considered include:

Evidence of co-development of the proposal; The financial and/or in-kind commitment of the partner/s (The total contribution of all funding

partners must be equal in value or greater than the amount sought from NHMRC); Previous evidence of effective working relationships with partner organisations; The proposed governance or partnership arrangements. Applications should show how the team

will foster and maintain a collaborative approach between the researchers and decision makers over the course of the initiative; and

The roles of staff in the partner agency or agencies in the research process.

Partner Investigators as Chief Investigators or Associate Investigators:The inclusion of investigators from the policy and/or practice partner organisation is encouraged.

22

The track record of Partner Investigators will be assessed on the basis of: Relevant experience and authority to support the partnership; and Experience of translating research findings into policy and/or practice.

Research Outcomes: State the research question(s) or problem(s) that the policy/practice partner needs answered or

solved (Free text – 1000 character limit including spaces and line breaks). Provide a response to “How does the partner expect to use the outcomes of this research?” (1000

character limit).

Strong applications will demonstrate many of the following characteristics

Item TipBe of a high scientific quality Ensure NHMRC category descriptors 6 or above are

metDemonstrate that strong relations between researchers and partner organisations exist or will be developed.

Such as letters of support, publications, joint students, integration into experimental or clinical research plan

Address issues which are of national or regional significance (rather than local-only significance).

Consider interstate CIs or multisite organisations as AIs

Demonstrate that researchers and partner organisations will come together to identify research projects, conduct research, interpret its findings and promote the use of those findings to influence policy and practice for health.

Stake holder survey, timelines, project steering committee membership, Engagement with professional societies and stakeholder groups (e.g. government departments) Shown track record &/or plans for engagement with community advocacy and consumer groups (e.g. Alzheimer’s Australia)

Have cash contribution commensurate with partner commitment.

Do budget early to figure this out – talk with partner decision makers early so that they can manage local budgets.

Be led by researchers with strong established records of achievement.

Chose the CIA carefully, they must be excellent. Need CIs to bolster community participation section Can integrate more junior members as CIs to mentor them

Have a demonstrated pilot if appropriate. Required to score well in feasibility & impacts on all 4 assessment criteria.

Be of sufficient scope to achieve significant outcomes. Ensure outcomes match the project aims Ensure sample size(s) are adequate to achieve significance. Explain strategies to address recruitment & attrition.

Propose original research likely to generate knowledge that will have an impact on relevant management and/or policy decision-making: impacts can include; Improved primary care, hospital care, aged care, management systems, and better preventative strategies; New or improved health diagnostics, technology, product, health service delivery, processes or applications by end users; Development of health advice, guidelines and reports targeted at clinicians and end users; Improved end user accessibility to health services or clinical practice; Research informed health policy advice to government on public health or health service delivery matters; Collaboration outcomes such as end user involvement in activities (e.g. establishment of expert committees to

“Calibrate” your research program to this NHMRC scheme based on these measures. Projects that seek to contribute to lowering cost &/or health burden score well. Provide concrete / realistic examples (these will be reviewed by your peers). As well as academic publications other methods of reaching stakeholders increase impact & translation of the research. For example how your outcomes could be embedded in clinical practice (Significance &/OR Innovation; 25%).

23

provide advice to government); Increased evidence-informed educational outputs; More effective and safer care; The elimination of inadequate and ineffective procedures and treatments; Better or earlier diagnoses, treatment or cures of diseases; enhanced health through relevant capacity building measures (e.g. increased community engagement, increased data linkage measures etc.); Reduced health risks or enhanced skills base.

Letter/s of supportA Guide to Partner Letter of Support can be found on the NHMRC website. This includes a table example of how to express cash and in-kind contributions.

The letters of support should be regarded as a way of showing further proof that there is or will be a strong relationships with partner/s. It should include the value of partner support, both cash and in-kind. Partner support should be ‘substantial’ so you could consider encouraging the partner to include that word specifically in their letter.

Ensure that you provide all information requested, to avoid ineligibility. This will include name, address and Australian Business Number of the partner as well as details of your nominated contact at the organisation and a link for their Annual Report.

Letters of support should showcase the enthusiasm the partner has for your joint project.

The letter should detail the question or problem the partner organisation needs solved or how they will use outcomes of the project.

Ensure the letter is signed by a member of the partner organisation who is authorised to expend money or resources. Find out who that person is early on in your negotiations. Allow time for signing; some organisations may require board approval before signing off and you don’t want to miss out on the NHMRC deadline because you didn’t factor in the time taken to obtain partner signature.

** Ensure that amounts in the letter of support tally with the amounts promised from that partner in the application on RGMS. It’s important to check this as early as possible to avoid having to go back to partner/s to ask for revised letters, once the Research Office has checked. Help is available from the La Trobe University Strategic Partnerships team, contact E.Merton@latrobe.edu.au.

24

FELLOWSHIPS AND AWARDS (GRANTS TO BUILD AUSTRALIA’S FUTURE CAPABILITY)

NHMRC contribute to building Australia’s future capacity for research and translation, by funding researchers to undertake health and medical research in Australia. These schemes are often referred to as “people support schemes”, an old NHMRC term, which describes well their nature as well as their intent.

These schemes are aimed at researchers at various different stages of career: Research Fellowships Practitioner Fellowships Career Development Fellowships Early Career Fellowships Translating Research Into Practice (TRIP) Fellowships Postgraduate Scholarships NHMRC-ARC Dementia Research Development Fellowships Scheme

Overviews, including eligibility

Research Fellowships

Research Fellowships offered by NHMRC are prestigious and highly competitive awards for high performing researchers. Research Fellows are generally in the top 10% of their field and are viewed as ‘pushing the boundaries’ of research. Awards are for 5 years. Applicants must be Australian citizen or permanent resident (inc NZ). Applicants must demonstrate a sustained track record of significant and quality research output

(relative to opportunity), with a “rising trajectory” of research achievement in the past 5 years. The scheme scoring criteria targets research leaders with a track record at an international level, to further develop as leaders in their field and actively participate with the Australian research community. Vision (25%)

o Vision for the next 5 years (in alignment with the aims of the scheme). Research output & leadership (60%)

o Quality of Research Output (with particular emphasis on the past five years and demonstrating an upward trajectory) and intellectual leadership, including success in obtaining grants and national and international profile.

Contribution to research (15%)o Contribution to research through research supervision, mentoring, peer review and research

administrationThe fellowship is available for researchers working in biomedical, clinical, public health and health services research areas. Full-time and part-time appointments are possible, however in practices full-time appointments dominate. Applicants must hold a PhD or equivalent research qualification.

Some advice:

Writing these applications is time consuming and difficult. Obtaining help to sell yourself is a must. These applications recognise those that have made considerable contributions to their field. The

application itself is built from forward-focussed planning (25%), evidence of substantial productively (60%), as well as track record for developing research capacity (15%).

All sections need to be thoroughly harmonised and synergistic. 25

There is a strong style complement in these applications and many rounds of review are common and input from current or recent fellows is essential.

Practitioner Fellowships

The Practitioner Fellowship scheme is a cousin the research fellowship scheme with the same citizenship requirements, however Practitioner Fellowship applicants are clinician who are obliged to provide strong evidence of research translation. Applicants must hold a PhD or equivalent research/clinical qualification such as a fellowship in a clinical college (e.g. FRACP). Applicants must be proposing to undertake research that is linked to their practice or policy activity

and which is to be undertaken in Australia.o The scheme is not intended to support academic researchers who may have clinical/public health

responsibilitiesA Practitioner Fellowship is for 5 years and is available to active clinicians, public health practitioners or health service professionals who wish to undertake research that is linked to their practice. Practitioner Fellows are expected to devote 0.3 – 0.7 FTE to the fellowship. For the majority of their

non-research time being employed by a health care authority (e.g. a hospital, primary care facility, or a state or territory health department), including applicants that are self-employed clinicians in private practice.

The scheme scoring criteria targets research leaders with a track record at an international level, to further develop as leaders in their field and actively participate with the Australian research community. Vision (25%)

o Vision for the next five years, synergy of research and practice and potential for translation. Research output & leadership (45%)

o Quality of Research Output (with particular emphasis on the past five years and demonstrating an upward trajectory) and intellectual leadership, including success in obtaining grants and national and international profile.

Research Translation (20%)o Achievements in translation of research into improved clinical practice, policy development,

and/or activities which builds capacity and facilitate implementation of research outcomes by other practitioners.

Contribution to research (15%)o Contribution to research through research supervision, mentoring, peer review and research

administration

Bear in mind: Applicants must be able to demonstrate that the research associated with their Practitioner Fellowship

may help translate research outcomes into revised practice or policy. Like Research Fellowships these applications recognise those that have made considerable

contributions to their field and all sections need to be thoroughly harmonised and synergistic. Writing these applications can be particularly difficult for those with a clinical load and it is strongly advised to start early.

Senior clinical fellows can provide invaluable insight advice and input into Vision and Research Translation sections. They can make hugely important connections that can “make” an application (particularly navigating hospital politics), but due to their time-pressures they need to be contacted early to provide substantive input from them.

The Research output & Contribution sections are more generic (relative to fellowship schemes) and input from Research Fellows should also be obtained where possible.

There is a strong style complement in these applications and many rounds of review are common and input from current or recent fellows is essential. Obtaining help to sell yourself is a must.

26

Career Development Fellowships (CDFs)

The NHMRC CDFs are four year mid-career fellowships not open to those who have been appointed to a Professorial position (including Adjunct, Clinical, Conjoint, etc. positions). There are 2 levels, creatively labelled CDF 1 & CDF 2. The label tends to imply a step-wise incremental basis to the scheme, however over recent years competition for CDF 2 level fellowships has been fierce, making them very difficult to obtain. There are a number of different types of award targeting particular research areas, making a strategic approach to the fellowship application essential.

Due to the high level of interest in the scheme NHMRC has generated a snapshot in 2011 of what successful applicants typically looked like the previous 5 years:

Published an average of 17 or more peer reviewed journal articles and two or more review articles or book chapters, with the peer review panel also taking into account first authorship and quality of the published work;

Presented at international meetings at least twice; Obtained research funding as a first named Chief Investigator in a competitive granting scheme; International postdoctoral experience; Led their own (small) research group.

This rather daunting list should be treated as a guide. Track record relative to opportunity is an important aspect of generating a comparative CDF application particularly the time periods where career disruptions are common place. Importantly different fields have different norms and it is important to emphasise in the application the nature of your outputs with respect to your field so that the Review Panel can compare “apple with apples”. While a PhD is not an eligibility criterion, in some fields not having one may be a considerable competitive disadvantage.

Over the past few years applications in Bioinformatics and Biostatistics (e.g. biological sciences, computational sciences and mathematics) have been encouraged by NHMRC.

Level of Award:CDF Level 1

2 to 7 years post PhD (as at 31 March of the application year), career disruptions may extend this. Not open to applicants with Associate Professor title. At Level 1 the applicant is expected to demonstrate they can carry out research independently or

as part of a research team, and engage in activities that will develop their expertise in biomedical, clinical, public health and/or health service delivery research. They may work with support, guidance and/or direction from more senior colleagues in establishing their research careers.

CDF Level 2 7 to 12 years (as at 31 March of the application year) At Level 2 the applicant is expected to demonstrate the ability to carry out research independently

or as part of a research team. They are expected to work independently, with limited guidance or direction from more senior colleagues in establishing their research careers. This level of appointment recognises marked distinction in the Career Development Fellow's research and scholarship compared to a Level 1 CDF. See Attachment B: Statement of Expectations for areas of significant increment over CDF Level 1 (marked in the NHMRC with an asterisk).

27

Types of CDF: R.D. Wright Biomedical CDF

For any aspect of biomedical research or fundamental research relevant to health. Normally full-time fellowships and recipients would normally be expected to work full-time on the

development of their research careers during the term of the award.

Clinical CDF Full-time or part-time clinical research involves contact with patients or has a direct link to patient

outcomes, and applicants in this category must demonstrate medical, allied health or public health professional activity.

Part-time Clinical CDFs are for people who wish to maintain an active research role but continue to provide clinical care.

Part-time fellowships are available for 40-90% (FTE), where the fractional basis is justified in professional terms, i.e. applicants must plan to combine their clinical duties with their research and be able to demonstrate an interface between the two.

Population Health CDF Full-time or part-time awards for public health and health service delivery research. Professional part-time Population Health fellowships are available for researchers who want to

maintain an active role in the delivery of public health services or the development of public health policy.

Part-time fellowships are available for 40-90% (FTE), where the fractional basis is justified in professional terms, i.e. applicants must plan to combine their public health or policy development practice work with their research and be able to demonstrate an interface between the two.

Industry based CDF These fellowships are normally full-time awards only. They are intended to support researchers with

a track record of research excellence and commercial interest so they can spend between one and two years of their award research time in an industry placement to enhance and develop skills and knowledge in the translation, product development, marketability or commercialisation of research findings.

Industry placements for Industry CDF holders may be conducted either in Australia or overseas, while the balance of the fellowship must be undertaken at a research institution in Australia. The industry placement need not be taken over a single continuous period, but should provide maximum exposure to research at the commercial interface.

Applicants need to provide clear evidence of engagement with their industry partner. These fellowships are designed to support research and development work undertaken in such

human health related fields as diagnostics, medical devices, pharmaceutical product development, biotechnology, biomaterials, disease management systems, organic synthesis, fermentation technologies, manufacturing technologies, clinical trials, toxicology, etc.

Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander CDF Full-time or part-time fellowship for researchers who are of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander

descent in health research across all its People Support programs. Applicants may be conducting research in any health or medical research field. Part-time fellowships are available for 40-90% (FTE), where the fractional basis is justified in

professional terms, i.e. applicants must plan to combine their other professional duties with their research and be able to demonstrate an interface between the two.

Co-Funded CDFs.NHMRC has partnered with a number of organisations to co-fund CDF awards. In 2016 the partners were:

The Research Foundation of Cerebral Palsy Alliance Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation (JDRF) Australia The National Heart Foundation of Australia SpinalCure Australia

28

If there is alignment between a co-funder and your proposed research the NHMRC co-funding partners document should be carefully reviewed to ensure that there is appropriate targeting (these can change from year to year).

Preparing a CDF applicationWhen preparing an application wherever possible it is important to reflect the application back to the objectives of the CDF scheme are (extracted from 1.2 of the funding rules):

Develop Australian health and medical early to mid-career researchers so they establish themselves as independent, self-directed researchers;

Help build Australia’s capacity for research in all fields of health and medical research, with a particular emphasis on clinical, population health research, and bioinformatics fields;

Increase knowledge and support the development of evidence based health policies; Encourage the translation of research outcomes into practice; Encourage the growth of knowledge-based industries in Australia by helping to bridge the gap

between research and industry and fostering an environment that values industry achievement; and

Provide a means for Australian researchers working overseas to return to Australia to continue their career development.

Applicants are expected to demonstrate that they are:o Developing international competitiveness;o Developing a capacity for original independent research;o Developing research leadership skills;o Establishing themselves as independent, self-directed health and medical researchers in a

research program or as part of a research team

There are three documents prepared by NHMRC that are indispensable when considering applying for or preparing a CDF application, these are:

Attachment A: Assessment Criteria and Scoring Matrix Provides information about each of the areas assessed and a weighting (%): Track record relative to opportunity (60%);

o A key platform in demonstrating a case for appointment – as if providing an introduction to a plenary speaker, but particularly highlighting activities, grants prizes and awards, ensuring that these are clear in a context relative to the field.

o May include: publications, grants, peer recognition, prizes and awards, research translation, contributions to research training, contributions to professional activities, industry engagement.

Potential for further career development in health and medical research (10%) o Evidence for the trajectory of your research career, ability to attract competitive peer review

funding, supervision & your potential to build a research team, evidence of growing national and international standing

Quality of career development strategy (10%) o Define your career development strategy in the short and long term – ensure that these are well

aligned with the aims of the CDF scheme Quality of the research proposal, with respect to the objectives of the CDF scheme (10%)

o Outline plans to fund your proposed research (e.g. intended funding requests, current funding, institutional support), and how your research proposal relates to scheme objectives.

Quality of the research environment relevant to the proposed project (inc. Industry Partner) (10%) o Outline access to facilities required to undertake your proposed research and evidence of the

quality of those facilities; Detail the institutional support that you will receive; Describe relevant support systems including mentoring and the potential for team building;

o For Industry category applicants, outline the suitability of your proposed Industry Partner and

29

their relationship to the aims of the CDF scheme

Attachment B: Statement of Expectations Provides insight into what NHMRC are expecting to see at each CDF level; these are key aspects to

address in an application.

Attachment C: Research Performance Descriptors These are key aspects to cover in the application where evidence is required, the more significant

items scoring more highly. In some fields an outcome that listed at the top of a category (e.g. Grants, 1. Major international award) may be very rare for your field. In all cases reflection back to your field (Track Record, with respect to opportunity) is very important.

Early Career Fellowships (ECFs)

These are four year fellowships target at early career researchers of outstanding ability who wish to make research a significant component of their career, with application in the fields of Bioinformatics and Biostatistics to being encouraged. A wide variety of disciplines is supported and like the CDF applications must be couched in terms of normative bench marks for the applicant’s field. The aims of the scheme reflect a focus on the early stages of building a career (these may be referred to as Training Awards). The ECF aims to:

Enable developing health and medical researchers of outstanding ability to undertake advanced training in health and medical research either in Australia or overseas;

Provide opportunities for Australian researchers to undertake research that is both of major importance in its field and of benefit to Australian health; and

Foster career development at the postdoctoral level by encouraging the beneficial experience of a different research environment.

Award Categories:Australian Based ECF

Full time fellowships (1.0 FTE) to engage in research that is based entirely in Australia. Includes the following:

o Peter Doherty Biomedical Fellowship Full-time training in basic biomedical science research in Australia and to

encourage persons of outstanding ability to make biomedical research a career.o Clinical Research Fellowship

Provide training, in Australia, in the field of clinical research, including the social and behavioural sciences, and to encourage persons of outstanding ability to make clinical research a significant component of their career.

o Public Health and Health Services Research Fellowship Aim to provide full-time training, in Australia, in the field of public health research

and are offered to persons of outstanding ability who wish to make public health and health services research a significant component of their career.

o Fellowship for Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander Health Research The purpose of this fellowship is to provide research training for Fellows in health

areas of particular relevance and significance to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The researcher must address the Indigenous Research Excellence Criteria (see section 6.2 of the NHMRC Funding Rules).

Overseas Based ECF Full time fellowships (1.0 FTE) to provide support for fellows who are employed to engage in

30

research where the initial two years is undertaken at an overseas institution followed by two years in Australia.

Includes the following:o CJ Martin Biomedical Fellowship

To provide full-time training in basic research within the biomedical sciences, both overseas and in Australia. Fellowships are offered to a limited number of persons of outstanding ability who wish to make biomedical research a significant component of their career.

o Neil Hamilton Fairley Clinical Fellowship To provide full-time training overseas and in Australia in the areas of clinical

research, including the social and behavioural sciences. In considering these applications NHMRC will place emphasis on the applied value of the proposed research.

o Sidney Sax Public Health and Health Services Research Fellowship This Fellowship aims to provide full-time training in public health and health

services research overseas and in Australia.o INSERM Exchange Fellowship

INSERM Exchange Fellowships aim to provide training in basic clinical or public health research within the biomedical sciences in France and Australia.

o Australia-China Exchange ECF Australian applicants: Full-time Fellowships are offered for Australian researchers

to undertake research training for two years at a Chinese institution followed by two years in Australia.

Chinese applicants (Chinese nationals): Full-time Fellowships are offered to Chinese researchers to undertake research training for two years at an Australian Institution before returning to China. NB: Chinese nationals applying for the Australia-China Exchange Early Career Fellowship are eligible to apply only for that particular Fellowship.

o Fellowship for Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander Health Research As provided above.

Health Professional ECF A part-time fellowship (0.5 – 0.9 FTE) based in Australia, that allows currently practicing health

professionals (such as doctors, dentists or allied health professionals) to share their time between research and their other clinical responsibilities.

Applications will be accepted from persons at any stage of their research career providing they can demonstrate the need for research training (with clinical supervisor support)

The remaining time is to be spent on associated professional duties (to sum to 1.0 FTE). 80% of the research component must be spent achieving the outcomes of the fellowship; the

remaining fellowship time being spent on activities directly related to research outlined under the fellowship (commercial activities, policy development or public health activities).

o Worked example: An ECF is awarded at 0.5 FTE, then at least 0.4 FTE (i.e. 80%) must be directed towards research.

EligibilityApplicants must:

Only apply for one ECF application per round.o Exception - Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Research ECF - permitted to submit a single

additional application in any other ECF category. If both are successful, the applicant will only be offered the one that ranked highest.

Submit a complete application (including referee reports). Not have previously held an NHMRC ECF or hold a NHMRC-ARC Dementia Research Development

31

Fellowship.Hold a Doctorate of Philosophy (PhD):

In a health or non-health related field of research (or will submit by 31 Dec. in the year of application), and are proposing to undertake health related research.

Note: Applicants who do not hold a PhD but can demonstrate an equivalent research intensive qualification may also be eligible to apply.

Hold PhD for < 2 years At 30 June in the year of application, have held their PhD for no more than two years (date of letter

advising that their PhD thesis was passed – not upon receipt of degree) o Career disruptions exist may extend this date.

Clinical ECFs for < 4 years a four year limit Neil Hamilton Fairley Clinical Fellowships and Full-time Australian Based Clinical

Fellowships, and applicants in other categories with appropriate clinical qualificationsHealth Professional ECF, no limit post PhD

There is no time limit imposed.

Co-Funded ECFsNHMRC has partnered with a number of organisations to co-fund ECF awards. In 2016 the partners were:

The Research Foundation of Cerebral Palsy Alliance Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation (JDRF) R.G. Menzies Fellowship Multiple Sclerosis Research Australia (Betty Cuthbert Fellowship) The National Heart Foundation of Australia SpinalCure Australia

If there is alignment between a co-funder an your proposed research the NHMRC co-funding partners doc should be carefully reviewed to ensure that appropriate targeting (these can change from year to year).

Preparing an ECF applicationNew applicants commonly focus on this part of the project, however this aspect only accounts for at best 30% of the overall assessment. When framing an NHMRC ECF application a focus should be on the applicant’s career as ‘the project’. This change of focus is often new to early career researchers and takes some time to integrate into the application (months rather than weeks).

The scheme aims to advance the training of talented ECRs and as such it is considered “poor-form” to stay in the same place as where the applicant’s PhD was undertaken. Where an applicant wishes to stay in the same environment where they undertook their PhD training, they should carefully justify why this is the best place nationally for them to (i) undertake the proposed work, & (ii) to undertake further training that will successfully position them to be successful beyond the term of the fellowship.

Applications should be pitched toward the NHMRC scoring matrix which provides information about each of the areas assessed and a weighting (%) Attachment A: Early Career Fellowship Scoring Matrix):

Research Output - relative to opportunity (50%); o Quantity and quality of research publications in their field, grant funding, conference

presentations, influence on policy or practice, patents Research Proposal and Environment (30%)

o The research proposal objectives, design, feasibility, significance to human health o The research environment, appropriateness to the proposed research & provision of mentoring

and training arrangements o Justification for remaining in the same research group is sound (if applicable).

Professional Contribution – Relative to opportunity (20%) o Contributions to research such as: recognition through prizes and awards, supervisory experience,

broader community engagement, contribution to the research community (inc. peer review

32

experience)

Due to the high level of interest in the scheme NHMRC generated a snapshot in 2011 of what successful applicants typically looked like the previous 5 years:

On average published peer reviewed journal articles: o Basic science fellows the average was 9 (median 8). o Clinical fellows (incl. preventive health) the average was 12 (median 10). o Public health fellows (includes health services research) the average was 14 (median 13). o About 50% of published articles were as first author.

Presented at national or international meetings ≥ once, where: o Basic science fellows attended an average of 4 national and 2 international conferences. o Clinical & public health fellows attended an average of 7 national and 4 international conferences. o Clinical and public health fellows tend to have involvement as conference chairs or conveners.

Received NHMRC funding as a named CI (10% of fellows, but rarely as Chief Investigator A) or from a postgraduate scholarship (19% of Fellows). Acted (>1) as a reviewer for a journal, member of a committee, volunteered for community

presentations, wrote articles for news, or have been interviewed by the media. Approximately 25% of Fellows reported career disruptions.

This list can be rather daunting and off-putting to those new to applying to funding schemes. Experience has shown that ECRs typically underestimate their research outputs, over-look some items that could be of value, and have difficulty in pitching an application in the terms required by the funding body. The above list does provide examples some ways to meet the ‘goal posts’ for the scheme, but other than that the list is of limited use. ECRs are strongly encouraged to seek advice from the Grants Office.

NHMRC-ARC Dementia Research Development Fellowships Scheme

DescriptionFellowships are offered to a limited number of early career researchers of outstanding ability who wish to make research focused on dementia a significant component of their career. The scheme follows the same general format as the ECF scheme with Australian & overseas based awards, as well as health professional categories. However these awards have a priority framework that applicants must to address (see below).

Eligibility Hold a PhD in a health or non-health related field of research, or will submit their thesis by 30 June

2016 and propose to undertake research under the priority framework for dementia research (Attachment A).

o Note: Applicants who do not hold a PhD but can demonstrate an equivalent research intensive qualification may also be eligible to apply.

At 30 June 2016, have held their PhD for no more than four years (from the date of the letter advising that their PhD thesis was passed – not upon receipt of degree) unless career disruptions exist.

An exception applies for Health Professional Research Fellowships where there is no time limit.

Scheme aimsThe specific objectives of the scheme are to:

Enable developing researchers undertake advanced research training and undertake research relevant to dementia either in Australia or overseas.

33

Attract researchers into dementia research from other fields such as neurobiology, immunology, chemistry, bioengineering, information and communications technology, genomics, epidemiology and cell and vascular biology.

Foster career development at the postdoctoral level by encouraging the beneficial experience of a different research environment.

Promote opportunities for developing Australian researchers to undertake advanced training and research in the fundamental sciences, social, economic and cultural fields relevant to dementia.

Scoring CriteriaPart A - Personal Achievement 35%

Undergraduate / Honours / Other Degree 5% Research Experience and Professional Skills 10% Potential to succeed 10%

o Supervisor Report (question 2) & o Justification for remaining in same research group

Prizes/Awards/Conferences Organised/Courses (attended and/or conducted) 10%Part B – Project 25%

Criteria Component 1: 15%o Quality of Project including feasibility, significance and impact relevant to the dementia

research framework Criteria Component 2: 10%

o Supervisor/Research Environment relevant to the proposed research project (Supervisor report questions 1, 3 and 4)

Part C - Research Output 40% Quality and Quantity including but not limited to publications, patents, influence on policy and

research funding

Note: It is recognised that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander applicants often make additional valuable contributions to policy development, clinical/public health leadership and/or service delivery, community activities and linkages, and are often representatives on key committees. If applicable, these contributions should be considered when assessing, research output and track record.

Priority Framework. Applications must fall under this framework.

In summary:

Primary Prevention to prevent the disease from developingResearch into the fundamental causes of dementia disease, the factors that determine people’s risk and resilience and trigger events.

Research into origins of dementia and related neurodegenerative disease Research into disease mechanisms and models

Secondary Prevention and treatment for people developing dementiaResearch targeting early diagnosis, early intervention and new treatments including through development of new therapeutic approaches.

Disease definitions and diagnosis research. Treatment and prevention research: Enhance progress in identifying new targets and developing

drugs and treatments.

Quality of Life and CareResearch to improve the quality of life for those with dementia and their carers. Health and aged care systems research to inform policy and enable the healthcare system to deal more effectively and

34

efficiently with the rising number of individuals with dementia. Health and social care research: Evaluate the equity of access to and the effectiveness and cost

effectiveness of pathways to diagnosis, treatment, care and support for neurodegenerative disease.

Translating Research Into Practice Fellowship (TRIP)

DescriptionThe TRIP Fellowships scheme is a two year part-time Fellowship providing protected time to support future leaders to implement established evidence into practice.

Objectives:The specific objectives of the scheme are to:

To build capacity in research translation by supporting future leaders to undertake projects focused on translating robust or best-available evidence into practice that will either have localised health benefits to patients or broader and deeper impact on health care, the health system, public health, national policy, and/or service delivery.

To create a critical mass of experts in the area of research translation to support and sustain change in the long term.

Assessment criteriaApplicants are assessed and ranked against the Assessment Criteria listed below:1. Translation project - The quality, feasibility, sustainability and significance of the research translation

project (45% weighting).2. Research output and leadership – Potential of the applicant to develop as a future leader in research

translation with emphasis on the past five years (55% weighting).

Applicants should address any other matters that they believe are relevant to the objectives of the Fellowship scheme. Applicants should describe their achievements relative to their field and opportunity.

Time Commitment TRIP Fellowships are 0.5 FTE awards for the duration of the Fellowship. The Fellow’s employer is expected to fund the balance of the applicant’s time. The balance of the

applicant’s time employed may range from 0.1 to 0.5 FTE. The employer or the applicant (if self-employed), must give an indication to make time available for the proposed project and professional development.

Fellows are required to combine their research translation project effectively with their career, and the Administering Institution, and/or the participating institution/department where the project is to be undertaken, and employing institutions are asked to protect the Fellow’s project time. This may involve arranging back-fill to free up successful candidates from their direct usual duties. A letter from the Fellow’s employing institution must be uploaded to RGMS when completing the application. If the applicant is self-employed, then a written undertaking that the expected time will be spent on the Fellowship must be uploaded to RGMS as part of the application.

Professional Development in Leadership and Implementation Science AllowanceAn allowance of $20,000 per annum is payable for successful applicants to assist with the associated cost of their professional development training. This allowance can also be used for travel and accommodation expenses (associated with professional development course/s) within Australia and overseas.

35

The Translation projectApplicants must submit a proposal outlining their translation project which should focus on the use of robust, good existing research evidence that has not been applied well in practice. The translation project should aim to improve clinical/health care practice, policy/health care systems and/or public health. The project must therefore be focused on implementing interventions/treatments/procedures. It must address the quality of the evidence for the intervention/treatment/procedure which must be known to be effective in routine clinical/public health practice or policy.

The translation project should aim to improve human health by: Translating research evidence into practice in an area where there is a strong, existing evidence -

practice gap, developing methods and capacity to improve the effectiveness of clinical/health care practice, health policy or health systems through increased use of evidence;

Engaging relevant stakeholders in ways to increase the uptake of evidence and promoting its spread; and

Creating sustainable improvements in clinical/health care practice, policy, systems or public health as a result of the translation project.

The proposal should: Be substantiated by current research knowledge identifying a gap between evidence and practice; Address the quality of the evidence for the intervention/treatment/procedure being implemented; Be of a scope that it can be completed within the two-year Fellowship tenure; Provide a description of additional resources to be secured to support the implementation project’s

infrastructure in order to make the project successful and sustainable; and Where applicable, be consistent with the Funding Partner’s priorities

Development of Research Translation SkillsFellows are expected to develop their skills in research translation, leadership and communications through study and professional development course(s) provided either by their administering institution or another institution that offers such opportunities. This is to ensure that Fellows are well equipped to achieve the goals of their project. The levels of training courses are not restricted. They may include (or be part of) short courses, residential courses, certificate, diploma, degree, postgraduate diploma or Masters level training. Fellows are advised to choose a course in which the workload is compatible with the combined demands of the research translation project and of the Fellow’s employment.

There are many courses in research translation and/or knowledge translation being offered by various health services and tertiary institutions and these should be explored by applicants to determine the most appropriate training opportunities, given the professional development package provided by this Fellowship. Fellows may use the professional development allowance of the Fellowship for Australian or overseas-based courses, and associated travel/accommodation costs. Information on training courses is available on the NHMRC website under Translating Research Into Practice (TRIP) Fellowships .

Applicants must therefore demonstrate in their application, a schedule of activities that will contribute to the development of skills over the two-year period that will assist them in achieving the goals of their project. The lists of essential elements of training which Fellows may need in order to assist them in their research translation project are listed in the table below. Fellows are expected to use it as a guide only, as each Fellow’s individual needs may vary.

The applicant’s nominated Project Mentor will be expected to assist and support the Fellow during the course of the project. Appropriate Project Mentor qualifications, skills and experience in implementation science form part of the assessment of the applicant’s project under Assessment Criterion 1: Translation Project.

Key Elements of TrainingResearch translation Principles and theories of implementing change in health care/public health in

36

Principles of Implementation Science

relation to individuals, organisations and the broader health care system. This may include understanding of evidence-practice gaps and the creation of sustainable change.

Determinants of Effective Change in Healthcare, Practice, and Public Health

Identification and management of barriers to change and the use of enablers to enhance the implementation in a health care/public health setting.

Health Evidence, Clinical Guidelines and Health Innovations Research translation

Attributes of quality evidence and the role of evidence and clinical guidelines in influencing clinical practice, health care policy and public health (evidence-based practice). This may include skills in reviewing health care research literature (systematic literature reviews), appraising, prioritising and implementing research evidence and developing clinical guideline recommendations.

Interventions and Strategies in Health Care/Public Health

Theory and practice of interventions; including which interventions work, for whom, and in what situations. This may include intervention techniques (e.g. multifaceted interventions, use of opinion leaders/champions), while identifying areas that influence health policy and economics to ensure sustainable outcomes.

Managing Projects in Health Advanced health care/public health project planning techniques (e.g. project design, stakeholder engagement including consumer, performance monitoring, data collection and analysis, time and resource management, flexibility, ethics). This may include diffusion of innovation theory, sustainability science and complex adaptive systems/systems thinking.

Post Implementation Review Program evaluation theories, process outcomes and evaluation, evaluation design in relation to research design, evaluation research, frameworks and techniques for complex interventions in health care/public health settings, specifically with the aim of informing the evidence base, policy making and clinical/public health practice.

Leadership and Influence Development of individual leadership styles with the aim of positioning Fellows as health care leaders. Explorations into the theory and practice of leadership techniques such as influencing individuals and teams, networking, emotional intelligence and advanced communication skills (writing, media, marketing, public speaking) will be crucial elements of study.

The Project MentorEach Fellow must nominate a Project Mentor. The Project Mentor should be a senior person from the Administering Institution, the participating institution where the project is to be undertaken, or from the employing institution. The Project Mentor must be able to provide regular guidance, supervision and support to the Fellow on day-to-day issues related to the project. It is important that the Project Mentor has skills and experience in implementation science. Support in the area of implementation science from the Project Mentor forms part of the assessment criteria under Criterion 1- Translation Project (TRIP Fellowship Scoring Descriptors). It is expected that the Mentor will be committed to the success of the project and will assist the Fellow in overcoming obstacles that may arise.Attributes to consider when selecting a Project Mentor include:

Knowledge, skills and experience in implementation science Leadership experience; Knowledge and skill in research translation; Experience with influencing clinicians, executive, health care personnel, policy makers and

government; Monitoring and evaluation experience; Publication experience; Ability to provide advice on how to overcome barriers; and Availability for regular meetings and mentoring support.

Selection processApplications are assessed and evaluated through a peer review process drawing on the assessment criteria

37

given below.

Statement of ExpectationsThe Statement of Expectations outlines anticipated standards which will characterise TRIP Fellows’ project activities, professional attributes and existing achievements. Assessment of TRIP Fellowship applicants will be guided by these standards and include attributes such as a demonstrated commitment to the health care area, a track record in quality improvement or other initiatives to improve health care, public health, demonstration of leadership potential, and involvement in professional activities. While experience in health policy and health system/delivery improvements will be considered, experience in this area is not essential.

Applicants should note the Scoring Descriptors which identify professional attributes of importance to this program. The list of scoring descriptors is meant to be indicative rather than exhaustive.

Applicants for an NHMRC TRIP Fellowship will be expected to articulate an evidence-practice gap of significant importance in their area of interest and a convincing proposal for a two year part-time research translation improvement initiative. TRIP Fellows are expected to lead a project that will develop their knowledge of research translation, and create expertise in practical aspects of getting research evidence into practice in clinical settings, in the broader health care environment, in health policy or public health initiatives. They may work with support from more senior colleagues or independently in a leadership role within a team.

TRIP Fellows are expected to strategically acquire training and skills to establish themselves as leaders in research translation throughout the Fellowship. In the development of the Fellow as a leader, it is expected that Fellows will be involved in:

Professional activities including attendance at conferences and seminars; Training others and being trained in the Fellow's field of expertise; Make contributions to policy development for professional bodies; Have involvement in health policy and/or health system/delivery improvements at local, state

and/or national levels.

TRIP Fellowships Assessment CriteriaNHMRC TRIP Fellowship Funding Rules, provides the criteria against which TRIP Fellowship applications will be reviewed. A brief summary of the criteria for this scheme is provided below.

Aims of the SchemeThe TRIP Fellowships scheme aims to:1. Build capacity in research translation by supporting future leaders to undertake projects focussed on

translating robust or best-available evidence into practice that will either have localised health benefits to patients, or broader and deeper impact in health care, the health system, public health, national policy, and/or service delivery.

2. Create a critical mass of experts in the area of research translation to support and sustain change in the long term.

Assessment CriteriaAll applicants will be assessed and ranked against the Assessment Criteria listed below and on how well their application meets the aims of the scheme. All criteria are assessed relative to opportunity and take into account any career disruptions.

1. Translation project – (The quality, feasibility and significance of the research translation project).2. Research output and leadership – (Potential of the applicant to develop as a future leader in

research translation (with emphasis on the past 5 years).

Postgraduate Scholarships 38

This scheme aims to support outstanding health, medical and dental graduates early in their careers so that can be attain a research-focussed postgraduate degree:

i. Doctorate of Philosophy (PhD)ii. Masters (MSc) degree.

Applicants may only apply for one Postgraduate Scholarship per application round. Applicants should secure the full support of their supervisor before commencing an application.

Eligibility Applicants must be an Australian citizen, an Australian Permanent Resident, or a New Zealand

citizen and must be based in Australia for the duration of the award. An applicant for an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander Health Research Scholarship is permitted to

also submit a single application in any other (one) PGS category. Ineligible situations:

o Those holding other Australian Government Scholarships (e.g. Australian Postgraduate Award, APA);

o Final year of an honours degree;o Proposed degree is not a PhD or a Research Masters degree;o Proposed degree is not a research degree.

Scoring matrix: Personal Achievement (75%)

Academic Record (40%) Research/Professional or Postgraduate Training Experience (25%) Publications/Track Record (10%)

Project (25%) Research Project (10%) Suitability of the Supervisor and Institution (10%) Independent Referee Report (5%)

Applicants of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander Descent

NHMRC is committed to developing career paths for Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander peoples in health research, and encourages applications from Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander peoples.

NHMRC is also committed to improving the health outcomes of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and encourages applications that address Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health.

General Tips

A word on RGMS. Applications must be submitted via NHMRC’s online grants management system RGMS. The system is not particularly user-friendly, though is usable enough when acquainted. An application draws on a database user’s profile data that they must enter as well as the online application. Unfortunately, getting used to RGMS and establishing your Profile in RGMS takes time (think about adding this to your regular tasks over weeks rather than days). Once your Profile is established it will be drawn on for any other NHMRC application in the future.

CitizenshipMany schemes require that applicants must be an Australian citizen, an Australian Permanent Resident, or

39

a New Zealand citizen and must be based in Australia for the duration of the award, although some schemes have overseas components.

Network for successEach fellowship scheme has its own particular culture that has grown over time. Recently successful applicants provide an invaluable source of insight into what makes a strong application. Where possible it is wise to source several such people to overcome their prejudices and provide a wider scope of material from which to garner inspiration. Hopefully in the future you will be willing to mentor someone with your successful application.

40