Putting Together A Research Bid: A Beginners Guide

1. Introduction and background

This section should explain why the work requires to be carried out. The problem should be clearly articulated and the significance of the issue to current practice explained.


The current state of play and the limitations of work done to date should also be outlined here. The vast majority of this should have come from your literature search.

It is vitally important that this sections remains focused with each 'strand' is related to each other in a logical way. For example, if the proposed project is to see if kids use their inhalers at school and if they don't why, it is not necessary to start with a treatise on the management of asthma in children. The starting point would be that non-compliance is a factor in poor disease management and symptom control, peer pressure and school regulations may be a factor in children's compliance.

The introduction should end with a brief but succinct statement of what the project is trying to find. This is often termed the 'research question' or 'null hypothesis' e.g. ‘This study is designed to identify the factors which affect compliance with inhaled asthma therapy of children at school’ or 'This study tests the hypothesis that there are less errors on pharmacist written discharge scripts compared to those written by junior doctors'.

2. Aims and objectives

The overall aim of a research study is the research study is the research question as discussed above. The objectives are the aim broken down into a number of complimentary 'chunks' which both describe what the project is to find out and are of a realistic achievable size.

Objectives should be specific and use hard words such as 'quantify', 'identify', 'compare', 'demonstrate' rather than soft, nebulous words like 'assess', 'examine', 'look into', 'evaluate'.

Objectives should be achievable, realistic, and relevant.

3. Method

This may seem straightforward and should be i.e. outlining the methodology you will use to achieve the objectives. It is basically how you are going to achieve your objectives. However in clinical, social, economic and epidemiological research, one or more of which pharmacy practice research studies usually are, the tools and variables are much more diverse than in scientific research. It is vital to consider a wide range of issues some of which are summarised below.

Numbers. Patient (or other subject) number should be determined by the numbers needed to show significant differences, not the number likely to be seen.
Sample. Make sure you describe your sample fully justifying the reasons why it is not representative if that is appropriate. If you have a control group or phase describe it fully and explain how you will deal with the variables.
Statistics. Statistical advice is helpful when carrying out comparative, economic and evaluative studies. A number of NHS Regional Office R & D directorates contract with academic statisticians to provide support for health services research. These are available for pharmacists employed by or providing contractors services to the NHS. When using statistics it is important to use the correct tests and treat the data in the correct way. Failure to do so will result in wrong conclusions.
Tools. Using the right research tool is very important. If possible use a tool which has been validated and/or used in previous work. There are a whole range of health assessment tools, intervention monitoring systems, questionnaires, etc. described in the literature. If applicable then use one of these.
Sometimes it is necessary to draw up a questionnaire or interview. Great care should be taken in the design of these to avoid ambiguity and bias. Sociological or psychological advice can make all the difference in putting these together. Questionnaires and interviews should always be piloted to identify problems, ambiguities, etc. Remember the method of administration e.g. interview, survey, etc. is important also. Patients who know you may tell you 'what they think you want to hear' rather than what you need to know.
No matter what tool or tools you use make sure that they are appropriate for the use you are putting them to.

4. Outcomes

Some research bids require you to outline the outcomes that the work should achieve. Alternatively you may be asked what use the findings can be put to and/or what changes in practice may result from the work. If you have thought through your background and introduction these should be obvious. In addition to primary outcomes there may be a number of secondary outcomes which may be easier to measure even if they are less powerful.

5. Resources

What resources you require or how you propose to spend the grant is important. The funding body will want to know that it's money will be spent wisely and they are getting value for money. Include all likely expenditure and remember to include all on costs such as National Insurance, superannuation/pension, and allowances such as London Weightings. Make sure you include VAT if you have to pay it on goods or services. Technically research work is VAT-exempt but it may be very difficult or time consuming to reclaim or obtain exemption, and particularly, in small budget projects, less hassle to just pay it.

Be reasonable and don't include things in the budget just for the sake of it and check what the funding will and won't pay for. Some NHS bodies will not pay for computers or word processing or database software, for example, as it is assumed that you should have these.

6. Quality in research

Poor quality research means bad results, potential risks to patients and wasted money. Therefore it is important that no matter what is being researched, or what size the project is quality should be engineered in from the design stage. There are many ways of doing this but following the guidelines for NHS research gives even the most inexperienced researcher a framework for quality research. They are -
  • The work should be relevant to the NHS in its widest sense.
  • It should be protocol-driven with a clear research question.
  • The work should be capable of peer review.
  • It should be generalisable so that others can benefit from it.
  • When completed it should be capable of being published.

CHRIS CAIRNS
Director, Pharmacy Academic Practice Unit
May 1999