How to Trip Rapid Review

Step 1: Select articles relevant to your search (remember the system is only optimised for single intervention studies)

Step 2: press

Step 3: review the result, and maybe amend the or if you know better! If we're unsure of the overall sentiment of the trial we will display the conclusion under the article title. We then require you to tell us what the correct sentiment is.

18,391 results for

"grant funding" or "obtaining grants" or "getting grants" or "grant awards" or (grants and "how to")

by
...
Alerts

Export results

Use check boxes to select individual results below

SmartSearch available

Trip's SmartSearch engine has discovered connected searches & results. Click to show

21. Peer Review Practices for Evaluating Biomedical Research Grants: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

understanding of whether or how bibliometric indexes should be used requires further clarification. For instance, perhaps a specific range of years or narrowing types of publications (ie, excluding reviews) would lead to better value for bibliometric indexes. Li and Agha found that better peer review scores correlate with better research outcomes. They analyzed publication and patenting outcomes of >130 000 R01 grants funded by the NIH and concluded that the system works. They determined that percentile (...) aspects of the grant review process. The 11-minute video covered the importance of the review process, how scores influence funding decisions, the meaning of each value on the rating scale, how to assign scores, and why it is important to understand the funding criteria of the specific agency. Novice and experienced reviewers were randomly assigned to view the video or to visit a website with information on the grant program and funding criteria. They then assigned ratings to specific examples

2017 American Heart Association

22. Advisory on Granting Privileges for Deep Sedation to Non-Anesthesiologist Physicians

Advisory on Granting Privileges for Deep Sedation to Non-Anesthesiologist Physicians 1 Advisory on Granting Privileges for Deep Sedation to Non-Anesthesiologist Physicians Committee of Origin: Quality Management and Departmental Administration (Approved by the ASA House of Delegates on October 20, 2010 and last amended on October 25, 2017) 1. INTRODUCTION The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) is committed to improving patient safety and quality of care in the administration of all (...) for physicians who are not anesthesia physicians to administer sedative and analgesic drugs to establish a level of deep sedation. They are written to apply to every setting in which an internal or external privileging process is required for granting privileges to administer sedative and analgesic drugs to establish a level of deep sedation (e.g., hospital, freestanding procedure center, ambulatory surgery center, physician’s or dentist’s office, etc.). These recommendations do not lead to the granting

2017 American Society of Anesthesiologists

23. An Agenda for Increasing Grant Funding of Emergency Medicine Education Research. (PubMed)

An Agenda for Increasing Grant Funding of Emergency Medicine Education Research. Funding is a perennial challenge for medical education researchers. Through a consensus process, the authors developed a multifaceted agenda for increasing funding of education research in emergency medicine (EM). Priority agenda items include developing resources to increase the competitiveness of medical education research faculty in grant applications, identifying means by which departments may bolster (...) their faculty's grant writing success, taking long-term steps to increase the number of grants available to education researchers in the field, and encouraging a shift in cultural attitudes toward education research.© 2012 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

Full Text available with Trip Pro

2012 Academic Emergency Medicine

24. Effects of seniority, gender and geography on the bibliometric output and collaboration networks of European Research Council (ERC) grant recipients. (PubMed)

, and the collaboration networks of European Research Council (ERC) starting (junior) and advanced (senior) grantees. For this study, we used a cohort of 355 grantees from the Life Sciences domain of years 2007-09. While senior grantees had overall greater publication output, junior grantees had a significantly greater pre-post grant award increase in their overall number of publications and in those on which they had last authorship. The collaboration networks size and the number of sub-communities increased for all (...) grantees, although more pronounced for juniors, as they departed from smaller and more compact pre-award co-authorship networks. Both junior and senior grantees increased the size of the community within which they were collaborating in the post-award period. Pre-post grant award performance of grantees was not related to gender, although male junior grantees had more publications than female grantees before and after the grant award. Junior grantees located in lower research-performing countries

Full Text available with Trip Pro

2019 PLoS ONE

25. Early career academic productivity among emergency physicians with r01 grant funding. (PubMed)

Early career academic productivity among emergency physicians with r01 grant funding. The objective was to describe the early academic career activities of emergency physician (EP) scientists with recent Research Project Grant Program (R01) grant funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH).The curricula vitae of all EP scientists in the United States currently funded by the NIH were analyzed for evidence of advanced research training and frequency and type of publication and grant (...) writing. Each investigator was surveyed for demographic features and estimation of protected time during their early career development.Eighteen investigators were identified. The median length of time from completion of residency to receipt of their first R01 grant was 11 years (interquartile range [IQR] = 11 to 15 years), and the median age of investigators at the time of this award was 43 years (IQR = 39 to 47 years). At the time of their award, researchers were publishing five peer-reviewed

Full Text available with Trip Pro

2011 Academic Emergency Medicine

26. Grant Funds and the Medical Library (PubMed)

Grant Funds and the Medical Library 13536627 2000 07 01 2018 12 01 0025-7338 46 2 1958 Apr Bulletin of the Medical Library Association Bull Med Libr Assoc Grant funds and the medical library. 185-7 POSTELL W D WD eng Journal Article United States Bull Med Libr Assoc 0421037 0025-7338 OM Financial Management Financing, Organized Humans Libraries Libraries, Medical 5834:29163:341 LIBRARIES, MEDICAL 1958 4 1 1958 4 1 0 1 1958 4 1 0 0 ppublish 13536627 PMC200250

Full Text available with Trip Pro

1958 Bulletin of the Medical Library Association

27. Getting grants for research in general practice. (PubMed)

Getting grants for research in general practice. 1223269 1976 07 06 2018 11 13 0035-8797 25 160 1975 Nov The Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners J R Coll Gen Pract Getting grants for research in general practice. 793-8 eng Journal Article England J R Coll Gen Pract 7503107 0035-8797 IM Charities Family Practice Financing, Government Humans Research Support as Topic United Kingdom 1975 11 1 1975 11 1 0 1 1975 11 1 0 0 ppublish 1223269 PMC2157793 Lancet. 1975 Sep 20;2(7934):545

Full Text available with Trip Pro

1975 The Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners

28. Journal Clubs: 2. Why and how to run them and how to publish them

Journal Clubs: 2. Why and how to run them and how to publish them Journal Clubs: 2. Why and how to run them and how to publish them | BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine We use cookies to improve our service and to tailor our content and advertising to you. You can manage your cookie settings via your browser at any time. To learn more about how we use cookies, please see our . Log in using your username and password For personal accounts OR managers of institutional accounts Username * Password * your (...) user name or password? Search for this keyword Search for this keyword Main menu Log in using your username and password For personal accounts OR managers of institutional accounts Username * Password * your user name or password? You are here Journal Clubs: 2. Why and how to run them and how to publish them Article Text Journal club Journal Clubs: 2. Why and how to run them and how to publish them Free Jeffrey K Aronson Statistics from Altmetric.com Journal clubs have many functions, including

Full Text available with Trip Pro

2017 Evidence-Based Medicine

29. Evaluability assessment of "growing healthy communities," a mini-grant program to improve access to healthy foods and places for physical activity. (PubMed)

, reflecting other key themes (described in detail in the manuscript) that affected program implementation and evaluation, including collaboration, limited time and measurement integration.The EA process provided pilot data that suggest that other state, regional, and national funders should provide centralized assistance for data collection and evaluation from the outset of a mini-grant award program. (...) Evaluability assessment of "growing healthy communities," a mini-grant program to improve access to healthy foods and places for physical activity. Mini-grants have been used to stimulate multisector collaboration in support of public health initiatives by funding non-traditional partners, such as economic development organizations. Such mini-grants have the potential to increase access to healthy foods and places for physical activity through built environment change, especially in small

Full Text available with Trip Pro

2019 BMC Public Health

30. A cross-sectional study of predatory publishing emails received by career development grant awardees. (PubMed)

A cross-sectional study of predatory publishing emails received by career development grant awardees. To investigate the scope of academic spam emails (ASEs) among career development grant awardees and the factors associated with the amount of time spent addressing them.A cross-sectional survey of career development grant investigators via an anonymous online survey was conducted. In addition to demographic and professional information, we asked investigators to report the number of ASEs (...) received each day, how they determined whether these emails were spam and time they spent per day addressing them. We used bivariate analysis to assess factors associated with the amount of time spent on ASEs.An online survey sent via email on three separate occasions between November and December 2016.All National Institutes of Health career development awardees funded in the 2015 fiscal year.Factors associated with the amount of time spent addressing ASEs.A total of 3492 surveys were emailed

Full Text available with Trip Pro

2019 BMJ open

31. A Public Health of Consequence: Shifting the Cultural Narrative From Churning Grants to a Scholarship of Consequence. (PubMed)

A Public Health of Consequence: Shifting the Cultural Narrative From Churning Grants to a Scholarship of Consequence. A confluence of challenges is impeding faculty members' ability to prioritize research with the goal of achieving a public health of consequence: research designed to improve conditions to produce a healthier society. Together, these challenges create a "churn" culture in which faculty focus on generating new business (i.e., grant funding and associated incentives) to replace (...) lost revenue (i.e., expiring grants); this culture can relegate public health impact to a back seat.We share three strategies and related insights from our efforts to shift our department's cultural narrative from churn to a "scholarship of consequence": crafting research proposals of consequence, fostering thought leadership through collaborative writing, and mentoring faculty with a view to a scholarship of consequence.We describe each of the strategies and interim progress. Although

2019 American Journal of Public Health

32. The impact or effect of 'wish- granting' interventions on the psychosocial and physical wellbeing of children with life threatening conditions, and their families

The impact or effect of 'wish- granting' interventions on the psychosocial and physical wellbeing of children with life threatening conditions, and their families Print | PDF PROSPERO This information has been provided by the named contact for this review. CRD has accepted this information in good faith and registered the review in PROSPERO. CRD bears no responsibility or liability for the content of this registration record, any associated files or external websites. Email salutation (e.g. "Dr (...) no). For stratified analyses, a minimum number of 8 studies per subgroup is required. ">Subgroup analyses A sensitivity analysis is conducted to assess the impact of decisions taken in the review process on the meta-analysis outcome. These decisions may have been made in various stages of the review, e.g. the decision to exclude certain disease models, the decision to pool certain units of measurement for an outcome, the choice of effect measure, how subgroup variables are stratified etc. In order to assess

2018 PROSPERO

33. Effectiveness of innovation grants to smallholder agricultural producers

Project Fund (GTZ) SSRN Social Science Research Network TDS Technology development site (NAADS) USAID United States Agency for International Development VDC Village development committee (Sierra Leone) WUR Wageningen University and Research (the Netherlands) Effectiveness of innovation grants to smallholder agricultural producers: an explorative systematic review v Abstract Grants for agricultural innovation are common but grant funds specifically targeted to smallholder farmers remain relatively rare (...) Grants for agricultural innovation are common but grant funds specifically targeted to smallholder farmers remain relatively rare. Nevertheless, they are receiving increasing recognition as a promising venue for agricultural innovation. They stimulate smallholders to experiment with improved practices, to become pro- active and to engage with research and extension providers. The systematic review covered three modalities of disbursing these grants to smallholder farmers and their organisations

2013 EPPI Centre

34. Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Grant Program With Phoenix House of New York

: August 21, 2018 Last Update Posted : August 21, 2018 See Sponsor: Phoenix House Foundation, Inc. Collaborator: New York University Information provided by (Responsible Party): Phoenix House Foundation, Inc. Study Details Study Description Go to Brief Summary: The purpose of this study is to provide a process and outcome evaluation of the HMRF grant-funded Connections program. Phoenix Houses of New York, Inc. has been given a new grant to continue and refine its successful Connections program which (...) to parenting and children? Study Design Go to Layout table for study information Study Type : Observational Estimated Enrollment : 3825 participants Observational Model: Case-Only Time Perspective: Prospective Official Title: Program Evaluation of Connections, a Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood (HMRF) Grant Funded Program. Actual Study Start Date : May 27, 2016 Estimated Primary Completion Date : June 30, 2020 Estimated Study Completion Date : September 30, 2020 Groups and Cohorts Go

2018 Clinical Trials

35. Studying grant decision-making: a linguistic analysis of review reports (PubMed)

Studying grant decision-making: a linguistic analysis of review reports Peer and panel review are the dominant forms of grant decision-making, despite its serious weaknesses as shown by many studies. This paper contributes to the understanding of the grant selection process through a linguistic analysis of the review reports. We reconstruct in that way several aspects of the evaluation and selection process: what dimensions of the proposal are discussed during the process and how, and what

Full Text available with Trip Pro

2018 Scientometrics

36. Strategies to Prevent or Reduce Gender Bias in Peer Review of Research Grants: A Rapid Scoping Review. (PubMed)

to the committee members for evaluation. The proportion of successful applications led by women did not change with gender-blinding, although the number of successful applications that were led by men increased slightly.There is limited research on interventions to mitigate gender bias in the peer review of grants. Only one study was identified and no difference in the proportion of women who were successful in receiving grant funding was observed. Our results suggest that interventions to prevent gender bias (...) Strategies to Prevent or Reduce Gender Bias in Peer Review of Research Grants: A Rapid Scoping Review. To review the literature on strategies implemented or identified to prevent or reduce gender bias in peer review of research grants.Studies of any type of qualitative or quantitative design examining interventions to reduce or prevent gender bias during the peer review of health-related research grants were included. Electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, Education Resources

Full Text available with Trip Pro

2017 PLoS ONE

37. Low agreement among reviewers evaluating the same NIH grant applications (PubMed)

Low agreement among reviewers evaluating the same NIH grant applications Obtaining grant funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is increasingly competitive, as funding success rates have declined over the past decade. To allocate relatively scarce funds, scientific peer reviewers must differentiate the very best applications from comparatively weaker ones. Despite the importance of this determination, little research has explored how reviewers assign ratings to the applications (...) they review and whether there is consistency in the reviewers' evaluation of the same application. Replicating all aspects of the NIH peer-review process, we examined 43 individual reviewers' ratings and written critiques of the same group of 25 NIH grant applications. Results showed no agreement among reviewers regarding the quality of the applications in either their qualitative or quantitative evaluations. Although all reviewers received the same instructions on how to rate applications and format

Full Text available with Trip Pro

2018 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

38. Tobacco Dependence Treatment Grants: A Collaborative Approach to the Implementation of WHO Tobacco Control Initiatives (PubMed)

. However, LMICs, in particular, face several barriers to implementing tobacco dependence treatment. This paper is a descriptive evaluation of a novel grant funding mechanism that was initiated in 2014 to address these barriers. Global Bridges. Healthcare Alliance for Tobacco Dependence Treatment aims to create and mobilize a global network of healthcare professionals and organizations dedicated to advancing evidence-based tobacco dependence treatment and advocating for effective tobacco control policy (...) healthcare providers have been trained in tobacco dependence treatment and an estimated 150,000 patients have been offered treatment. Because most of these projects are designed with a "train-the-trainer" component, two years of grant funding has been a tremendous catalyst for accelerating change in tobacco dependence treatment practices throughout the world. In order to foster such exponential growth and continue to maintain the impact of these projects, ongoing financial, educational, and professional

Full Text available with Trip Pro

2018 Journal of environmental and public health

39. What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences? (PubMed)

What do we know about grant peer review in the health sciences? Background: Peer review decisions award an estimated >95% of academic medical research funding, so it is crucial to understand how well they work and if they could be improved. Methods: This paper summarises evidence from 105 papers identified through a literature search on the effectiveness and burden of peer review for grant funding. Results: There is a remarkable paucity of evidence about the efficiency of peer review

Full Text available with Trip Pro

2018 F1000Research

40. ONES Grant: CXCL10/CXCR3 Regulation of Ozone-Induced Epithelial Permeability

ONES Grant: CXCL10/CXCR3 Regulation of Ozone-Induced Epithelial Permeability ONES Grant: CXCL10/CXCR3 Regulation of Ozone-Induced Epithelial Permeability - Full Text View - ClinicalTrials.gov Hide glossary Glossary Study record managers: refer to the if submitting registration or results information. Search for terms x × Study Record Detail Saved Studies Save this study Warning You have reached the maximum number of saved studies (100). Please remove one or more studies before adding more. ONES (...) Grant: CXCL10/CXCR3 Regulation of Ozone-Induced Epithelial Permeability The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been evaluated by the U.S. Federal Government. of clinical studies and talk to your health care provider before participating. Read our for details. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03599206 Recruitment Status : Recruiting First Posted : July 25, 2018 Last Update Posted : October 16

2018 Clinical Trials

To help you find the content you need quickly, you can filter your results via the categories on the right-hand side >>>>