Proposal You are requesting funding to conduct an ongoing study of clinical outcomes of patients that receive treatment for heart attacks. You are submit
Proposal You are requesting funding to conduct an ongoing study of clinical outcomes of patients that receive treatment for heart attacks. You are submitting this proposal to Hahn R&D Enterprises.
The template explains the sections required for your proposal. If you have any questions about the format please email me.
When researchers submit a grant proposal, the process of being awarded funds is extremely competitive. Here are three grading elements that help you sell your idea:
1. Accuracy and precision (no false claims)
2. Presentation of the argument why your project should be funded over the other grant proposals received by Hahn R&D Enterprises for funding (but not fancy or artful fluff, use the template provided). Grantors will not like your proposal if it does not use the provided template or specifically directed format.
3. Proposal and Research Protocol Design (local flow of information).
Now that you have learned research designs and methods, and read many published research articles, you get the chance to apply your knowledge.
Essay Assignment Tips:
· Write the executive summary last.
· Know and use APA format, in every manner. Print off and use the APA “Cheatsheet”. This document will help ensure you are using APA correctly.
· Review/edit for sentence structure and logic.
· As in The Art of War by Sung Tzu, “Know thy enemy.”
You are to design a hypothetical research project and propose it to a funding source. You will be asking for funding (research grant) so you could (hypothetically) conduct (or continue) your research.
So far in this course, you have completed the following tasks:
· Searched for and found full-text PubMed articles concerning one or two specific medical treatment techniques for acute myocardial infarction (MI).
· Created an individual annotated bibliography for one article reporting Fibrinolytic treatment or Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI), or a compare/contrast of each.
· Reported who did what, where (population), when, why, how, as well as the most significant findings in your annotation.
· Your group submitted a combined Annotated Bibliography. You received lots of feedback, and read the entire graded product, thus becoming familiar with other Fibrinolytic or PCI articles.
· Wrote an individual review of the literature (Fibrinolytic &/or/vs PCI) by critically reading and fully expanding your annotated bibliography. You reflected on how your article relates to others on this topic (using other group members’ annotated bibliographies). Your literature review discussed the strength of the evidence, described research findings, strengths and limitations, biases, and how the research compares/contrasts with others. You also discovered connections and gaps in knowledge of the topic, likely thinking, “Why doesn’t someone research _______?”
Now you fill in the _____. What problem or oversight would you solve? What question would you answer? Discuss how your originally chosen article and others, lead you to formulate an interest, shaped your argument, and how you think about the topic of Fibrinolytic therapy and PCI.
We are all at some level of risk for a MI. There are numerous risk factors for MI including family history, dietary intake, physical activity levels, cholesterol and lipid levels, and pre-existing chronic diseases (i.e. hypertension). Consider the following questions:
· If you were to have an MI and called 911 for EMS, which treatment would you prefer? Why?
· If you lived in a rural area would your preference change? Why or why not?
· Would you want an EMT to thread a balloon in you at your house or wait for the balloon at a Cardiac Surgical Unit?
· Would fibrinolytic pill or IV be sufficient?