Skip to main content
SWStudyWalks Search

Evidence-Based Practice / Unit 23   EBP 3332 worked example, 60 to 90 seconds

Building a Fundable Proposal

Captions available

The idea

The technique: match the funder before writing and ask them directly; build the abstract around significance with a so-what outcome, innovation, aims, framework and analysis; assemble the conventional sections in order; name limitations and the plan for handling them; and treat a first refusal as a revision brief rather than a verdict.

In practice

A project needing funding. The agency's interests checked first and a programme officer asked directly whether the project fits, before any drafting. Funded applications read where available. The abstract written early, arguing clinical significance with an outcome the system acts on — cost, length of stay, preventable complications — alongside what is innovative, the aims, the framework and how the data will be analysed. The proposal assembled in its conventional sections: specific aims that can be judged met or unmet, prior work synthesised rather than listed, the gap named, the team's record set out, the design named plainly, ethics approval addressed, methods detailed enough to picture, and a budget matching them. Limitations stated with strategies for handling them. On refusal, the reviewers' points answered one by one in a revision of the same proposal.

Where people slip

Match the funder before you write. It is the cheapest step in the process and the one most often skipped, and a strong proposal sent to an agency that never funds this kind of work fails for a reason no amount of redrafting reaches.

Your place on the trail

Every lesson rests on earlier ones and opens later ones. Tap any to jump.

Something wrong in this lesson? Flag it  ·  Sources for Evidence-Based Practice