Wishlist University of the Sunshine Coast/Sunshine ... - Wishlist Blog

Download PDF
0 downloads 210 Views 425KB Size Report
Comment
staff conducting research projects, including post-graduate Masters and Doctoral students. Provide evidence of your ...
Wishlist University of the Sunshine Coast/Sunshine Coast Hopsital and Health Service Collaborative Research Grant

Guidelines and Advice to Applicants

Table of Contents Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... i 1. Background ...............................................................................................................................1 2. Overview of Wishlist USC/SCHHS Collaborative Research Grants............................................1 2.1 Objectives ............................................................................................................................................... 1 2.2 Scope of Grant Scheme ......................................................................................................................... 1 2.3 Eligibility .................................................................................................................................................. 2 2.4 Management of the Wishlist USC/SCHHS Collaborative Research Grant Scheme .............................. 2

3. Completing the Application Form ...............................................................................................2 3.1 Applicant Details ..................................................................................................................................... 2 3.2 Project Overview..................................................................................................................................... 3 3.3 Project Details......................................................................................................................................... 4 3.4 Significance and Contribution ................................................................................................................. 4 Applicants should also consider the significance of the collaboration between researchers. ...................... 5 3.5 Investigator Track Record ...................................................................................................................... 5 3.6 Budget and Justification ......................................................................................................................... 6 3.7 Certification ............................................................................................................................................. 6

4. Process for Submission .............................................................................................................6 5. Conditions of Submission...........................................................................................................7 5.1 Documentation Required for Submission ............................................................................................... 7 5.2 Incomplete, False or Misleading Applications ........................................................................................ 7 5.3 Withdrawal of Applications ..................................................................................................................... 7 5.4 Exclusion of Applications ........................................................................................................................ 7 5.5 Responsible Conduct of Research ......................................................................................................... 7 5.6 Costs Borne by Applicant ....................................................................................................................... 7

6. Review and Selection Process ...................................................................................................7 6.1 Assessment Criteria ............................................................................................................................... 7 6.2 Assessment Process .............................................................................................................................. 9 6.3 Feedback on Applications ...................................................................................................................... 9 6.4 Conflict of Interest ................................................................................................................................... 9

7. Administration of Grants ..........................................................................................................10 7.1 Agreement ............................................................................................................................................ 10 7.2 Payments .............................................................................................................................................. 10 7.3 Privacy and Confidentiality ................................................................................................................... 10

8. Obligations and Reporting........................................................................................................10 8.1 Ethical Considerations .......................................................................................................................... 10 8.2 Change of Circumstances .................................................................................................................... 11 8.3 Reporting on Grants ............................................................................................................................. 11 8.4 Publication and Presentation ................................................................................................................ 12

9. Termination of Funding ............................................................................................................12 10. Further Information ................................................................................................................12 11. Example Application ..............................................................................................................14

i

1. Background Wishlist is the Sunshine Coast Hospital and Health Service’s (SCHHS) Hospital Foundation. Its mission is to encourage the development of a world-class public health care system for the benefit of Sunshine Coast residents. As part of their mission, Wishlist recognises the need to support and encourage research activity that contributes to improved health care and knowledge. This is in line with the Sunshine Coast Hospital and Health Service Research Strategic Plan (2013-2016). The University of the Sunshine Coast (USC) has collaborated with Wishlist to establish this funding scheme to complement the existing Wishlist Research Grants Scheme. This program will encourage local collaboration between USC and SCHHS researchers and clinicians, and will direct future health research development. This document provides important information about the Wishlist USC/SCHHS Research Grant scheme; and the application and review process. This document is intended to be a comprehensive guide to ensure all applicants understand the requirements for submitting a complete application and maintaining a successful grant. This Guideline will be supported by a Conditions of Award, signed by the successful researcher. Where inconsistencies occur between this document and any Conditions of Award entered into, the terms of the conditions document will prevail.

2. Overview of Wishlist USC/SCHHS Collaborative Research Grants 2.1 Objectives The objectives of the Wishlist USC/SCHHS Collaborative Research Grants are to: • Enhance health outcomes by financially supporting research; • Support experienced researchers to become active leaders in research in their field; • Support collaboration between researchers with USC and SCHHS; • Encourage early career researchers in developing a research career; • Promote a positive research culture that translates into improvements in health care; and • Promote innovative health care through identifying and implementing evidence-based practices and developing an ongoing culture of learning.

2.2 Scope of Grant Scheme Applications for funding should fall within the scope of the Wishlist USC/SCHHS Collaborative Research Grants scheme. Projects should address at least one of the following: • Be directly relevant to clinical practice and health care outcomes for patients in this Health Service; • Promote evidence-based workforce practices through improvements in procedures and workforce knowledge; • Address areas of significant disease burden relevant to the health of the broader National or International community; or • Facilitate collaborative partnerships between government, non-government and research sectors in Queensland. This grant scheme is not intended to support clinical audits or quality improvement activities as these types of projects are considered core business for the Sunshine Coast Hospital and Health Service. This scheme will provide two $20,000 grants per year, for two years. 1

2.3 Eligibility 2.3.1 Principal Investigator To be eligible to apply the Principal Investigator must be an experienced researcher, employed at the University of the Sunshine Coast and must meet at least three (3) of the following criteria: [ ] More than five (5) years post the award of a research higher degree (e.g. PhD); [ ] Significant experience in applying for ethical approval, developing and managing protocols, and managing budgets and research staff; [ ] Obtained significant levels of research funding as a Principal/Chief Investigator on minor or local grant schemes (e.g. Wishlist; funding through professional associations); [ ] Obtained some research funding as a Principal/Chief Investigator on a major National or International grant scheme (e.g. Office of Health and Medical Research; National Health and Medical Research Council; US National Institutes of Health); and/or [ ] Actively published the outcomes of previous research in peer reviewed journals, including being the primary author on publications. 2.3.2 Co-Investigators In order to enhance research collaboration between the two organisations all applications must include at least one member of staff from SCHHS; and to build research capacity, all applications require the inclusion of an Early Career Researcher. An Early Career Researcher will have been awarded a PhD within five years. The SCHHS staff member and Early Career Researcher may be the same Co-Investigator. The grants are open to all researchers whose proposal meets the scope of the grant scheme and eligibility criteria; and who submit a complete application in accordance with this Guideline.

2.4 Management of the Wishlist USC/SCHHS Collaborative Research Grant Scheme The Wishlist USC/SCHHS Collaborative Research Grant Scheme will be administered by USC and managed by the Wishlist USC/SCHHS Collaborative Research Grant Scheme Committee (Scheme Committee). Under this arrangement, the Scheme Committee is responsible for overseeing the application and review process; providing recommendations relating to potentially successful applications; and managing reporting requirements. The Scheme Committee will comprise of USC Pro Vice-Chancellor (Research), Chair, SCHHS Research Committee and Wishlist Chief Executive Officer, and the group will retain all rights and responsibilities associated with the final funding decision. Management of agreements and payments for successful grants will be coordinated by the USC Office of Research.

3. Completing the Application Form This section of the Guideline provides applicants with instructions for completing the Wishlist USC/SCHHS Collaborative Research Grant Application Form. Applicants should follow these instructions carefully. Failure to do so may result in your application being returned or not considered. An example application has been provided in Section 11 of this Guideline.

3.1 Applicant Details 3.1.1 Principal Investigator The Principal Investigator is the person who will have primary responsibility for the management, reporting, and oversight of the research project. Generally this person will have the majority of intellectual input into the research and is likely to be considered as the primary author on

2

publications. This person must be a current USC employee. This person should also meet the eligibility criteria of the grant category (refer to Section 2.3.1 of this Guideline). Only one Principal Investigator should be nominated in the application form. A track record is required for the Principal Investigator (refer to Section 3.5 of this Guideline). 3.1.2 Co-Investigator A Co-Investigator is a person who will support the Principal Investigator in the completion of the research. Generally this person will have some intellectual input into the research and may be considered as a co-author on publications. Applications must include at least one Queensland Health employee within SCHHS as a Co-Investigator and at least one Early Career Researcher. Where applicable, the SCHHS employee and Early Career Researcher may be the same CoInvestigator. The Co-Investigator fields should be repeated as many times as required. A track record is required for each Co-Investigator (refer to Section 3.5 of this Guideline).

3.2 Project Overview 3.2.1 Project Title The project title will be used to identify the application at all times during the assessment process and should accurately describe the nature of the project. 3.2.2 Brief Project Outline Provide a brief description of the aims and expected outcomes of the research. Avoid the use of highly technical terms or abbreviations. The project outline should be kept to a maximum of 200 words. 3.2.3 SCHHS Facilities and Departments Indicate the SCHHS supporting departments that will be required to facilitate the completion of the research, if applicable. For example, projects that require access to information held in patients’ medical records should indicate Health Information Management Services. 3.2.4 Fields of Research Indicate up to two health areas that are the focus of the research using the Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification (ANZSRC) Fields of Research (FOR): http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/[email protected]/0/6BB427AB9696C225CA2574180004463E. Enter the 6-digit FOR code and the FOR name. 3.2.5 Potential Impact of the Research Indicate the potential impact of the research by selecting the option that best describes the scope of the project (select one (1) only). • Local Impact and Significance – Projects of this nature should have a direct impact on patient care, treatment or health care practices (including workforce practices) in the SCHHS. These projects are expected to directly translate into improved patient care through changes in local policy, procedures or services. • National or International Impact and Significance – Projects of this nature should have broader application to disease burden in the National or International community. These projects are less likely to have a direct impact on patient care in this Health Service due to the research techniques and methods employed; or the nature of the research collaborations with external organisations. 3.2.7 Additional Funding If you are intending to submit (or have submitted) this research project to another funding body, indicate the name of the grant scheme, the amount requested and whether the funding has been 3

awarded. Where sufficient funding has already been awarded through another funding scheme for the same project, Wishlist reserves the right to withdraw your application or award.

3.3 Project Details The Project Details section of the application form provides space for you to justify your research, explain your methods, and describe the significance of your project. This section of the application form must not exceed a maximum of 4 pages. 3.3.1 Scientific Background and Rationale Indicate whether you (or the library) have undertaken a literature review of relevant databases in developing your research project. Describe the background to the project including scientific aspects of the field and any other relevant information. Highlight gaps in the knowledge that have led to the development of this research proposal. Reference scientific literature where appropriate in text and include the full citation in the References (Section 3.3.4). 3.3.2 Aims and Hypotheses Describe the specific aims of the project, including a clear statement of the hypothesis to be tested (where appropriate). 3.3.3 Research Methods Outline the research plan in detail, including as appropriate: • A description of the participants, for example age ranges, health conditions, justification of sample size; • A description of how research participants will be identified and recruited; • Detailed explanation of the data to be collected and how this will be collected; • Any techniques, interventions, treatments or technologies appropriate to the study; and • Statistical methods and techniques. 3.3.4 References Provide a list of relevant supporting research that has been referenced in the scientific background/rationale and research methods.

3.4 Significance and Contribution Applicants are required to demonstrate significance with the project and potential outcomes. This section of the Application Form must not exceed a maximum of 1 page. Applicants should consider the potential outcomes and/or contribution to health care. For example: • Describe how the results will impact on service delivery or health care in this Health Service. • Describe how you will ensure the results will be translated into changes in policy, procedures or practice. • Describe how the results will improve the problems or address the issues identified in the application. • Describe the planned outcomes of the research and the potential national/international significance of the results.

4

Applicants should also consider the significance of the collaboration between researchers.

3.5 Investigator Track Record A statement of track record is required for the Principal Investigator and each Co-Investigator named in the application. A maximum of 1 page per track record is allowed. 3.5.1 Principal Investigator Track Record The name of the Principal Investigator should be inserted into the top line of the record form where indicated. The track record should: • Highlight previous education, training and employment that is relevant to the current project and supports the Principal Investigator’s application for funding; • Describe previous research experience including roles and responsibilities relevant to the current application; • Where appropriate, indicate up to five (5) publications or presentations relevant to the current grant; and • Where appropriate, include up to five (5) recent research projects on which the Principal Investigator was named as an investigator. Identify the projects as: funded (e.g. grants); sponsored (e.g. clinical trials); or unfunded projects (e.g. supported internally by department). The track record of the Principal Investigator must demonstrate the Principal Investigator’s ability to meet the criteria for the grant category (refer to Section 2.3.1). 3.5.2 Co-Investigator Track Record The name of the Co-Investigator should be inserted into the top line of the record form where indicated. Repeat the Co-Investigator track record as necessary. Indicate which Co-Investigator is the SCHHS employee and Early Career Researcher. The track record should: • Highlight previous education, training and employment that is relevant to the current project and supports the inclusion of the Co-Investigator on the application; • Describe previous research experience including roles and responsibilities relevant to the current application; • Where appropriate, indicate up to five (5) publications or presentations relevant to the current application; and • Where appropriate, include up to five (5) recent research projects on which the CoInvestigator was named as an investigator. Identify the projects as: funded (e.g. grants); sponsored (e.g. clinical trials); or unfunded projects (e.g. supported internally by department). 3.5.3 Investigator CVs Applications should include a copy of the Principal Investigator’s CV only. The Principal Investigator’s CV must be able to demonstrate the applicant’s ability to meet the criteria of the grant category (refer to Section 2.3.1) including information on grants awarded and publications. CVs must not exceed a maximum of 6 pages. Applicants should ensure that only the requested CV (as described above) is provided with their application form. Where additional CVs are provided, the additional CVs will not be reviewed and considered as part of the application process.

5

3.6 Budget and Justification 3.6.1 Research Costs Requested Complete the Research Costs table to indicate the funding requested. Where possible, speak with a Grants Officer to obtain estimations of actual costs. An inaccurate budget could impact on your ability to complete the project. Ensure the Total Research Costs equal the sum of the individual items in the budget table. Where discrepancies exist between the Total Research Costs and the sum of the individual items, projects will be funded to the lesser amount. 3.6.2 Justification Provide a statement justifying the costs for each item listed in the Research Costs table. Ensure the justification clearly delineates between items that may be grouped in the table. For example, if the application involves both supply of drugs and clinical tests provide a total figure for these items in the table but justify the expenses separately. The justification must clearly identify the need for the item and/or an indication of how the funds will be used. 3.6.3 Requesting Partial Funding for a Larger Study Grants will be awarded up to the value of $20,000 each. Where the total project budget exceeds $20,000 or where the project forms part of a larger study and funding will be provided by another source to enable the study to be completed, provide details of the overall study budget in the Justification section and indicate how the additional costs (over $20,000) will be met. For example: This project is being conducted in collaboration with the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital. Total project costs are $39,470. The RBWH will contribute $19,735 for the conduct of the research at that site. We request $19,735 from the Wishlist USC/SCHHS Collaborative Research Grants scheme for the conduct of the research in USC/SCHHS.

3.7 Certification Certification is required from the Principal Investigator, Associate Dean or Head of School, and Executive Dean. Where access to SCHHS facilities and resources are required, certification from the SCHHS Head of Department is also needed. Where the SCHHS Head of Department is also a Co-Investigator, certification is required from the next level of line management. An investigator cannot certify their own application as Head of Department.

4. Process for Submission All applications must be submitted using the Wishlist USC/SCHHS Collaborative Research Grant Application Form. The application form must be submitted in its original format. Applicants are not permitted to edit the underlying template of the application form, except where indicated. Applications will be managed by the Office of Research and should be submitted to the Grants Team using one of the methods indicated on the front of the application form by 5:00pm on Monday 16th February 2015. Late submissions will not be accepted. Changes can only be made to submitted applications prior to the closing date. Applicants who wish to receive acknowledgement that their application was received by the Office of Research must complete the front of the application form.

6

5. Conditions of Submission It is the applicant’s responsibility to read and familiarise themselves with this funding Guideline document and the requirements herein.

5.1 Documentation Required for Submission A complete application should include an Application Form and one CV as per Section 3.5.3 of this Guideline. Any additional documentation provided with the application will not be reviewed or considered as part of the application process.

5.2 Incomplete, False or Misleading Applications Following the closing date, all applications received by the Office of Research will be considered final and no changes will be permitted. The submitted application is the primary source of information available for assessment. As such, it must contain all information necessary for assessment of the application. All details in the application must be current and accurate at the time of application. Intentional inclusion of misleading information may result in the application being excluded from consideration or termination of the grant.

5.3 Withdrawal of Applications Applicants may withdraw an application at any time by notifying the Office of Research in writing. Contact details can be found in Section 10 of this Guideline.

5.4 Exclusion of Applications Exclusion of applications may take place at any time during the assessment process if they do not comply with this funding Guideline or contain incomplete, false or misleading information.

5.5 Responsible Conduct of Research Wishlist, USC and SCHHS expect the highest levels of research conduct and integrity to be observed in funded projects. Researchers and institutions will be bound by the Conditions of Award. Researchers are required to adhere to the requirements of the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2007) and the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (2007). These guidelines advocate and describe best practice for researchers and institutions (see Section 9 of this Guideline).

5.6 Costs Borne by Applicant All costs and expenses incurred by applicants in any way associated with the preparation and submission of an application must be borne entirely and exclusively by the applicant(s).

6. Review and Selection Process The Office of Research is responsible for managing the application and review process of the Wishlist USC/SCHHS Collaborative Research Grant scheme. Applications will be assessed according to the eligibility and selection criteria outlined in these Guidelines.

6.1 Assessment Criteria All applications will be assessed by a review panel established by the Office of Research. The review panel will be selected to ensure appropriate representation across disciplines and to ensure no conflicts of interest exist. Applications will be assessed against the following criteria: • Research quality (40%) • Significance and contribution (30%) 7

• •

Project budget and justification (10%) Track record (20%).

6.1.1 Research Quality (40%) Research quality will be assessed according to the clarity of the hypothesis or research objectives, and the quality and feasibility of the project design. The research proposal may be assessed in terms of, but not limited to: • Are the aims clearly defined and realistic? • Is the research plan including recruitment, data collection and analysis well integrated and adequately developed? • Will the research methods successfully address the stated aims and hypotheses? • Is the research plan well informed by knowledge of the literature? • Have any major pitfalls or problems been overlooked? Have alternative approaches been considered? 6.1.2 Significance and Contribution (30%) This criterion assesses the potential of the project to meet the scope of the Wishlist USC/SCHHS Collaborative Research Grant scheme by increasing knowledge about health care, treatment or services. Applications may be assessed in terms of, but not limited to: • • • • • • • •

Does the project address a critical question? Are the research outcomes clearly described, significant and relevant to the practice setting? Does the project challenge or significantly advance existing knowledge in the field? To what extent will this project improve SCHHS policy, procedure or practice? Can the results be translated into clinical practice or service delivery? Will the collaboration form critical partnerships? Will the collaboration allow mentoring of novice and early career researchers? Will the collaboration promote ongoing partnerships?

6.1.3 Project Budget and Justification (10%) The project budget is considered in terms of whether the funds support the achievement of the proposed research; are realistic with regards to the methods employed; are inclusive of all potential expenses; and have been clearly justified in terms of need and cost. The Scheme Committee reserves the right to fund a successful project to a lesser amount than requested where there are restrictions in the amount of funding available for the grant scheme; or where concerns over the proposed budget exist. 6.1.4 Track Record (20%) Track record is considered in terms of whether the applicant’s previous research demonstrates that the researcher (or team) is capable of achieving and completing the proposed project based on the mix of qualifications, research skills and experience. Applications may be assessed according to: • Does the researcher/team have the necessary education, training or work history to support the conduct of the project? • Does the researcher/team demonstrate experience with the proposed research methods? • Does the researcher/team have a track record in the successful completion of previous research? • Does the researcher/team have a track record in disseminating research results through publication or presentation? • Does the researcher/team demonstrate a history of successful grants? 8

Track records will be considered for the team as a whole and will include an assessment of the Track Records contained within the Application Form as well as the required CV. It is important that the Principal Investigator’s CV demonstrates the applicant’s ability to meet the criteria of the grant category (refer to Sections 2.3.1 of this Guideline).

6.2 Assessment Process All applications will be assessed by a review panel. The panel will consist of representatives across a number of disciplines and health care streams. Panel members will be selected by the Office of Research. The assessment process will be conducted in four steps: Step 1 –Review: Applications will be assessed for eligibility and considered against the selection criteria using the weightings described above. An independent review panel will be established and will score the applications against the selection criteria using a scoring assessment form. Step 2 – Ranking and Recommendation: The review panel’s scores will be combined and applications will then be ranked. Rankings will include the review panel’s recommendation regarding funding the application. Step 3 – Confirmation of Recommendation: The review panel will submit a report to the Scheme Committee outlining the projects that are considered suitable for funding, in ranked order based on the review panel’s scores and recommendation. The decision as to which projects will be funded will remain with the Scheme Committee, in accordance with the schemes priorities and the total funding available for the grant scheme. Step 4 – Notification of Outcome: The Office of Research will notify all successful and unsuccessful applicants regarding the outcome of their application in writing. Successful applicants will be required to accept the offer of award by signing a Conditions of Award.

6.3 Feedback on Applications Applicants may request feedback on their submission through the Office of Research. Requests for feedback should be made in writing within 14 days of receiving the letter from the Office of Research advising the applicant of the outcome. Requests for feedback should include the applicants name, contact details and information about any specific questions or concerns.

6.4 Conflict of Interest The Office of Research will be responsible for managing the application process, establishing the review panels, and overseeing assessment and ranking. To avoid conflicts of interest, review panels will be established in such a way that no panel member is listed as an Investigator on any application. Further, in the instance of a Scheme Committee member being an Investigator on a grant, that Committee member will be excluded from broader discussions held by the Scheme Committee in relation to the recommendations. All panel members will be required to declare any potential conflicts of interest prior to the start of the review process. Applicants, or a person acting on their behalf, must not contact review panel members in relation to their application or the review process. Applicants who do not adhere to the Guidelines will have their application excluded from further consideration.

9

7. Administration of Grants 7.1 Conditions of Award The grant will be administered under the conditions of award provided to successful applicants as part of their letter of offer. The Conditions of Award is a binding contract that occurs between USC and the Principal Investigator. The document must be signed by all parties before any part of the agreement becomes enforceable.

7.2 Payments The Principal Investigator will be accountable for ensuring that the funds are utilised in accordance with the provisions of the agreement and the project outlined in the application form. 7.2.1 Payment Schedule Payment of grants will be made in three stages: • Payment of 50% of the grant money will be made once the agreement has been signed by all parties and evidence of ethics approval and research governance authorisation has been provided. • Payment of 40% of the grant money will be made on receipt of an initial Progress Report demonstrating satisfactory progress with the research. • Payment of 10% of the grant money will be made on receipt of a satisfactory Final Report. 7.2.2 Purpose of Grant Funds and Unspent Funds Researchers must ensure that all grant funds are spent in accordance with the approved budget. Where the full grant is not used or required, the Principal Investigator must ensure any unspent funds are returned.

7.3 Privacy and Confidentiality Information collected through the application form will be used for the purposes of assessment, administration of the grant, monitoring requirements and maintaining contact with applicants. Information will also be used to provide reports on the types of research receiving funding to guide the future direction and activities.

8. Obligations and Reporting 8.1 Ethical Considerations All project will be required to obtain the necessary USC ethical and other approvals appropriate to the grant. Any project that requires SCHHS resources or access to patients, staff, data or facilities is required to obtain Queensland Health ethics approval. Applicants must obtain all necessary ethics and research governance approvals before commencing their research. Funding for research grants will not be released until evidence of appropriate approval has been received from all relevant bodies. Applicants are required to obtain ethics approval and research governance authorisation by the date stipulated in their Conditions of Award. Researchers requiring an extension must inform the Office of Research in writing. Funding may be withdrawn at the Scheme Committee’s discretion where extensions are required beyond 30 June of the year following the award of the grant. Evidence of appropriate approval should be forwarded to the Office of Research for processing. Contact details can be found in Section 10 of this Guideline. Once evidence of appropriate approval has been obtained, the Office of Research will release the initial payment in accordance with the payment schedule and agreement. 10

Under the agreement, the applicant must maintain ethics approval and research governance authorisation for the duration of the project. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that ethical issues relating to the research are identified and brought to the attention of the relevant regulatory body.

8.2 Change of Circumstances If there is a change of circumstances that may impact the applicant’s ability to undertake the research, the applicant must notify the Office of Research immediately. This notification must detail the change in situation and the effects of this change on the applicant’s ability to undertake the funded research. Where appropriate, the Office of Research will provide advice as to the appropriate course of action, which may include terminating the agreement if the change in circumstances prevents the continuation of the project; or if the change in circumstances cannot be rectified to the satisfaction of the Office of Research. All advice will be provided to the applicant in writing. 8.2.1 Changes to Principal Investigator Where the Principal Investigator leaves USC within the term of the project, the Office of Research may consider transferring the grant to an alternate Principal Investigator following an assessment of: a) The suitability and eligibility of the new Principal Investigator in terms of the category of grant (refer to Sections 2.3.1); b) Progress made with the research at the time the change in Principal Investigator is requested; and c) Whether progress payments have already been made. It is the responsibility of the existing Principal Investigator to provide the Office of Research with the details outlined above, including CV of the new Principal Investigator. The Office of Research will then review the project and make a recommendation to the Scheme Committee as to whether the change should be considered.

8.3 Reporting on Grants Grant recipients will be required to submit reports outlining their progress and use of the funds. All reports will be reviewed by the Scheme Committee who will provide the Office of Research with recommendations regarding satisfactory progress with the project. To expedite the review process, all reports should be submitted directly to the Grants Team. 8.3.1 Progress Report Grant recipients are required to submit Progress Reports. The Scheme Committee will review the report and make a recommendation to the Office of Research to release the funds to the applicant in accordance with the payment schedule and agreement. Where a grant recipient fails to submit a satisfactory report, the Scheme Committee may recommend that the remainder of the grant payments be withheld until a satisfactory report is obtained or where appropriate, that the agreement be terminated. Progress Reports must be submitted on the template form annually, on the anniversary of the commencement of the project. 8.3.2 Final Report Grant recipients are required to submit a Final Report. The Scheme Committee will review the report and make a recommendation to the Office of Research to release the funds to the applicant in accordance with the payment schedule and agreement. Where a grant recipient fails to submit a satisfactory report, the Scheme Committee may recommend that the final grant payment be withheld until a satisfactory report is obtained or where appropriate, that the agreement be terminated. 11

Final Reports must be submitted on the template form on or before the completion date stipulated in the Conditions of Award. 8.3.3 Submission of Progress and Final Reports Template forms for Progress and Final Reports are available on QHEPS through the Wishlist scholarships and grants website (http://qheps.health.qld.gov.au/schsd/html/edu/scholarships.htm). All completed reports should be forwarded to the Grants Team for review. Contact details can be found in Section 10 of the Guideline.

8.4 Publication and Presentation Any publicity or publications from funded research must acknowledge Wishlist as the funding body. Wishlist and the Scheme Committee attach importance to the publication of the results of any research undertaken with the assistance of a grant. Applicants must endeavour to actively disseminate, through publications and conference presentations, research findings arising out of the Wishlist USC/SCHHS Collaborative Research Grant. Where the research is accepted for publication or presentation, applicants must notify the Grants Team: [email protected]. A copy of the accepted publication or abstract (as appropriate) should be included.

9. Termination of Funding The Office of Research may terminate the agreement and cease all funding if: • The applicant fails to obtain and maintain the relevant approvals and clearances required to undertake the work (refer to section 8.1 Ethical Considerations for more detail). • The applicant fails to demonstrate satisfactory progress of the project through the reporting requirements. • The applicant utilises grants funds for non-approved purposes. • The applicant fails to advise of a change in circumstances that impacts on either the conduct of the research or the ability to complete the project. • The applicant is unable to rectify a change in circumstances to the satisfaction of the Scheme Committee and the Office of Research. • The applicant fails to adhere to the terms set forth in this Guideline and those contained within the Agreement. • The applicant has provided false or misleading information in association with their application. • The applicant or members of the research team engage in professional misconduct. • The applicant or members of the research team fail to comply with: o relevant Queensland Health Policies and Procedures; o the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2007): http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines/publications/e72 o the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (2007): http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines/publications/r39 o relevant Australian Standards and other applicable statutory requirements.

10. Further Information Requests for further information in relation to the application and review process, ethics approval, reporting requirements, agreements and funding/payments should be directed to the Grants Team in the Office of Research: Grants and Consultancies 12

University of the Sunshine Coast Locked Bag 4 Maroochydore DC QLD 4556 Telephone: 07 5459 4409 Email: [email protected]

Progress and Final Report templates can be found on the Wishlist scholarships and grants webpage: http://qheps.health.qld.gov.au/schsd/html/edu/scholarships.htm

13

11. Example Application NOTE: Information provided in the below application is for demonstration purposes only and should not be viewed as a true reflection of the persons or health field presented.

Section 1 – Applicant Details

Principal Investigator (must be USC staff member) Full Name (including title)

Professor Julianne Greenway

School/Research Concentration

School of Nursing and Midwifery

Qualifications

Bachelor of Nursing (First Class Honours); PhD

Additional Affiliations

Co-Investigators (repeat lines as necessary)

Full Name (including title)

Dr Samuel Nicholson

Position and Department

Director of Renal Medicine Sunshine Coast Hospital and Health Service

Organisation

Nambour General Hospital

Qualifications

MBBS, FRACP

Additional Affiliations

University of Queensland

Early Career Researcher Full Name (including title)

Dr Fiona Thomas

School/Research Concentration

School of Nursing and Midwifery

Qualifications

Bachelor of Nursing (First Class Honours); PhD

Additional Affiliations

14

Section 2 – Project Overview Grant Title A survey of knowledge and support needs among patients with chronic kidney disease and their families. Brief Project Outline (200 words) Chronic kidney disease is a major health burden in today’s society. Studies have shown there is little knowledge about kidney disease in the general community. However, knowledge is important for acceptance and management of the disease among patients and their families. This project aims to ascertain the level of knowledge of kidney disease among patients seen at the Nambour Nephrology Clinic and their caregivers; and identify the support needs of both patients and caregivers. All patients identified through the clinic will be asked to complete a survey about their knowledge and support needs. A similar survey will also be given to a primary relative or caregiver of the patient. Results from this project will identify knowledge gaps and potential targets for education and support for patients and their families. The information will be used to improve practice within the Renal Department at Nambour General Hospital. SCHHS Facilities and Departments Indicate which facilities will be involved in the research Indicate the SCHHS department that will be responsible for the conduct of the research: Renal Department Indicate all other SCHHS departments that will provide a support function: Health Information Management Services Fields of Research List up to two health areas that are the focus of the research using the NHMRC Fields of Research (FOR) codes. http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/[email protected]/0/6BB427AB9696C225CA2574180004463E. Enter the 6 digit FOR code and the FOR name. FOR Code

FOR Name

110312

Nephrology and Urology

111710

Health Counselling

Potential Impact of the Research (select one only) Local Impact and Significance National or International Impact and Significance Additional Funding Have you submitted or do you intend to submit this research project to other funding bodies? If YES: • Identify the funding body or grant scheme: Not applicable • Indicate the amount of funding applied for or awarded: • Has this funding been awarded: Yes No

15

Section 3 – Project Details (maximum 4 pages) Scientific Background and Rationale Has a literature review of relevant databases been conducted by the applicants or the Library? Yes No Describe the scientific background to your project and highlight any gaps in the knowledge. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is the fourth largest chronic disease diagnosed in Australia [1]. More than 3,000 patients are diagnosed with CKD in Queensland each year, with over 60,000 patients currently living with the disease in this state [2]. Although the costs associated with managing CKD through the health care system have not been quantified, the public health burden associated with CKD is high [2]. For patients with a chronic illness, knowledge is considered essential to improving patient care, promoting independence and self-management [3]. Although knowledge is a central component to patient outcomes, there are few surveys of knowledge of CKD in Australian or international literature. A recent meta-analysis highlighted the paucity of research in this area with only eight studies internationally being identified [4]. A study by White et al [5] found adult Australians thought kidney disease was due to alcohol or poor diet; with international studies showing similar results [6-7]. Knowledge of the causes and treatments for CKD are generally poor in the community [4], with one study showing that poor knowledge is associated with increased social stigma against patients who have CKD [8]. Improving knowledge of CKD may have benefits for the long-term care of patients diagnosed with the disease. Some international research has demonstrated benefits in patient outcomes through implementation of educational intervention programs [9]. These studies have shown decreases in patient distress [10-11]; improvements in home self-care [11]; and increased acceptance of the disease [12]. Grace et al [10] also found improvements in quality of life among patients who received an educational program compared to patients who did not receive the intervention. The authors hypothesised that decreases in distress mediated the relationship between education and improved quality of life. Given the low levels of knowledge of CKD within the community [4], it may be extrapolated that partners and family members of people with CKD also have a poor understanding of the disease. Although no study has specifically looked at knowledge in family members, Walter et al [11] included partners of patients with CKD in their educational intervention. They found that partners experienced higher distress than the patients prior to receiving the educational intervention; and that distress decreased for both patients and partners following education. Increased knowledge among partners also predicted greater improvements in home care. Although research in this area is limited, evidence suggests the importance of improving knowledge about CKD among both patients and family members. Of critical importance is understanding the local context in order to identify what gaps exist in the knowledge of patients and families; and the areas where support could be provided. Without an understanding of the local context, targeted education and support can not occur. Aims and Hypotheses This study is a pilot study to assess areas for improving support among kidney disease patients and their families. The aims of the study are to identify gaps in knowledge that can be addressed through the development of targeted education and support for patients and their families. In particular, the study aims to: 1. Identify knowledge gaps and support needs among patients and their families; 2. Compare responses of patients and their families to determine differences in knowledge or support requirements between these participant groups; and 3. Establish a baseline data set of knowledge of CKD to enable changes in knowledge among patients/families to be assessed following implementation of future education programs.

16

Research Methods Describe the participant group, relevant methods and technologies and statistical design Participants: This study will involve all patients who attend the nephrology outpatients clinic at Nambour General Hospital and a relative or caregiver. All patients and caregivers will be over 18 years of age and able to give informed written consent at the time of participation. Participants will be identified over a 6 month period following ethics approval of this project. Identification and Recruitment Methods: Patients who attend the nephrology clinic at Nambour General Hospital will be assessed by the clinic nurse for eligibility to take part in this study. Potentially eligible patients will be referred to the Principal Investigator who will undertake further assessment of eligibility and complete informed consent with the patient. All patients will be asked to nominate a relative or caregiver suitable for participation in this study. The relative or caregiver must be present at the clinic visit to facilitate recruitment and data collection. Where the relative/caregiver is present, they will also be approached by the Principal Investigator for informed consent. Based on the number of patients who present to the nephrology clinic each year, it is anticipated that approximately 140 patients and 140 caregivers will be recruited over a 6 month period. Data Collection Methods: Data will be collected through written questionnaires completed by patients and their relative/caregiver at the time of the clinic visit. Survey questions will focus on: knowledge of symptoms, causes, treatments and outcomes of kidney disease; and support needs and perceived gaps in support for patients and family members. The survey will take approximately 30 minutes to complete. Additional data on disease and treatment variables will be collected from patients’ medical records. Questionnaire and medical record data will be collected by the Principal Investigator and entered into STATA in preparation for data analysis. All written consent forms and questionnaires will be stored in locked filing cabinets. Electronic data will be stored on the secure Queensland Health server. Intervention, Treatment or Technology (if applicable): No intervention, treatment or technology will be the focus of this research. This study is a survey of knowledge and support needs among patients and family members. Statistical Analysis Methods and Techniques: Data will be analysed to identify trends in knowledge and gaps in support for patients and caregivers. Comparisons between patients and caregivers will also be undertaken to identify differences in knowledge and support needs between the participant groups. Analyses will be conducted using STATA and will include frequencies, cross-tabs and ANOVAs as appropriate. Demographics and patient medical variables (eg time since diagnosis of CKD) will be included as co-variates in the analyses. Statistical analyses will be conducted by the Principal Investigator under the direction of the Research Mentor. References Provide a list of relevant supporting research which has been referenced in this application. [1] Kutner R, Zhang P, Barnhart AB, Collins LZ. Health status report: Chronic conditions in Australia, 1998-2008. Australian Statistics Centre, Smith Publishers, 2010. Government Report: EC1234. [2] Howard G, Lee EH, Manns JK, Taub CS, Ghali A, Dean J. Chronic kidney disease 2000-2005: incidence, prevalence and mortality. Australian Statistics Centre, Smith Publishers, 2008. Government Report, LK1234. [3] Ormandy P. Information topics important to chronic kidney diessase patients: a systematic review. J Renal Care 2008; 34(1); 19-27. [4] Eggers M, Larive GG, Pipkin DE, et al. Knowledge of Chronic Kidney Disease among patient samples: A meta-analysis of international literature. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2010; 4(2):1612-1625. [5] White SL, Polkinghorne KR, Cass A, et al. Limited knowledge of kidney disease in a survey of AusDiab study participants. Med J Aust 2008; 188(4): 204-8. [6] Da Silva-Gane CM, Marshall AB, Chadna M, Warwicker KK, Greenwood K F. Chronic Kidney Disease: What do patients know? Survey of new patients to referred to a US kidney treatment center. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2002; 22: 58-68. [7] El-Kossi ER, Prasanth JJ, Ellam I, El-hanas OM, Khwaja LA. Patient views about chronic kidney 17

[8]

[9] [10] [11]

[12]

disease: A qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with patients referred to a UK kidney treatment centre. Am J Kidney Dis 2010; 56(1):31-40. Chambers P, Youl SK, Nielson LL, McDowell K. Stigma associated with chronic kidney disease: perceptions of patients and the general community from a European community. Am J Kidney Dis 2011; 18(2):256-262. Mason J, Khunti K, Stone M, et al. Educational interventions in kidney disease care: a systematic review of randomized trials. Am J Kidney Dis 2008; 51(6):933-51. Grace RL, Tong A, MacDonald AC, Snelling P. Characteristics of chronic kidney disease important to patients: an educational support intervention. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2011; 16(3):581-589. Walter J, Courtney SS, Tindle PA, Jones SC. Improving home-based care in patients with chronic kidney disease: a randomised controlled trial a an educational and support intervention for patients and their partners. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2009; 28(1):566-573. Alex J, Whitner SK, Pratt F. Can patients learn to accept illness through education? Development and evaluation of an educational program for patients with chronic kidney disease. J Am Soc Renal Iss 2006; 28(4):1689-94.

Section 4 – Significance and Contribution (maximum 1 page) Potential Outcomes and/or Contribution to Health Care Improvement in patient outcomes through increased knowledge cannot be achieved without an indepth understanding of knowledge levels within the local context. Results from this study will provide information on the current level of knowledge among patients referred to the nephrology clinic at Nambour General Hospital and their family members; and provide baseline data on the local context which can be used as the platform on which to improve services through the Renal Department. In particular, results from this study will: • Assist the Renal Department with future health care planning and the development of systematic practices to close the gap in knowledge and promote better understanding of chronic kidney disease. • Allow the Renal Department to develop generic patient resource materials and information leaflets to assist with minimising gaps in patient knowledge. Resources/information leaflets could also be developed for family members focusing on their specific information needs. • Increase the ability of staff to better assess the support needs of patients and families, and undertake referrals to additional support services and networks, where appropriate. • Provide a comparison dataset to allow changes in knowledge to be assessed, particularly following the introduction of new education resources/programs. Results from this study will impact on service delivery through an understanding of knowledge gaps that exist within our patients and their families. This will assist staff to provide more targeted diagnosis and treatment information as patients transition from newly diagnosed into long term care. Further, results of the study will be directly translated into practice through: (1) the development of a departmental report outlining the gaps in knowledge and support needs of patients and families; (2) departmental education sessions with staff outlining the issues that have been identified; (3) changes in departmental procedures to ensure that a minimum level of education and information is given to patients and their families at each stage of the disease continuum. It is envisaged that a checklist of information and support requirements will be generated from this study to ensure that a minimum level of information is provided; and (4) development of resources and information leaflets for patients and families to use as future reference material. Significance of Collaboration The collaboration of two senior researchers will provide an excellent support structure for Early Career Researcher Dr Fiona Thomas, providing her with the opportunity to advance not only her experience managing research projects, but also her track record, improving her competitiveness for future fellowship and grant funding. We envisage that at least two peer-reviewed publications will arise from this collaboration, with Dr Thomas as first author and Professor Greenway and Dr Nicholson alternating last 18

authorship roles.

19

Section 5 – Investigator Track Record (maximum 1 page per Investigator) Indicate the name of the investigator at the top of each track record summary. Repeat the Co-Investigator Track Record as necessary. Attach a CV for the Principal Investigator. CVs must not exceed a maximum of 6 pages.

Principal Investigator Name: Professor Julianne Greenway Provide an overview of your education/training and previous employment relevant to this project. I have completed significant post-graduate clinical and research study, including specialisation in renal disease and dialysis, together with an Honours degree (significant research component) and a Doctor of Philosophy higher research degree. My previous position as Nursing Director – Research (2000-2013) was responsible for the development and implementation of strategic objectives and an action plan to promote, initiate and develop nursing research and evidence-based activities that supported the vision of the Renal Department at Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital. Key components of this role include the 1) initiation and development of nursing and multidisciplinary grant proposals for funding and ethics approval; 2) the management and coordination of research activities to ensure that projects are conducted in accordance with a) contractual agreements of funding and ethical bodies; b) the project budget; and c) agreed project timelines; 3) provision of consultation, supervision, mentorship and support for nursing and allied health staff conducting research projects, including post-graduate Masters and Doctoral students. Provide evidence of your ability to conduct research. A total of $4,897,738 in funding associated with nursing research, including two NHMRC funded clinical trials, has been secured during the period (2000-2014). My publications include a textbook, book chapters, refereed journal publications (>60), acknowledged contributions to books, government reports, state policies, published parent and health professional information statements and educational resources (online eLearning and DVD). Conference presentations (>200) and keynote, plenary or invited speaker (n>75) presentations, in addition to numerous unrefereed publications, newsletters and letters to the editor (>40) also provide evidence of my contribution to nursing and medical research and the associated health literature, in addition to my capacity to successfully complete research projects and appropriately disseminate research findings to key target audiences, including the translation of research evidence into policy and practice changes and innovative service delivery model integration. Some of these innovations have been recognised by national awards (HESTA national nursing award team innovation 2014). List up to five (5) of your publications or presentations that are most relevant to the project. - Samson J, …& Greenway JA. Prevalence of metabolic syndrome in patients with end stage renal disease and relevance of biomarkers. Seminars in Dialysis. 2014; accepted for publication Dec 5. - Anderson O, …& Greenway JA. Fragmented care and whole-person illness: Decision-making for people with chronic end-stage kidney disease. Chronic Illness. 2014; 6:1899-98. - Yang T, …Greenway JA,… & Nicholson SA. Assessing achievement in nephrology training: using clinic chart audits to quantitatively screen competency. Am J Kidney Dis. 2014 Nov;64(5):737-43. - Nicholson SA, Thomas F, Greenway JA et al. Dialysis in public and private hospitals in Queensland. Internal Medicine Journal 2012; 48(8):887-93. - Aguires N, Garmson H & Greenway JA. Management of hyperglycemia in patients with chronic kidney disease. Journal of Nephrology. 2013 56:582-589.Provide details of up to five (5) recent research projects as Investigator. Include details of grant or other funding. 2013-16: Thymoglobulin administration for the treatment of End-Stage Renal Disease, Kidney Failure or Kidney Transplantation. Investigators: JA Greenway (CIA), J Richardson (CIB), J Williams (CIC), A Mauritius (CID), S MacIntyre (CIE) & S Brule (CIF). NHMRC Project Grants APP1099998. $862,058 *2nd quartile of Category 6 applications. 2011-2014: The BLOCADE trial: Is carvedilol safe for use in dialysis patients? C Jacobsen (CIA), M Waddell (CIB), JA Greenway (CIC), J Goodman (CID), M Blane (CIE), K Summers (CIF) & Z Smith (CIG). NHMRC Project Grants APP10778525. $1,273,333.96. 2011-2012: A retrospective analysis of trends and patient outcomes in a remote hospital dialysis unit. SA Nicholson, JA Greenway & FL Thomas. Kidney Foundation; 2013-2014; $72,000. 2011-2012: Mortality in patients with IgA nephropathy. JA Greenway & SA Nicholson. Kidney Health Australia. $47,987.

20

Co-Investigator Name: Dr Samuel Nicholson Select as appropriate:

SCHHS Employee

Early Career Researcher

Provide an overview of your education/training and previous employment relevant to this project. I am a registered Renal Specialist and member of the Australian and New Zealand Society of Nephrology (2001- ) and the International Society of Nephrology (2005- ). I have been employed with the Sunshine Coast Health Hospital and Health Service since 2003 and am currently the Director of Renal Medicine (2009- ). In 2010, I facilated the development of the Sunshine Coast Hospital and Health Service Scheme Committee, on which I am Chair. The role of the Scheme Committee is to oversee the strategic development of research through improving infrastructure and support for Health Service staff. In 2012, I received a con-joint appointment with the University of Queensland and am currently an active member of the UQ Regional Clinical Practice Research Centre. Provide evidence of your ability to conduct research. Over the past 10 years I have participated in research as a local investigator on 14 multi-centre national and international research projects. As an investigator on these large trials, I am responsible for: the development and initiation of the project at the local site (including ethics and research governance approval); identification of eligible participants and recruitment; overseeing data collection by a clinical trials nurse; managing procedures or treatments that are the focus of the study (eg plasma phoresis); management of budgets and cost centres; and overall coordination of the study in accordance with approvals and research contracts. Further, I am the Regional Lead Investigator and steering committee member for one international trial (ACTIVE Dialysis) through which I facilitate the ongoing management of the study across Australian sites. Research outputs over the last 10 years include: • 14 published manuscripts and 2 letters in peer reviewed journals • Presentation of research at 12 national or international meetings • 20 published abstracts of research outcomes • Reviewer for 4 journals List up to five (5) of your publications or presentations that are most relevant to the project. 1. Nicholson SA, et al. Dialysis in public and private hospitals in Queensland. Internal Medicine Journal 2012; 48(8):887-93. 2. Nicholson SA, et al. Impact of non-traditional phosphate binders and cinacalcet on haemodialysis patient biochemistry, pill burden and cost. Nephrology 2011; 16(8): 688-696 3. Lopez-Vargas PA, Craig JC, Gallagher MP, Walker RG, Snelling PL, Pedagogos E, Nicholson SA, et al. Barriers to Timely Arteriovenous Fistula Creation: A Study of Providers and Patients. Am J Kidney Dis 2011; 57(6): 873-882 4. Noble E, Johnson DW, Nicholson SA, et al. The impact of automated eGFR reporting and education on nephrology service referrals. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2008; 23: 3845-3850 5. Cervelli MJ, Nicholson SA, et al. Randomised cross-over comparison of intravenous and subcutaneous darbepoetin dosing efficiency in haemodialysis patients. Nephrology 2005; 10: 129-135 Provide details of up to five (5) recent research projects as Investigator. Include details of grant or other funding. 1. Funded Grants:- Nicholson SA & Jameson QF. Improving nephrology clinic patient experiences. Wishlist Foundation; 2011; $28,000. - Nicholson SA, Greenway JA & Thomas FL.A retrospective analysis of trends and patient outcomes in a remote hospital dialysis unit. Kidney Foundation; 2011-2012; $72,000. - Greenway JA & Nicholson SA. Mortality in patients with IgA nephropathy. Kidney Health Australia. 2011-2012; $47,987. 2. Commercially Sponsored Research: • Principal Investigator. BEACON – Bardoxolone methyl evaluation in patients with chronic kidney disease and type 2 diabetes: the occurrence of renal events. Sunshine Coast Hospital and Health Service, 2011 – ongoing. • 0 • Principal Investigator (local site), steering committee member, and Australian lead. ACTIVE dialysis – A clinical trial of intensive dialysis. Sunshine Coast Hospital and Health Service, 2009 – 2012. 3. Unfunded investigator initiated research: • Principal Investigator (local site). Consumer perceptions regarding dialysis treatment in Queensland. Sunshine Coast Hospital and Health Service, March 2010-October 2010

21

Co-Investigator Name: Dr Fiona Thomas Select as appropriate: SCHHS Employee Early Career Researcher Provide an overview of your education/training and previous employment relevant to this project. In 2005, I achieved a Bachelor of Science degree (Curtin University) and have been researching Chronic Kidney Disease since 2007, when I completed my First Class Honours Degree through Curtin University. To broaden my experience in this area, I then moved to Queensland to undertake a PhD under Professor Julianne Greenway’s supervision at the University of the Sunshine Coast. Completed in 2012, my project investigated patient outcomes and potential complications in rural and remote hospital dialysis units in Queensland. I have been continuing work on this project as a Postdoctoral Research Fellow in the University of the Sunshine Coast School of Nursing and Midwifery. Provide evidence of your ability to conduct research. For my PhD project, I was responsible for all aspects of the study including: ethics applications; design of study documents; study participant recruitment and interview;collation, storage and entry of data; data analysis; liaison with collaborators; preparation of applications for funding and manuscript preparation. My career research outputs include: • 9 peer-reviewed journal publications, 6 first author (including one publication in the high-ranking journal “Kidney International”) • Presentation of research at 18 national/international conferences • Reviewer for 3 journals • Recipient of 5 competitive travel awards to present at national/international conferences, totalling $8,400 • Achieved 3 conference awards for “Best Poster” List up to five (5) of your publications or presentations that are most relevant to the project. 1. Thomas F, …& JA Greenway. Peritoneal dialysis outcomes in a cohort of overweight patients. International Journal of Urology and Nephrology 2014; 25:678-682. 2. Thomas F et al..Post-streptococcal glomerulonephritis is a strong risk factor for chronic kidney disease in later life. Kidney International 2013 117:106-112. 3. Karawan M, Thomas F et al. Seroprevalence of Streptococcal Inhibitor of Complement (SIC) suggests association of streptococcal infection with chronic kidney disease. BMC Nephrology 2013; 14:101. 4. Nicholson SA, Thomas F, Greenway JA et al. Dialysis in public and private hospitals in Queensland. Internal Medicine Journal 2012; 48(8):887-93. 5. Thomas F et al. A longitudinal study of dialysis patients in rural and remote settings in Australia. Medical Journal of Australia 2012; 22:178-186. Provide details of up to five (5) recent research projects as Investigator. Include details of grant or other funding. 2013: Peritoneal dialysis outcomes in a cohort of overweight patients. FL Thomas. USC seed funding grant, $5,000. 2011-2012: A retrospective analysis of trends and patient outcomes in a remote hospital dialysis unit. SA Nicholson, JA Greenway & FL Thomas. Kidney Foundation; 2013-2014; $72,000. 2008-2012: Patient Outcomes and Potential Complications in Rural and Remote Hospital Dialysis Units. FL Thomas. APA funded PhD scholarship, plus Queensland Smart State top-up award..

22

Section 6 – Budget and Justification Research Costs Requested from Wishlist Costing Summary

Total

Salaries

$ 19,075

Travel

$0

Materials/Consumables/Equipment (eg printing, postage, software)

$ 660

Supply of drugs/diagnostics/clinical tests

$0

Other costs

$0

Total Research Costs

$ 19,735

Budget Justification (maximum ½ page) Provide a statement justifying the costs for each item; or an indication as to how the funds will be used. This project is being conducted in collaboration with the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital. Total project funding is $39,470. The RBWH Renal Department will contribute $19,735 for the conduct of the research at that site. We request $19,735 from Wishlist for the conduct of the research in the SCHHS. Salaries: Salary support is required for the Principal Investigator. The Principal Investigator will be responsible for assessing eligibility and conducting recruitment with patients and their caregiver. The Principal Investigator will also collect and enter data from completed questionnaires and patient records; undertake data analysis and generate the final report/publication. The study will involve 140 patients and 140 caregivers, with estimated recruitment and data collection time per participant of 30 minutes. An additional 25 hours of nursing time will be required for analysis and write-up. Research Nurse NO2 @ $55 per hour (including on-costs) x 1.0 hour per participant x 280 participants = $15,400; plus Reseach Nurse NO2 @ $55 per hour (including on-costs) x 50 hours = $2,750 Materials – printing of information sheets, consent forms and data collection forms 280 participants x 30 pages per participant x $0.05 per page = $420 Equipment – supply/access to SCHHS computer @ $20 per month for 12 months = $240

Section 7 – Certification Certification – Principal Investigator I accept full responsibility for the conduct of this research in accordance with the principles of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (2007). I agree to acknowledge Wishlist in all outputs which result from the research funded by the grant, including all publications, conferences, presentations, proceedings and in any associated publicity or media coverage of the project. I agree that any funding awarded in relation to this application will not be used for anything other than as indicated in this application and the agreement made between all parties. I certify that the details provided in this application and in any supporting documentation are true and complete. I confirm that this application complies with all instructions in the Wishlist USC/SCHHS Collaborative Research Grant Guidelines and Advice to Applicants and understand that failure to comply may result in the withdrawal of the application from the review process. Name: Professor Julianne Greenway Date: 01/10/2014

Signature:

23

Certification – Associate Dean (Research)/Head of School I certify that this application has been submitted for internal review according to arrangements made by the relevant School, Faculty, Centre or other organisational unit. Name: Associate Professor Helen Wallace

Signature:

Date: 01/10/2014

Certification – Executive Dean I certify that: 1. The applicant is eligible to apply for a University Research Grant; 2. The application has been subject to internal review by the Faculty/cost centre prior to submission. 3. I am prepared to have the project carried out in my Faculty/organisational area under the circumstances set out by the applicant/s; 4. To the best of my knowledge all details in this application are true and complete; 5. The amount of time which the researcher/s will be devoting to the project is appropriate given existing workloads; 6. Approval of each Co-investigator’s participation to the extent indicated has been received from his/her employer or cost centre manager; 7. This Faculty/cost centre supports this application and if successful it will provide basic infrastructure for the research project; 8. The research project can be accommodated within the general facilities in this Faculty/cost centre and sufficient working and office space is available for any proposed additional staff; and 9. If successful, the research project will not be permitted to proceed until any appropriate ethics/biosafety approval has been obtained Name: Professor John Bartlett

Signature:

Date: 01/10/2014

Certification – SCHHS Head of Department I certify that there are suitable and adequate facilities and resources for this research to be conducted in my Department. I certify that the project is appropriate to the clinical area. I support this research being conducted in my department. Name of Department: Medical Services Group Name of Head of Department: Dr Peter Hollet

Signature: _Signature of Dr Peter Hollet_

Date: 02/05/2013

Attach CV of Professor Julianne Greenway. CV must demonstrate Julianne’s ability to meet the criteria of an Experienced Researcher.

24