ingredients of a research proposal

How To Write A Research Proposal

A Straightforward How-To Guide (With Examples)

By: Derek Jansen (MBA) | Reviewed By: Dr. Eunice Rautenbach | August 2019 (Updated April 2023)

Writing up a strong research proposal for a dissertation or thesis is much like a marriage proposal. It’s a task that calls on you to win somebody over and persuade them that what you’re planning is a great idea. An idea they’re happy to say ‘yes’ to. This means that your dissertation proposal needs to be   persuasive ,   attractive   and well-planned. In this post, I’ll show you how to write a winning dissertation proposal, from scratch.

Before you start:

– Understand exactly what a research proposal is – Ask yourself these 4 questions

The 5 essential ingredients:

• The title/topic
• The introduction chapter
• The scope/delimitations
• Preliminary literature review
• Design/ methodology
• Practical considerations and risks 

What Is A Research Proposal?

The research proposal is literally that: a written document that communicates what you propose to research, in a concise format. It’s where you put all that stuff that’s spinning around in your head down on to paper, in a logical, convincing fashion.

Convincing   is the keyword here, as your research proposal needs to convince the assessor that your research is   clearly articulated   (i.e., a clear research question) ,   worth doing   (i.e., is unique and valuable enough to justify the effort), and   doable   within the restrictions you’ll face (time limits, budget, skill limits, etc.). If your proposal does not address these three criteria, your research won’t be approved, no matter how “exciting” the research idea might be.

PS – if you’re completely new to proposal writing, we’ve got a detailed walkthrough video covering two successful research proposals here . 

How do I know I’m ready?

Before starting the writing process, you need to   ask yourself 4 important questions .  If you can’t answer them succinctly and confidently, you’re not ready – you need to go back and think more deeply about your dissertation topic .

You should be able to answer the following 4 questions before starting your dissertation or thesis research proposal:

• WHAT is my main research question? (the topic)
• WHO cares and why is this important? (the justification)
• WHAT data would I need to answer this question, and how will I analyse it? (the research design)
• HOW will I manage the completion of this research, within the given timelines? (project and risk management)

If you can’t answer these questions clearly and concisely,   you’re not yet ready   to write your research proposal – revisit our   post on choosing a topic .

If you can, that’s great – it’s time to start writing up your dissertation proposal. Next, I’ll discuss what needs to go into your research proposal, and how to structure it all into an intuitive, convincing document with a linear narrative.

The 5 Essential Ingredients

Research proposals can vary in style between institutions and disciplines, but here I’ll share with you a   handy 5-section structure   you can use. These 5 sections directly address the core questions we spoke about earlier, ensuring that you present a convincing proposal. If your institution already provides a proposal template, there will likely be substantial overlap with this, so you’ll still get value from reading on.

For each section discussed below, make sure you use headers and sub-headers (ideally, numbered headers) to help the reader navigate through your document, and to support them when they need to revisit a previous section. Don’t just present an endless wall of text, paragraph after paragraph after paragraph…

Top Tip:   Use MS Word Styles to format headings. This will allow you to be clear about whether a sub-heading is level 2, 3, or 4. Additionally, you can view your document in ‘outline view’ which will show you only your headings. This makes it much easier to check your structure, shift things around and make decisions about where a section needs to sit. You can also generate a 100% accurate table of contents using Word’s automatic functionality.

Ingredient #1 – Topic/Title Header

Your research proposal’s title should be your main research question in its simplest form, possibly with a sub-heading providing basic details on the specifics of the study. For example:

“Compliance with equality legislation in the charity sector: a study of the ‘reasonable adjustments’ made in three London care homes”

As you can see, this title provides a clear indication of what the research is about, in broad terms. It paints a high-level picture for the first-time reader, which gives them a taste of what to expect.   Always aim for a clear, concise title . Don’t feel the need to capture every detail of your research in your title – your proposal will fill in the gaps.

Need a helping hand?

Ingredient #2 – Introduction

In this section of your research proposal, you’ll expand on what you’ve communicated in the title, by providing a few paragraphs which offer more detail about your research topic. Importantly, the focus here is the   topic   – what will you research and why is that worth researching? This is not the place to discuss methodology, practicalities, etc. – you’ll do that later.

You should cover the following:

• An overview of the   broad area   you’ll be researching – introduce the reader to key concepts and language
• An explanation of the   specific (narrower) area   you’ll be focusing, and why you’ll be focusing there
• Your research   aims   and   objectives
• Your   research question (s) and sub-questions (if applicable)

Importantly, you should aim to use short sentences and plain language – don’t babble on with extensive jargon, acronyms and complex language. Assume that the reader is an intelligent layman – not a subject area specialist (even if they are). Remember that the   best writing is writing that can be easily understood   and digested. Keep it simple.

Note that some universities may want some extra bits and pieces in your introduction section. For example, personal development objectives, a structural outline, etc. Check your brief to see if there are any other details they expect in your proposal, and make sure you find a place for these.

Ingredient #3 – Scope

Next, you’ll need to specify what the scope of your research will be – this is also known as the delimitations . In other words, you need to make it clear what you will be covering and, more importantly, what you won’t be covering in your research. Simply put, this is about ring fencing your research topic so that you have a laser-sharp focus.

All too often, students feel the need to go broad and try to address as many issues as possible, in the interest of producing comprehensive research. Whilst this is admirable, it’s a mistake. By tightly refining your scope, you’ll enable yourself to   go deep   with your research, which is what you need to earn good marks. If your scope is too broad, you’re likely going to land up with superficial research (which won’t earn marks), so don’t be afraid to narrow things down.

Ingredient #4 – Literature Review

In this section of your research proposal, you need to provide a (relatively) brief discussion of the existing literature. Naturally, this will not be as comprehensive as the literature review in your actual dissertation, but it will lay the foundation for that. In fact, if you put in the effort at this stage, you’ll make your life a lot easier when it’s time to write your actual literature review chapter.

There are a few things you need to achieve in this section:

• Demonstrate that you’ve done your reading and are   familiar with the current state of the research   in your topic area.
• Show that   there’s a clear gap   for your specific research – i.e., show that your topic is sufficiently unique and will add value to the existing research.
• Show how the existing research has shaped your thinking regarding   research design . For example, you might use scales or questionnaires from previous studies.

When you write up your literature review, keep these three objectives front of mind, especially number two (revealing the gap in the literature), so that your literature review has a   clear purpose and direction . Everything you write should be contributing towards one (or more) of these objectives in some way. If it doesn’t, you need to ask yourself whether it’s truly needed.

Top Tip:  Don’t fall into the trap of just describing the main pieces of literature, for example, “A says this, B says that, C also says that…” and so on. Merely describing the literature provides no value. Instead, you need to   synthesise   it, and use it to address the three objectives above.

Ingredient #5 – Research Methodology

Now that you’ve clearly explained both your intended research topic (in the introduction) and the existing research it will draw on (in the literature review section), it’s time to get practical and explain exactly how you’ll be carrying out your own research. In other words, your research methodology.

In this section, you’ll need to   answer two critical questions :

• How   will you design your research? I.e., what research methodology will you adopt, what will your sample be, how will you collect data, etc.
• Why   have you chosen this design? I.e., why does this approach suit your specific research aims, objectives and questions?

In other words, this is not just about explaining WHAT you’ll be doing, it’s also about explaining WHY. In fact, the   justification is the most important part , because that justification is how you demonstrate a good understanding of research design (which is what assessors want to see).

Some essential design choices you need to cover in your research proposal include:

• Your intended research philosophy (e.g., positivism, interpretivism or pragmatism )
• What methodological approach you’ll be taking (e.g., qualitative , quantitative or mixed )
• The details of your sample (e.g., sample size, who they are, who they represent, etc.)
• What data you plan to collect (i.e. data about what, in what form?)
• How you plan to collect it (e.g., surveys , interviews , focus groups, etc.)
• How you plan to analyse it (e.g., regression analysis, thematic analysis , etc.)
• Ethical adherence (i.e., does this research satisfy all ethical requirements of your institution, or does it need further approval?)

This list is not exhaustive – these are just some core attributes of research design. Check with your institution what level of detail they expect. The “ research onion ” by Saunders et al (2009) provides a good summary of the various design choices you ultimately need to make – you can   read more about that here .

Don’t forget the practicalities…

In addition to the technical aspects, you will need to address the   practical   side of the project. In other words, you need to explain   what resources you’ll need   (e.g., time, money, access to equipment or software, etc.) and how you intend to secure these resources. You need to show that your project is feasible, so any “make or break” type resources need to already be secured. The success or failure of your project cannot depend on some resource which you’re not yet sure you have access to.

Another part of the practicalities discussion is   project and risk management . In other words, you need to show that you have a clear project plan to tackle your research with. Some key questions to address:

• What are the timelines for each phase of your project?
• Are the time allocations reasonable?
• What happens if something takes longer than anticipated (risk management)?
• What happens if you don’t get the response rate you expect?

A good way to demonstrate that you’ve thought this through is to include a Gantt chart and a risk register (in the appendix if word count is a problem). With these two tools, you can show that you’ve got a clear, feasible plan, and you’ve thought about and accounted for the potential risks.

Tip – Be honest about the potential difficulties – but show that you are anticipating solutions and workarounds. This is much more impressive to an assessor than an unrealistically optimistic proposal which does not anticipate any challenges whatsoever.

Final Touches: Read And Simplify

The final step is to edit and proofread your proposal – very carefully. It sounds obvious, but all too often poor editing and proofreading ruin a good proposal. Nothing is more off-putting for an assessor than a poorly edited, typo-strewn document. It sends the message that you either do not pay attention to detail, or just don’t care. Neither of these are good messages. Put the effort into editing and proofreading your proposal (or pay someone to do it for you) – it will pay dividends.

When you’re editing, watch out for ‘academese’. Many students can speak simply, passionately and clearly about their dissertation topic – but become incomprehensible the moment they turn the laptop on. You are not required to write in any kind of special, formal, complex language when you write academic work. Sure, there may be technical terms, jargon specific to your discipline, shorthand terms and so on. But, apart from those,   keep your written language very close to natural spoken language   – just as you would speak in the classroom. Imagine that you are explaining your project plans to your classmates or a family member. Remember, write for the intelligent layman, not the subject matter experts. Plain-language, concise writing is what wins hearts and minds – and marks!

Let’s Recap: Research Proposal 101

And there you have it – how to write your dissertation or thesis research proposal, from the title page to the final proof. Here’s a quick recap of the key takeaways:

• The purpose of the research proposal is to   convince   – therefore, you need to make a clear, concise argument of why your research is both worth doing and doable.
• Make sure you can ask the critical what, who, and how questions of your research   before   you put pen to paper.
• Title – provides the first taste of your research, in broad terms
• Introduction – explains what you’ll be researching in more detail
• Scope – explains the boundaries of your research
• Literature review – explains how your research fits into the existing research and why it’s unique and valuable
• Research methodology – explains and justifies how you will carry out your own research

Hopefully, this post has helped you better understand how to write up a winning research proposal. If you enjoyed it, be sure to check out the rest of the Grad Coach Blog . If your university doesn’t provide any template for your proposal, you might want to try out our free research proposal template .

Psst… there’s more!

This post is an extract from our bestselling short course, Research Proposal Bootcamp . If you want to work smart, you don't want to miss this .

You Might Also Like:

30 Comments

Thank you so much for the valuable insight that you have given, especially on the research proposal. That is what I have managed to cover. I still need to go back to the other parts as I got disturbed while still listening to Derek’s audio on you-tube. I am inspired. I will definitely continue with Grad-coach guidance on You-tube.

Thanks for the kind words :). All the best with your proposal.

First of all, thanks a lot for making such a wonderful presentation. The video was really useful and gave me a very clear insight of how a research proposal has to be written. I shall try implementing these ideas in my RP.

Once again, I thank you for this content.

I found reading your outline on writing research proposal very beneficial. I wish there was a way of submitting my draft proposal to you guys for critiquing before I submit to the institution.

Hi Bonginkosi

Thank you for the kind words. Yes, we do provide a review service. The best starting point is to have a chat with one of our coaches here: https://gradcoach.com/book/new/ .

Hello team GRADCOACH, may God bless you so much. I was totally green in research. Am so happy for your free superb tutorials and resources. Once again thank you so much Derek and his team.

You’re welcome, Erick. Good luck with your research proposal 🙂

thank you for the information. its precise and on point.

Really a remarkable piece of writing and great source of guidance for the researchers. GOD BLESS YOU for your guidance. Regards

Thanks so much for your guidance. It is easy and comprehensive the way you explain the steps for a winning research proposal.

Thank you guys so much for the rich post. I enjoyed and learn from every word in it. My problem now is how to get into your platform wherein I can always seek help on things related to my research work ? Secondly, I wish to find out if there is a way I can send my tentative proposal to you guys for examination before I take to my supervisor Once again thanks very much for the insights

Thanks for your kind words, Desire.

If you are based in a country where Grad Coach’s paid services are available, you can book a consultation by clicking the “Book” button in the top right.

Best of luck with your studies.

May God bless you team for the wonderful work you are doing,

If I have a topic, Can I submit it to you so that you can draft a proposal for me?? As I am expecting to go for masters degree in the near future.

Thanks for your comment. We definitely cannot draft a proposal for you, as that would constitute academic misconduct. The proposal needs to be your own work. We can coach you through the process, but it needs to be your own work and your own writing.

Best of luck with your research!

I found a lot of many essential concepts from your material. it is real a road map to write a research proposal. so thanks a lot. If there is any update material on your hand on MBA please forward to me.

GradCoach is a professional website that presents support and helps for MBA student like me through the useful online information on the page and with my 1-on-1 online coaching with the amazing and professional PhD Kerryen.

Thank you Kerryen so much for the support and help 🙂

I really recommend dealing with such a reliable services provider like Gradcoah and a coach like Kerryen.

Hi, Am happy for your service and effort to help students and researchers, Please, i have been given an assignment on research for strategic development, the task one is to formulate a research proposal to support the strategic development of a business area, my issue here is how to go about it, especially the topic or title and introduction. Please, i would like to know if you could help me and how much is the charge.

This content is practical, valuable, and just great!

Thank you very much!

Hi Derek, Thank you for the valuable presentation. It is very helpful especially for beginners like me. I am just starting my PhD.

This is quite instructive and research proposal made simple. Can I have a research proposal template?

Great! Thanks for rescuing me, because I had no former knowledge in this topic. But with this piece of information, I am now secured. Thank you once more.

I enjoyed listening to your video on how to write a proposal. I think I will be able to write a winning proposal with your advice. I wish you were to be my supervisor.

Dear Derek Jansen,

Thank you for your great content. I couldn’t learn these topics in MBA, but now I learned from GradCoach. Really appreciate your efforts….

From Afghanistan!

I have got very essential inputs for startup of my dissertation proposal. Well organized properly communicated with video presentation. Thank you for the presentation.

Wow, this is absolutely amazing guys. Thank you so much for the fruitful presentation, you’ve made my research much easier.

this helps me a lot. thank you all so much for impacting in us. may god richly bless you all

How I wish I’d learn about Grad Coach earlier. I’ve been stumbling around writing and rewriting! Now I have concise clear directions on how to put this thing together. Thank you!

Fantastic!! Thank You for this very concise yet comprehensive guidance.

Even if I am poor in English I would like to thank you very much.

Thank you very much, this is very insightful.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

• Print Friendly

• Privacy Policy

Home » How To Write A Research Proposal – Step-by-Step [Template]

How To Write A Research Proposal – Step-by-Step [Template]

Table of Contents

How To Write a Research Proposal

Writing a Research proposal involves several steps to ensure a well-structured and comprehensive document. Here is an explanation of each step:

1. Title and Abstract

• Choose a concise and descriptive title that reflects the essence of your research.
• Write an abstract summarizing your research question, objectives, methodology, and expected outcomes. It should provide a brief overview of your proposal.

2. Introduction:

• Provide an introduction to your research topic, highlighting its significance and relevance.
• Clearly state the research problem or question you aim to address.
• Discuss the background and context of the study, including previous research in the field.

3. Research Objectives

• Outline the specific objectives or aims of your research. These objectives should be clear, achievable, and aligned with the research problem.

4. Literature Review:

• Conduct a comprehensive review of relevant literature and studies related to your research topic.
• Summarize key findings, identify gaps, and highlight how your research will contribute to the existing knowledge.

5. Methodology:

• Describe the research design and methodology you plan to employ to address your research objectives.
• Explain the data collection methods, instruments, and analysis techniques you will use.
• Justify why the chosen methods are appropriate and suitable for your research.

6. Timeline:

• Create a timeline or schedule that outlines the major milestones and activities of your research project.
• Break down the research process into smaller tasks and estimate the time required for each task.

7. Resources:

• Identify the resources needed for your research, such as access to specific databases, equipment, or funding.
• Explain how you will acquire or utilize these resources to carry out your research effectively.

8. Ethical Considerations:

• Discuss any ethical issues that may arise during your research and explain how you plan to address them.
• If your research involves human subjects, explain how you will ensure their informed consent and privacy.

9. Expected Outcomes and Significance:

• Clearly state the expected outcomes or results of your research.
• Highlight the potential impact and significance of your research in advancing knowledge or addressing practical issues.

10. References:

• Provide a list of all the references cited in your proposal, following a consistent citation style (e.g., APA, MLA).

11. Appendices:

• Include any additional supporting materials, such as survey questionnaires, interview guides, or data analysis plans.

Research Proposal Format

The format of a research proposal may vary depending on the specific requirements of the institution or funding agency. However, the following is a commonly used format for a research proposal:

1. Title Page:

• Include the title of your research proposal, your name, your affiliation or institution, and the date.

2. Abstract:

• Provide a brief summary of your research proposal, highlighting the research problem, objectives, methodology, and expected outcomes.

3. Introduction:

• Introduce the research topic and provide background information.
• State the research problem or question you aim to address.
• Explain the significance and relevance of the research.
• Review relevant literature and studies related to your research topic.
• Summarize key findings and identify gaps in the existing knowledge.
• Explain how your research will contribute to filling those gaps.

5. Research Objectives:

• Clearly state the specific objectives or aims of your research.
• Ensure that the objectives are clear, focused, and aligned with the research problem.

6. Methodology:

• Describe the research design and methodology you plan to use.
• Explain the data collection methods, instruments, and analysis techniques.
• Justify why the chosen methods are appropriate for your research.

7. Timeline:

8. Resources:

• Explain how you will acquire or utilize these resources effectively.

9. Ethical Considerations:

• If applicable, explain how you will ensure informed consent and protect the privacy of research participants.

10. Expected Outcomes and Significance:

11. References:

12. Appendices:

Research Proposal Template

Here’s a template for a research proposal:

1. Introduction:

2. Literature Review:

3. Research Objectives:

4. Methodology:

5. Timeline:

6. Resources:

7. Ethical Considerations:

8. Expected Outcomes and Significance:

9. References:

10. Appendices:

Research Proposal Sample

Title: The Impact of Online Education on Student Learning Outcomes: A Comparative Study

1. Introduction

Online education has gained significant prominence in recent years, especially due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This research proposal aims to investigate the impact of online education on student learning outcomes by comparing them with traditional face-to-face instruction. The study will explore various aspects of online education, such as instructional methods, student engagement, and academic performance, to provide insights into the effectiveness of online learning.

2. Objectives

The main objectives of this research are as follows:

• To compare student learning outcomes between online and traditional face-to-face education.
• To examine the factors influencing student engagement in online learning environments.
• To assess the effectiveness of different instructional methods employed in online education.
• To identify challenges and opportunities associated with online education and suggest recommendations for improvement.

3. Methodology

3.1 Study Design

This research will utilize a mixed-methods approach to gather both quantitative and qualitative data. The study will include the following components:

3.2 Participants

The research will involve undergraduate students from two universities, one offering online education and the other providing face-to-face instruction. A total of 500 students (250 from each university) will be selected randomly to participate in the study.

3.3 Data Collection

The research will employ the following data collection methods:

• Quantitative: Pre- and post-assessments will be conducted to measure students’ learning outcomes. Data on student demographics and academic performance will also be collected from university records.
• Qualitative: Focus group discussions and individual interviews will be conducted with students to gather their perceptions and experiences regarding online education.

3.4 Data Analysis

Quantitative data will be analyzed using statistical software, employing descriptive statistics, t-tests, and regression analysis. Qualitative data will be transcribed, coded, and analyzed thematically to identify recurring patterns and themes.

4. Ethical Considerations

The study will adhere to ethical guidelines, ensuring the privacy and confidentiality of participants. Informed consent will be obtained, and participants will have the right to withdraw from the study at any time.

5. Significance and Expected Outcomes

This research will contribute to the existing literature by providing empirical evidence on the impact of online education on student learning outcomes. The findings will help educational institutions and policymakers make informed decisions about incorporating online learning methods and improving the quality of online education. Moreover, the study will identify potential challenges and opportunities related to online education and offer recommendations for enhancing student engagement and overall learning outcomes.

6. Timeline

The proposed research will be conducted over a period of 12 months, including data collection, analysis, and report writing.

The estimated budget for this research includes expenses related to data collection, software licenses, participant compensation, and research assistance. A detailed budget breakdown will be provided in the final research plan.

8. Conclusion

This research proposal aims to investigate the impact of online education on student learning outcomes through a comparative study with traditional face-to-face instruction. By exploring various dimensions of online education, this research will provide valuable insights into the effectiveness and challenges associated with online learning. The findings will contribute to the ongoing discourse on educational practices and help shape future strategies for maximizing student learning outcomes in online education settings.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

How To Write A Proposal – Step By Step Guide...

Grant Proposal – Example, Template and Guide

How To Write A Business Proposal – Step-by-Step...

Business Proposal – Templates, Examples and Guide

Proposal – Types, Examples, and Writing Guide

How to choose an Appropriate Method for Research?

• Request new password
• Create a new account

Research Methods in Early Childhood: An Introductory Guide

Student resources, chapter 2: the research proposal.

Abdulai, R.T. and Owusu-Ansah, A. (2014) ‘Essential ingredients of a good research proposal for undergraduate and postgraduate students in the social sciences’, SAGE Open , 4(3): 1–11. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2158244014548178

This article is a comprehensive guide to writing research proposals. It is recommended that you read Chapters 1 and 2 in the textbook before you read this article as the article looks at both research proposals and research design. You will discover that terminology is not fixed. Different authors will use different terms to describe the same thing. For example, in this article the research question is called the research objective. Your institution may expect you to use specific terminology, but as long as you define your terms and use them consistently then these differences are of no account.

Wharewera-Mika, J., Cooper, E., Kool, B., Pereira, S. and Kelly, P. (2015) ‘Caregivers’ voices: the experiences of caregivers of children who sustained serious accidental and non-accidental head injury in early childhood’, Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry , 21(2): 268–86. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1359104515589636

This article looks at parents’ experiences of caring for children who received a head injury before the age of 5. It is a New Zealand study. Imagine you were the researchers at the beginning of the research process. They were required to present a research proposal to one of New Zealand Health and Disability Ethics Committees. Outline what their proposal might look like (minus the literature review).

Writing a Research Proposal

Parts of a research proposal, prosana model, introduction, research question, methodology.

• Structure of a Research Proposal
• Common Proposal Writing Mistakes
• Proposal Writing Resources

A research proposal's purpose is to capture the evaluator's attention, demonstrate the study's potential benefits, and prove that it is a logical and consistent approach (Van Ekelenburg, 2010).  To ensure that your research proposal contains these elements, there are several aspects to include in your proposal (Al-Riyami, 2008):

• Objective(s)
• Variables (independent and dependent)
• Research Question and/or hypothesis

Details about what to include in each element are included in the boxes below.  Depending on the topic of your study, some parts may not apply to your proposal.  You can also watch the video below for a brief overview about writing a successful research proposal.

Van Ekelenburg (2010) uses the PROSANA Model to guide researchers in developing rationale and justification for their research projects.  It is an acronym that connects the problem, solution, and benefits of a particular research project.  It is an easy way to remember the critical parts of a research proposal and how they relate to one another.  It includes the following letters (Van Ekelenburg, 2010):

• Problem: Describing the main problem that the researcher is trying to solve.
• Root causes: Describing what is causing the problem.  Why is the topic an issue?
• fOcus: Narrowing down one of the underlying causes on which the researcher will focus for their research project.
• Solutions: Listing potential solutions or approaches to fix to the problem.  There could be more than one.
• Approach: Selecting the solution that the researcher will want to focus on.
• Novelty: Describing how the solution will address or solve the problem.
• Arguments: Explaining how the proposed solution will benefit the problem.

Research proposal titles should be concise and to the point, but informative.  The title of your proposal may be different from the title of your final research project, but that is completely normal!  Your findings may help you come up with a title that is more fitting for the final project.  Characteristics of good proposal titles are (Al-Riyami, 2008):

• Catchy: It catches the reader's attention by peaking their interest.
• Positive: It spins your project in a positive way towards the reader.
• Transparent: It identifies the independent and dependent variables.

It is also common for proposal titles to be very similar to your research question, hypothesis, or thesis statement (Locke et al., 2007).

An abstract is a brief summary (about 300 words) of the study you are proposing.  It includes the following elements (Al-Riyami, 2008):

• Your primary research question(s).
• Hypothesis or main argument.
• Method you will use to complete the study.  This may include the design, sample population, or measuring instruments that you plan to use.

Our guide on writing summaries may help you with this step.

• Writing a Summary by Luann Edwards Last Updated May 22, 2023 1119 views this year

The purpose of the introduction is to give readers background information about your topic.  it gives the readers a basic understanding of your topic so that they can further understand the significance of your proposal.  A good introduction will explain (Al-Riyami, 2008):

• How it relates to other research done on the topic
• Why your research is significant to the field
• The relevance of your study

Your research objectives are the desired outcomes that you will achieve from the research project.  Depending on your research design, these may be generic or very specific.  You may also have more than one objective (Al-Riyami, 2008).

• General objectives are what the research project will accomplish
• Specific objectives relate to the research questions that the researcher aims to answer through the study.

Be careful not to have too many objectives in your proposal, as having too many can make your project lose focus.  Plus, it may not be possible to achieve several objectives in one study.

This section describes the different types of variables that you plan to have in your study and how you will measure them.  According to Al-Riyami (2008), there are four types of research variables:

• Independent:  The person, object, or idea that is manipulated by the researcher.
• Dependent:  The person, object, or idea whose changes are dependent upon the independent variable.  Typically, it is the item that the researcher is measuring for the study.
• Confounding/Intervening:  Factors that may influence the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable.  These include physical and mental barriers.  Not every study will have intervening variables, but they should be studied if applicable.
• Background:   Factors that are relevant to the study's data and how it can be generalized.  Examples include demographic information such as age, sex, and ethnicity.

Your research proposal should describe each of your variables and how they relate to one another.  Depending on your study, you may not have all four types of variables present.  However, there will always be an independent and dependent variable.

A research question is the main piece of your research project because it explains what your study will discover to the reader.  It is the question that fuels the study, so it is important for it to be precise and unique.  You do not want it to be too broad, and it should identify a relationship between two variables (an independent and a dependent) (Al-Riyami, 2008).  There are six types of research questions (Academic Writer, n.d.):

• Example: "Do people get nervous before speaking in front of an audience?"
• Example: "What are the study habits of college freshmen at Tiffin University?"
• Example: "What primary traits create a successful romantic relationship?"
• Example: "Is there a relationship between a child's performance in school and their parents' socioeconomic status?"
• Example: "Are high school seniors more motivated than high school freshmen?"
• Example: "Do news media outlets impact a person's political opinions?"

For more information on the different types of research questions, you can view the "Research Questions and Hypotheses" tutorial on Academic Writer, located below.  If you are unfamiliar with Academic Writer, we also have a tutorial on using the database located below.

Compose papers in pre-formatted APA templates. Manage references in forms that help craft APA citations. Learn the rules of APA style through tutorials and practice quizzes.

Academic Writer will continue to use the 6th edition guidelines until August 2020. A preview of the 7th edition is available in the footer of the resource's site. Previously known as APA Style Central.

• Academic Writer Tutorial by Pfeiffer Library Last Updated May 22, 2023 15600 views this year

If you know enough about your research topic that you believe a particular outcome may occur as a result of the study, you can include a hypothesis (thesis statement) in your proposal.  A hypothesis is a prediction that you believe will be the outcome of your study.  It explains what you think the relationship will be between the independent and dependent variable (Al-Riyami, 2008).  It is ok if the hypothesis in your proposal turns out to be incorrect, because it is only a prediction!  If you are writing a proposal in the humanities, you may be writing a thesis statement instead of a hypothesis.  A thesis presents the main argument of your research project and leads to corresponding evidence to support your argument.

Hypotheses vs. Theories

Hypotheses are different from theories in that theories represent general principles and sets of rules that explain different phenomena.  They typically represent large areas of study because they are applicable to anything in a particular field.  Hypotheses focus on specific areas within a field and are educated guesses, meaning that they have the potential to be proven wrong (Academic Writer, n.d.).  Because of this, hypotheses can also be formed from theories.

For more information on writing effective thesis statements, you can view our guide on writing thesis statements below.

• Writing Effective Thesis Statements by Luann Edwards Last Updated May 23, 2023 226 views this year

In a research proposal, you must thoroughly explain how you will conduct your study.  This includes things such as (Al-Riyami, 2008):

• Research design:  What research approach will your study take?  Will it be quantitative or qualitative?
• Research subjects/participants:  Who will be participating in your study?  Does your study require human participants?  How will you determine who to study?
• Sample size:  How many participants will your study require?  If you are not using human participants, how much of the sample will you be studying?
• Timeline:  A proposed list of the general tasks and events that you plan to complete the study.  This will include a time frame for each task/event and the order in which they will be completed.
• Interventions:  If you plan on using anything on human participants for the study, you must include information it here.  This is especially important if you plan on using any substances on human subjects.
• Ethical issues:  Are there any potential ethical issues surrounding this study?
• Potential limitations:  Are there any limitations that could skew the data and findings from your study?
• Appendixes:  If you need to present any consent forms, interview questions, surveys, questionnaires, or other items that will be used in your study, you should include samples of each item with an appendix to reference them.  If you are using a copyrighted document, you may need written permission from the original creator to use it in your study.  A copy of the written permission should be included in your proposal.
• Setting:  Where will you be conducting the study?
• Study instruments:  What measuring tools or computer software will you be using to collect data?  How will you collect the data?
• How you will analyze the data:  What strategies or tools will you use to analyze the data you collect?
• Quality control:  Will you have precautions in place to ensure that the study is conducted consistently and that outside factors will not skew the data?
• Budget:  What type of funding will you need for your study?  This will include the funds needed to afford measuring tools, software, etc.
• How you will share the study's findings:  What will you plan to do with the findings?
• Significance of the study: How will your study expand on existing knowledge of the subject area?

For more information on research methodologies, you can view our guide on research methods and methodologies below.

• Research Methodologies by Pfeiffer Library Last Updated Aug 2, 2022 15725 views this year
• << Previous: Welcome
• Next: Structure of a Research Proposal >>
• Last Updated: May 22, 2023 10:46 AM
• URL: https://library.tiffin.edu/writingaresearchproposal

How to write a research proposal that stands out

Stand out from the competition

Take the next steps towards your PhD

Writing your research proposal

When you apply for a research degree at the University of Portsmouth, you may have to submit a research proposal that outlines, among many other things, the nature of your research, and why it's important. 

To help make yours as compelling as possible, read our helpful hints for creating a clear, concise and engaging research proposal.

Prospective supervisors will not be expecting you to have all the answers at this stage; if accepted onto a research degree, your ideas will develop throughout the course of your studies.

What should a research proposal contain?

Title and abstract.

• Your title should be clear and easy-to-understand.
• The abstract is a concise and engaging summary of your research question and approach (around 300 words). It should be written as a standalone piece so that any prospective supervisor can understand what you plan to do, and why, from the abstract alone.

Introduction, background and rationale

• This section should provide a background to your research - what you want to investigate and why the research is important/needed.

Research aims, questions or hypothesis

• You should clearly communicate the research question(s) you would seek to answer in your intended research proposal. Depending on your chosen subject area you may also wish to specify some aims, objectives and hypotheses. If you are not sure whether this is necessary, discuss this with your potential supervisor.

Literature review

• In this section you will need to demonstrate your understanding of the key literature that relates to your research question(s), and outline your critical understanding of what previous research has found. You may also have identified any gaps in the current knowledge related to your area of research, and you can highlight these here.

Methodology

• A rationale and description of the approach you would intend to take to answer your research question(s). You should discuss the general approach you would take to answering your research question(s) e.g. in a Social Science PhD, whether you’d take a qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods approach, as well as considering the more specific issues e.g. would you use interviews or focus groups.
• Clearly outline any separate studies you expect to conduct and how they link or relate to each other. As a rule of thumb, most Science, Social Science and Engineering PhDs research proposals would be expected to contain 3-4 separate studies, each approximately equivalent to a Masters thesis project in size.
• What ethical considerations do you anticipate within your research, and how might you approach these?

Dissemination and impact

• Sharing the findings of your research is a fundamental part of being a researcher, and prospective supervisors will be interested to know how you anticipate disseminating your research findings.
• A research degree can take between 3-6 years to complete, so a timeline of the key stages of your research should be included.

Referencing

• Don't forget to include your references  

How long should my research proposal be? 

Most proposals are between 1,500-4,000 words, but the exact length will vary depending on which research area you're applying to join. 

Your potential supervisor can let you know any specific requirements for the area you’re applying to.

You are strongly encouraged to work with your potential supervisor to refine your proposal before you make a formal application. This way, you can make sure the project is a good fit with their interests and expertise.

Do your homework - make sure your problem hasn't already been solved.

Engage the reader - you don't want the reader to switch off!

Be realistic - especially about timescales and accessing data

Take your time - it's important not to rush writing your research proposal 

Seek feedback - it's always a good idea to get others to read your research proposal

Prepare to be flexible, your project can evolve or change

Important do’s and don’ts

• Write your research proposal in your own words.
• Acknowledge any sources you used for information or ideas presented in your research proposal.
• Make sure the research proposal you are about to submit looks fantastic - f irst impressions count!

Don’t: 

• Copy and paste text directly from sources such as journal articles without acknowledging them in the text. Some universities use plagiarism checking software on the research proposals submitted to them.
• Use AI or similar tools to produce your finished proposal.

My PhD supervisor supported my career ambitions and has been crucial in getting me where I am today.

Robert Lawerence, PhD Molecular Microbiology

Postgraduate Research Proposal Guide

Learn more about research proposals and the process involved in creating the perfect application. 

Follow our step by step guide

Contact Postgraduate Admissions

Speak to one of our friendly team and ask us anything about your postgraduate study options.

Get in touch

Research & Innovation

Elements of A Successful Proposal

General considerations.

• Relates to the purposes and goals of applicant agency
• Strictly adheres to the content and format guidelines of the applicant agency
• Is directed toward the appropriate audience (i.e. those who will review the proposal)
• Clearly addresses the review criteria of the funding source
• Is interesting to read
• Uses a clear, concise, coherent writing style, free of jargon, superfluous information, and undefined acronyms (i.e. it’s easy to read)
• Is organized in a logical manner that is easy to follow
• Uses headings so that information can be found easily
• Calls attention to the most significant points in the proposal through the use of underlining, differences in type, spacing, titles, and appropriate summaries
• Is paginated from beginning to end, including appendix when directly appended to the proposal
• Makes appropriate use of figures, graphs, charts, and other visual materials
• Is so meticulously proofread that it has few (if any) grammatical errors, misspellings, or typos

The Proposal

• Has title that is appropriate, descriptive, and (perhaps) imaginative
• Unless it is brief, has a table of contents that is straight-forward and accurate
• Has a clear, concise, informative abstract/executive summary that can stand alone
• Has clearly stated goals and objectives that are not buried in a morass of narrative
• Follows naturally from previous/current programs or research
• Documents the needs to be met or problems to be solved by the proposed project
• Indicates that the project’s hypotheses rest on sufficient evidence and are conceptually sound
• Clearly describes who will do the work (who), the methods that will be employed (what), which facilities or location will be used (where), and a timetable of events (when)
• Justifies the significance and/or contribution of the project on current scientific knowledge or a given population of people or a body of writing/art and socio economic benefit when appropriate
• Includes appropriate and sufficient citations to prior work, ongoing studies, and related literature
• Establishes the competence and scholarship of the individual(s) involved
• Doesn’t assume that reviewers “know what you mean”
• Makes no unsupported assumptions
• Discusses potential pitfalls and alternative approaches
• Presents a plan for evaluating data or the success of project
• Is of reasonable dimensions (i.e. not trying to answer all of the questions at once)
• Proposes work which can be accomplished in the time allotted
• Demonstrates the individual(s) and/or organization are qualified to perform the proposed project; doesn’t assume that the applicant agency “knows all about you”
• Documents facilities necessary for the success of the project
• Includes necessary letters of support and other supporting documentation
• Includes vitae which demonstrate the credentials required (e.g., Don’t use a promotion and tenure vitae replete with institutional committee assignments for a research proposal)
• Includes a bibliography of cited references
• Has a budget which corresponds to the narrative: all major elements detailed in the budget are described in the narrative and vice versa
• Has a budget sufficient to perform the tasks described in the narrative
• Has a budget which corresponds to the applicant’s agency’s guidelines with respect to content and detail

Proposal Titles

Weak: Genetic Diversity in Luidia clathrada Better: Genetic Diversity in the Starfish Luidia clathrada

Weak: Three Plays by Eugene O’Neill Better: A Comparison of Female Characters in Three Eugene O’Neill Plays

Weak: Improving Math Education in Elementary Schools Better: Innovative Instructional Materials to Improve Math Education in Elementary Schools

Weak: Preparing a New Agenda for Minority Education at the University of Iowa (What’s at the University…the agenda or minority education?) Better: Minority Education: Preparing a New Agenda for the University of Iowa

Weak: Special Studies Directed at the Simplification of Analytical Procedures Concerned with Identification of Blood Proteins Better: Methods to Simplify Analytical Procedures Used to Identify Blood Proteins

Weak: Uses of Marine Plant Species in Food Production to Bring About Reductions in Food Costs Better: Uses of Marine Plant Species in Food Production to Reduce Food Costs

Weak: New Perspectives in Learning Better: New Perspectives in Learning: A Program to Facilitate the Retention and Graduation of Minority Students

Weak: Regulation of K Secretion by the CCD Better: Regulation of Potassium Secretion by the Cortical Collecting Duct

Weak: CT Versus MR in the Diagnosis of Brain Disorders Better: Computer Tomography (CT) Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MR) in the Diagnosis of Brain Disorders

• Open access
• Published: 12 October 2012

Writing implementation research grant proposals: ten key ingredients

• Enola K Proctor 1 ,
• Byron J Powell 1 ,
• Ana A Baumann 1 ,
• Ashley M Hamilton 1 &
• Ryan L Santens 1  

Implementation Science volume  7 , Article number:  96 ( 2012 ) Cite this article

97k Accesses

86 Citations

76 Altmetric

Metrics details

All investigators seeking funding to conduct implementation research face the challenges of preparing a high-quality proposal and demonstrating their capacity to conduct the proposed study. Applicants need to demonstrate the progressive nature of their research agenda and their ability to build cumulatively upon the literature and their own preliminary studies. Because implementation science is an emerging field involving complex and multilevel processes, many investigators may not feel equipped to write competitive proposals, and this concern is pronounced among early stage implementation researchers.

This article addresses the challenges of preparing grant applications that succeed in the emerging field of dissemination and implementation. We summarize ten ingredients that are important in implementation research grants. For each, we provide examples of how preliminary data, background literature, and narrative detail in the application can strengthen the application.

Every investigator struggles with the challenge of fitting into a page-limited application the research background, methodological detail, and information that can convey the project’s feasibility and likelihood of success. While no application can include a high level of detail about every ingredient, addressing the ten ingredients summarized in this article can help assure reviewers of the significance, feasibility, and impact of the proposed research.

Peer Review reports

Investigators seeking funding to conduct implementation research face the challenges of preparing a high-quality proposal and demonstrating their capacity to conduct the proposed study. Researchers need to demonstrate the progressive nature of their research agenda and their ability to build cumulatively upon the literature and their own preliminary studies. Because implementation science is an emerging field involving complex and multilevel processes, most investigators may feel ‘new to the field.’ Furthermore, young investigators may have less preliminary data, and the path to successful proposal writing may seem less clear.

This article identifies ten of the important ingredients in well-crafted implementation proposals; in particular, it addresses how investigators can set the stage for proposed work through pilot data and a well-crafted and rationalized proposed study approach. It addresses questions such as: What preliminary work is important in the grant applications, and how can implementation researchers meet this challenge? How can investigators balance scientific impact with feasibility? Where in an implementation research proposal can investigators demonstrate their capacity to conduct a study as proposed?

The importance of the question

A significant and innovative research question is the first and primary ingredient in a successful proposal. A competitive implementation research application needs to pursue scientific questions that remain unanswered, questions whose answers advance knowledge of implementation with generalizability beyond a given setting. By definition, implementation research in health focuses on a health condition or disease, healthcare settings, and particular evidence-based interventions and programs with promise of reducing a gap in quality of care. It is conducted in usual care settings with practical quality gaps that stakeholders want to reduce. However, to make a compelling argument for scientific innovation and public health significance, a research grant application must have potential beyond reducing a quality gap and implementing a particular evidence-based healthcare practice. The application must have potential to advance the science of implementation by yielding generalizable knowledge. With only one journal devoted solely to implementation science [ 1 ], researchers must be aware of implementation literature that is scattered across a host of discipline-specific journals. Implementation researchers—akin to students with multiple majors—must demonstrate their grounding in implementation science, health diseases, disorders and their treatments, and real-world healthcare delivery.

Although implementation science is often characterized as an emerging field, its bar for scientifically important questions is rising rapidly. Descriptive studies of barriers have dominated implementation science for too long, and the field is urged to ‘move on’ to questions of how and why implementation processes are effective. Accordingly, the Institute of Medicine [ 2 ] has identified studies comparing the effectiveness of alternative dissemination and implementation strategies as a top-quartile priority for comparative effectiveness research. But experimental studies testing implementation strategies need to be informed by systematic background research on the contexts and processes of implementation. While investigators must demonstrate their understanding of these complexities, their grant proposals must balance feasibility with scientific impact. This paper addresses the challenges of preparing grant applications that succeed on these fronts. Though this article focuses on U.S. funding sources and grant mechanisms, the principles that are discussed should be relevant to implementation researchers internationally.

Guidance from grant program announcements

Grant review focuses on the significance of proposed aims, impact and innovation, investigator capacity to conduct the study as proposed, and support for the study hypotheses and research design. The entire application should address these issues. Investigators early in their research careers or new to implementation science often struggle to demonstrate their capacity to conduct the proposed study and the feasibility of the proposed methods. Not all National Institutes of Health (NIH) program announcements require preliminary data. However, those that do are clear that applications must convey investigator training and experience, capacity to conduct the study as proposed, and support for the study hypotheses and research design [ 3 ]. The more complex the project, the more important it is to provide evidence of capacity and feasibility [ 4 ].

The R01grant mechanism is typically large in scope compared to the R03, R21 and R34 a . Program announcements for grant mechanisms that are preliminary to R01 studies give important clues as to how to set the stage for an R01 and demonstrate feasibility. Investigator capacity can be demonstrated by describing prior work, experience, and training relevant to the application’s setting, substantive issues, and methodology—drawing on prior employment and research experience. For example, the NIH R03 small grant mechanism is often used to establish the feasibility of procedures, pilot test instruments, and refine data management procedures to be employed in a subsequent R01. The NIH R21 and the R34 mechanisms support the development of new tools or technologies; proof of concept studies; early phases of research that evaluate the feasibility, tolerability, acceptability and safety of novel treatments; demonstrate the feasibility of recruitment protocols; and support the development of assessment protocols and manuals for programs and treatments to be tested in subsequent R01 studies. These exploratory grants do not require extensive background material or preliminary information, but rather serve as sources for gathering data for subsequent R01 studies. These grant program announcements provide a long list of how pre-R01 mechanisms can be used, and no single application can or should provide all the stage-setting work exemplified in these descriptions.

Review criteria, typically available on funding agency web sites or within program announcements, may vary slightly by funding mechanism. However grants are typically reviewed and scored according to such criteria as: significance, approach (feasibility, appropriateness, robustness), impact, innovation, investigator team, and research environment. Table 1 summarizes the ten ingredients, provides a checklist for reviewing applications prior to submission, and ties each ingredient to one or more of the typical grant review criteria.

The literature does not provide a ‘. . . a comprehensive, prescriptive, and robust-yet practical-model to help…researchers understand (the) factors need to be considered and addressed’ in an R01 study [ 5 ]. Therefore we examined a variety of sources to identify recommendations and examples of background work that can strengthen implementation research proposals. This paper reflects our team’s experience with early career implementation researchers, specifically through training programs in implementation science and our work to provide technical assistance in implementation research through our university’s Clinical and Translational Science Award CTSA program. We also studied grant program announcements, notably the R03, R21, R18, and R01 program announcements in implementation science [ 6 – 9 ]. We studied how successful implementation research R01 grant applications ‘set the stage’ for the proposed study in various sections of the proposal. We conducted a literature search using combinations of the following key words: ‘implementation research,’ ‘implementation studies,’ ‘preliminary studies,’ ‘preliminary data,’ ‘pilot studies,’ ‘pilot data,’ ‘pilot,’ ‘implementation stages,’ ‘implementation phases,’ and ‘feasibility.’ We also drew on published studies describing the introduction and testing of implementation strategies and those that characterize key elements and phases of implementation research [ 10 , 11 ].

From these reviews, we identified ten ingredients that are important in all implementation research grants: the gap between usual care and evidence-based care; the background of the evidence-based treatment to be implemented, its empirical base, and requisites; the theoretical framework for implementation and explicit theoretical justification for the choice of implementation strategies; information about stakeholders’ (providers, consumers, policymakers) treatment priorities; the setting’s (and providers’) readiness to adopt new treatments; the implementation strategies planned or considered in order to implement evidence-based care; the study team’s experience with the setting, treatment, or implementation process and the research environment; the feasibility and requisites of the proposed methods; the measurement and analysis of study variables; and the health delivery setting’s policy/funding environment, leverage or support for sustaining change.

Given the sparse literature on the importance of preliminary studies for implementation science grant applications, we ‘vetted’ our list of grant application components with a convenience sample of experts. Ultimately, nine experts responded to our request, including six members of the Implementation Science editorial board. We asked the experts to rate the importance of each of the ten elements, rating them as ‘1: Very important to address this is the application,’ ‘2: Helpful but not necessary to the application,’ or ‘3: Not very important to address’ within the context of demonstrating investigator capacity and study feasibility. Respondents were also asked whether there are any additional factors that were not listed.

While all the ten ingredients below were considered important for a successful application, several experts noted that their importance varies according to the aims of the application. For example, one expert affirmed the importance of the settings’ readiness to change, but noted that it may not be crucial to address in a given proposal: ‘the setting’s readiness may be unimportant to establish or report prior to the study, because the study purpose may be to establish an answer to this question.’ However, another maintained, ‘in a good grant application, you have to dot all the ‘I’s’ and cross all the ‘T’s.’ I consider all these important.’ One expert noted that applications might need to argue the importance of implementation research itself, including the importance of closing or reducing gaps in the quality of care. This was viewed as particularly important when the study section to review the grant may not understand or appreciate implementation research. In these cases, it may be important to define and differentiate implementation research from other types of clinical and health services research. For example, it may be useful to situate one’s proposal within the Institute of Medicine’s ‘prevention research cycle,’ which demonstrates the progression from pre-intervention, efficacy, and effectiveness research to dissemination and implementation studies that focus on the adoption, sustainability, and scale-up of interventions [ 12 ]. It may also be important to convey that implementation research is very complex, necessitating the use of multiple methods, a high degree of stakeholder involvement, and a fair amount of flexibility in order to ensure that implementers will be able to respond appropriately to unforeseen barriers.

Ten key ingredients of a competitive implementation research grant application

As emphasized at the beginning of this article, the essential ingredient in a successful implementation science proposal is a research question that is innovative and, when answered, can advance the field of implementation science. Assuming that an important question has been established to potential reviewers, we propose that the following ten ingredients can help investigators demonstrate their capacity to conduct the study and to demonstrate the feasibility of completing the study as proposed. For each ingredient, we provide examples of how preliminary data, background literature, and narrative detail in the application can strengthen the application.

The care gap, or quality gap, addressed in the application

The primary rationale for all implementation efforts, and thus a key driver in implementation science, is discovering how to reduce gaps in healthcare access, quality, or, from a public health perspective, reducing the gap between Healthy People 2020 [ 13 ] goals and current health status. Accordingly, implementation research proposals should provide clear evidence that gaps exists and that there is room for improvement and impact through the proposed implementation effort. This is a primary way of demonstrating the public health significance of the proposed work.

Gaps in the quality of programs, services, and healthcare can be measured and documented at the population-, organization-, and provider-levels [ 14 ]. Several kinds of preliminary data can demonstrate the quality gap to be reduced through the proposed implementation effort. For example, investigators can emphasize the burden of disease through data that reflect its morbidity, mortality, quality of life, and cost [ 14 ]. An implementation research grant should cite service system research that demonstrates unmet need [ 15 ], the wide variation in the use of evidence-based treatments in usual care [ 16 – 19 ], or the association between the burden of disease and variations in the use of guidelines [ 20 ]. Investigators can also document that few providers adopt evidence-based treatments [ 21 , 22 ], that evidence-based treatments or programs have limited reach [ 23 ], or that penetration [ 24 ] into a system of care can be addressed by the implementation study. Regardless of the specific approach to documenting a quality gap, investigators should use rigorous methods and involve all relevant stakeholders [ 14 ]. In fact, stakeholders can demonstrate their involvement and endorse quality gaps through letters of support attesting to the lack of evidence-based services in usual care.

The evidence-based treatment to be implemented

A second key ingredient in implementation research proposals is the evidence-based program, treatment, policies, or set of services whose implementation will be studied in the proposed research [ 25 – 27 ]. The research ‘pipeline’ [ 28 – 30 ] contains many effective programs and treatments in a backlog, waiting to be implemented. Moreover, many health settings experience a huge demand for better care. An appropriate evidence-based treatment contributes to the project’s public health significance and practical impact, presuming of course that it will be studied in a way that contributes to implementation science.

Implementation research proposals must demonstrate that the evidence-based service is ready for implementation. The strength of the empirical evidence for a given guideline or treatment [ 31 , 32 ], a key part of ‘readiness,’ can be demonstrated in a variety of ways; in some fields, specific thresholds must be met before an intervention is deemed ‘evidence-based’ or ‘empirically-supported’ [ 33 – 35 ]. For example, Chambless et al. [ 35 ] suggest that interventions should demonstrate efficacy by being shown to be superior to placebos or to another treatment in at least two between group design experiments; or by showing efficacy in a large series of single case design experiments. Further, Chambless et al. [ 35 ] note that the experiments must have been conducted with treatment manuals, the characteristics of the samples must have been clearly specified, and the effects must have been demonstrated by at least two different investigators or investigative teams.

The strength of evidence for a given treatment can also be classified using the Cochrane EPOC’s criteria for levels of evidence, which considers randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, time series designs, and controlled before-and-after studies as appropriate [ 36 ]. Researchers who come to implementation research as effectiveness researchers or as program or treatment developers are well positioned, because they can point to their prior research as part of their own background work. Other researchers can establish readiness for implementation by reviewing evidence for the treatment or program as part of the background literature review, preferably relying on well-conducted systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized-controlled trials (if available). At a minimum, ‘evaluability assessment’ [ 37 ] can help reflect what changes or improvements are needed to optimize effectiveness given the context of the implementation effort.

Conceptual model and theoretical justification

Any research striving for generalizable knowledge should be guided by and propose to test conceptual frameworks, models, and theories [ 38 ]. Yet, theory has been drastically underutilized and underspecified in implementation research [ 38 – 40 ]. For example, in a review of 235 implementation studies, less than 25% of the studies employed theory in any way, and only 6% were explicitly theory-based [ 39 ]. While translating theory into research design is not an easy task [ 36 ], the absence of theory in implementation research has limited our ability to specify key contextual variables and to identify the precise mechanisms by which implementation strategies exert their effects.

McDonald et al. [ 41 ] present a useful hierarchy of theories and models, which serves to organize the different levels of theory and specify the ways in which they can be useful in implementation research. They differentiate between conceptual models, frameworks, and systems, which are used to represent global ideas about a phenomenon and theory, which is an ‘organized, heuristic, coherent, and systematic set of statements related to significant questions that are communicated in a meaningful whole’ [ 41 ]. Within the realm of theory, they differentiate between grand or macro theories ( e.g. , Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations theory [ 26 ]), mid-range theories ( e.g. , transtheoretical model of change [ 42 ]), and micro-theories ( e.g. , feedback intervention theory [ 43 ]). Though models, frameworks, and systems are generally at a higher level of abstraction than theories, it is important to note that the level of abstraction varies both between and within the categories of the hierarchy. The thoughtful integration of both conceptual models and theories can substantially strengthen an application.

Conceptual models, frameworks, and systems can play a critical role in anchoring a research study theoretically by portraying the key variables and relationships to be tested. Even studies that address only a subset of variables within a conceptual model need to be framed conceptually, so that reviewers perceive the larger context (and body of literature) that a particular study proposes to inform. Given the confusion surrounding definitions and terminology within the still-evolving field of dissemination and implementation [ 44 , 45 ], grant proposals need to employ consistent language, clear definitions for constructs, and the most valid and reliable measures for the constructs that correspond to the guiding conceptual framework or theoretical model. Proposal writers should be cautioned that the theory or conceptual model used to frame the study must be used within the application. A mere mention will not suffice. A conceptual model can help frame study questions and hypotheses, anchor the background literature, clarify the constructs to be measured, and illustrate the relationships to be evaluated or tested. The application must also spell out how potential findings will inform the theory or model.

Numerous models and frameworks can inform implementation research. For example, Glasgow et al. [ 23 ] RE-AIM framework can inform evaluation efforts in the area of implementation science. Similarly, Proctor et al. [ 46 ] have proposed a model that informs evaluation by differentiating implementation, service system, and clinical outcomes, and identifying a range of implementation outcomes that can be assessed [ 24 ]. Damschroder et al. ’s [ 10 ] Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research identifies five domains that are critical to successful implementation: intervention characteristics (evidentiary support, relative advantage, adaptability, trialability, and complexity); the outer setting (patient needs and resources, organizational connectedness, peer pressure, external policy and incentives); the inner setting (structural characteristics, networks and communications, culture, climate, readiness for implementation); the characteristics of the individuals involved (knowledge, self-efficacy, stage of change, identification with organization, etc.); and the process of implementation (planning, engaging, executing, reflecting, evaluating). Others have published stage or phase models of implementation. For example, the Department of Veteran Affairs’ QUERI initiative [ 47 ] specifies a four-phase model spanning pilot projects, small clinical trials, regional implementation, and implementation on the national scale; and Aarons, Hurlburt and Horwitz [ 48 ] developed a four phase model of exploration, adoption/preparation, active implementation, and sustainment. Magnabosco [ 49 ] delineates between pre-implementation, initial implementation, and sustainability planning phases.

McDonald et al. [ 41 ] note that grand theories are similar to conceptual models, and that they generally represent theories of change. They differentiate between classical models of change that emphasize natural or passive change processes, such as Rogers’ diffusion of innovations theory [ 26 ], and planned models of change that specify central elements of active implementation efforts. Investigators may find it more helpful to draw from mid-range theories because they discuss the mechanisms of change at various levels of the implementation context [ 26 ]. For example, social psychological theories, organizational theories, cognitive psychology theories, educational theories, and a host of others may be relevant to the proposed project. While conceptual models are useful in framing a study theoretically and providing a ‘big picture’ of the hypothesized relationships between variables, mid-range theories can be more helpful in justifying the selection of specific implementation strategies specifying the mechanisms by which they may exert their effects. Given the different roles that theory can play in implementation research, investigators would be wise to consider relevant theories at multiple levels of the theoretical hierarchy when preparing their proposals. It is far beyond the scope of this article to review conceptual models and theories in detail; however, several authors have produced invaluable syntheses of conceptual models and theories that investigators may find useful [ 10 , 41 , 50 – 56 ].

Stakeholder priorities and engagement in change

Successful implementation of evidence-based interventions largely depends on their fit with the preferences and priorities of those who shape, deliver, and participate in healthcare. Stakeholders in implementation, and thus in implementation research, include treatment or guideline developers, researchers, administrators, providers, funders, community-based organizations, consumers, families, and perhaps legislators who shape reimbursement policies (see Mendel et al. ’ article [ 57 ] for a framework that outlines different levels of stakeholders). These stakeholders are likely to vary in their knowledge, perceptions, and preferences for healthcare. Their perspectives contribute substantially to the context of implementation and must be understood and addressed if the implementation effort is to succeed. A National Institute of Mental Health Council workgroup report [ 58 ] calls for the engagement of multiple stakeholder perspectives, from concept development to implementation, in order to improve the sustainability of evidence-based services in real-world practice. The engagement of key stakeholders in implementation research affects both the impact of proposed implementation efforts, the sustainability of the proposed change, and the feasibility and ultimate success of the proposed research project. Thus, implementation research grant proposals should convey the extent and manner in which key stakeholders are engaged in the project.

Stakeholders and researchers can forge different types of collaborative relationships. Lindamer et al. [ 59 ] describe three different approaches researchers and stakeholders can take that vary with respect to the level of participation of the stakeholders and community in decisions about the research. In the ‘community-targeted’ approach, stakeholders are involved in recruitment and in the dissemination of the results. In the ‘community-based’ approach, stakeholders participate in the selection of research topics, but the researcher makes the final decision on the study design, methodology, and analysis of data. Finally, the ‘community-driven’ approach or community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach entails participation of the stakeholders in all aspects of the research. Some authors advocate for the CBPR model as a strategy to decrease the gap between research and practice because it addresses some of the barriers to implementation and dissemination [ 60 – 62 ] by enhancing the external validity of the research and promoting the sustainability of the intervention. Kerner et al. [ 62 ] note:

‘When community-based organizations are involved as full partners in study design, implementation, and evaluation of study findings, these organizations may be more amenable to adopting the approaches identified as being effective, as their tacit knowledge about ‘what works’ would have been evaluated explicitly through research.’

Stakeholder analysis can be carried out to evaluate and understand stakeholders’ interests, interrelations, influences, preferences, and priorities. The information gathered from stakeholder analysis can then be used to develop strategies for collaborating with stakeholders, to facilitate the implementation of decisions or organizational objectives, or to understand the future of policy directions [ 63 , 64 ].

Implementation research grant applications are stronger when preliminary data, qualitative or quantitative, reflect stakeholder preferences around the proposed change. Engagement is also reflected in publications that the principal investigator (PI) and key stakeholders have shared in authorship, or methodological details that reflect stakeholder priorities. Letters of support are a minimal reflection of stakeholder investment in the proposed implementation project.

Context: Setting’s readiness to adopt new services/ treatments/ programs

Implementation research proposals are strengthened by information that reflects the setting’s readiness, capacity, or appetite for change, specifically around adoption of the proposed evidence-based treatment. This is not to say that all implementation research should be conducted in settings with high appetite for change. Implementation research is often criticized for disproportionate focus on settings that are eager and ready for change. ‘Cherry picking’ sites, where change is virtually guaranteed, or studying implementation only with eager and early adopters, does not produce knowledge that can generalize to usual care, where change is often challenging. The field of implementation science needs information about the process of change where readiness varies, including settings where change is resisted.

Preliminary data on the organizational and policy context and its readiness for change can strengthen an application. Typically viewed as ‘nuisance’ variance to be controlled in efficacy and effectiveness research, contextual factors are key in implementation research [ 65 – 67 ]. The primacy of context is reflected in the choice of ‘it’s all about context’ as a theme at the 2011 NIH Training Institute in Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health [ 68 ]. Because organization, policy, and funding context may be among the strongest influences on implementation outcomes, context needs to be examined front and center in implementation research [ 69 ]. A number of scales are available to capture one key aspect of context, the setting’s readiness or capacity for change. Weiner et al. [ 70 ] extensive review focusing on the conceptualization and measurement of organizational readiness for change identified 43 different instruments; though, they acknowledged substantial problems with the reliability and validity of many of the measures. Due in part to issues with reliability and validity of the measures used in the field, work in this area is ongoing [ 71 , 72 ].

Other approaches to assessing readiness have focused on organizational culture, climate, and work attitudes [ 73 ], and on providers’ attitudes towards evidence-based practices [ 21 , 22 , 74 ]. Furthermore, a prospective identification of implementation barriers and facilitators can be helpful in demonstrating readiness to change, increasing reviewers’ confidence that the PI has thoroughly assessed the implementation context, and informing the selection of implementation strategies (discussed in the following section) [ 75 – 77 ]. An evaluation of barriers and facilitators can be conducted through qualitative [ 78 – 80 ] or survey [ 81 , 82 ] methodology. In fact, a number of scales for measuring implementation barriers have been developed [ 74 , 83 , 84 ]. Letters from agency partners or policy makers, while weaker than data, can also be used to convey the setting’s readiness and capacity for change. Letters are stronger when they address the alignment of the implementation effort to setting or organizational priorities or to current or emergent policies.

Implementation strategy/process

Though the assessment of implementation barriers can play an important role in implementation research, the ‘rising bar’ in the field demands that investigators move beyond the study of barriers to research that generates knowledge about the implementation processes and strategies that can overcome them. Accordingly, the NIH has prioritized efforts to ‘identify, develop, and refine effective and efficient methods, structures, and strategies to disseminate and implement’ innovations in healthcare [ 7 ].

A number of implementation strategies have been identified and discussed in the literature [ 36 , 85 – 87 ]. However, as the Improved Clinical Effectiveness through Behavioural Research Group notes [ 38 ], the most consistent finding from systematic reviews of implementation strategies is that most are effective some, but not all of the time, and produce effect sizes ranging from no effect to a large effect. Our inability to determine how, why, when, and for whom these strategies are effective is hampered in large part by the absence of detailed descriptions of implementation strategies [ 40 ], the use of inconsistent language [ 44 ], and the lack of clear theoretical justification for the selection of specific strategies [ 39 ]. Thus, investigators should take great care in providing detailed descriptions of implementation strategies to be observed or empirically tested. Implementation Science has endorsed [ 40 ] the use of the WIDER Recommendations to Improve Reporting of the Content of Behaviour Change Interventions [ 88 ] as a means of improving the conduct and reporting of implementation research, and these recommendations will undoubtedly be useful to investigators whose proposals employ implementation strategies. Investigators may also find the Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE) helpful [ 89 ]. Additional design specific reporting guidelines can be found on the Equator Network website [ 90 ]. The selection of strategies must be justified conceptually by drawing upon models and frameworks that outline critical implementation elements [ 10 ]. Theory should be used to explain the mechanisms through which implementation strategies are proposed to exert their effects [ 39 ], and it may be helpful to clarify the proposed mechanisms of change through the development of a logic model and illustrate the model through a figure [ 91 ].

According to Brian Mittman, in addition to being theory-based, implementation strategies should be: multifaceted or multilevel (if appropriate); robust or readily adaptable; feasible and acceptable to stakeholders; compelling, saleable, trialable, and observable; sustainable; and scalable [ 92 , 93 ]. We therefore emphasize taking stock of the budget impact of implementation strategies [ 94 ] as well as any cost and cost-effectiveness data related to the implementation strategies [ 95 ]. Although budget impact is a key concern to administrators and some funding agencies require budget impact analysis, implementation science to date suffers a dearth of economic evaluations from which to draw [ 96 , 97 ].

The empirical evidence for the effectiveness of multifaceted strategies has been mixed, because early research touted the benefits of multifaceted strategies [ 98 , 99 ], while a systematic review of 235 implementation trials by Grimshaw et al. found no relationship between the number of component interventions and the effects of multifaceted interventions [ 100 ]. However, Wensing et al. [ 101 ] note that while multifaceted interventions were assumed to address multiple barriers to change, many focus on only one barrier. For example, providing training and consultation is a multifaceted implementation strategy; however, it primarily serves to increase provider knowledge, and does not address other implementation barriers. Thus, Wensing et al. [ 101 ] argue that multifaceted interventions could be more effective if they address different types of implementation barriers ( e.g. , provider knowledge and the organizational context). While the methods for tailoring clinical interventions and implementation strategies to local contexts need to be improved [ 102 ], intervention mapping [ 103 ] and a recently developed ‘behaviour change wheel’ [ 104 ] are two promising approaches.

Proposals that employ multifaceted and multilevel strategies that address prospectively identified implementation barriers [ 102 ] may be more compelling to review committees, but mounting complex experiments may be beyond the reach of many early-stage investigators and many grant mechanisms. However, it is within the scope of R03, R21, and R34 supported research to develop implementation strategies and to conduct pilot tests of their feasibility and acceptability—work that can strengthen the case for sustainability and scalability. Proposal writers should provide preliminary work for implementation strategies in much the same way that intervention developers do, such as by providing manuals or protocols to guide their use, and methods to gauge their fidelity. Such work is illustrated in the pilot study conducted by Kauth et al. [ 105 ], which demonstrated that an external facilitation strategy intended to increase the use of cognitive behavioral therapy within Veteran Affairs clinics was a promising and low-cost strategy; such pilot data would likely bolster reviewers’ confidence that the strategy is feasible, scalable, and ultimately, sustainable. Investigators should also make plans to document any modifications to the intervention and, if possible, incorporate adaptation models to the implementation process, because interventions are rarely implemented without being modified [ 67 , 106 ].

While providing detailed specification of theory-based implementation strategies is critical, it is also imperative that investigators acknowledge the complexity of implementation processes. Aarons and Palinkas [ 107 ] comment:

‘It is unrealistic to assume that implementation is a simple process, that one can identify all of the salient concerns, be completely prepared, and then implement effectively without adjustments. It is becoming increasingly clear that being prepared to implement EBP means being prepared to evaluate, adjust, and adapt in a continuing process that includes give and take between intervention developers, service system researchers, organizations, providers, and consumers.’

Ultimately, proposals that reflect the PI’s understanding of the complexity of the process of implementing evidence-based practices and that provide supporting detail about strategies and processes will be perceived as more feasible to complete through the proposed methods.

Team experience with the setting, treatment, implementation process, and research environment

Grant reviewers are asked to specifically assess a PI’s capacity to successfully complete a proposed study. Grant applications that convey the team’s experience with the study setting, the treatment whose implementation is being studied, and implementation processes help convey capacity and feasibility to complete an implementation research project [ 108 ].

The reader should observe that NIH gives different scores for the team experience with the setting and for the research environment ( http://grants.nih.gov/grants/writing_application.htm ) but the purpose of both sections is demonstrating capacity to successfully carry out the study as proposed. Investigators can convey capacity through a variety of ways. Chief among them is building a strong research team, whose members bring depth and experience in areas the PI does not yet have. Implementation research exemplifies multidisciplinary team science, informed by a diverse range of substantive and methodological fields [ 96 , 109 ]. A team that brings the needed disciplines and skill sets directly to the project enhances the project’s likelihood of success. Early-stage implementation researchers who collaborate or partner with senior investigators reassure reviewers that the proposed work will benefit from the senior team member’s experience and expertise. Similarly, collaborators play important roles in complementing, or rounding out, the PI’s disciplinary perspective and methodological skill set. Early career investigators, therefore, should surround themselves with more established colleagues who bring knowledge and experience in areas key to the study aims and methods. The narrative should cite team members’ relevant work, and their prior work can be addressed in a discussion of preliminary studies. Additionally, the new formats for NIH biosketches and budget justifications enable a clear portrayal of what each team member brings to the proposed study.

For the NIH applications, the research environment is detailed in the resources and environment section of a grant application. Here, an investigator can describe the setting’s track record in implementation research; research centers, labs, and offices that the PI can draw on; and structural and historic ties to healthcare settings. For example, a PI can describe how their project will draw upon the University’s CTSA program [ 110 ], statistics or design labs, established pools of research staff, and health services research centers. Preliminary studies and biosketches provide additional ways to convey the strengths of the environment and context within which an investigator will launch a proposed study.

In summary, researchers need to detail the strengths of the research environment, emphasizing in particular the resources, senior investigators, and research infrastructure that can contribute to the success of the proposed study. A strong research environment is especially important for implementation research, which is typically team-based, requires expertise of multiple disciplines, and requires strong relationships between researchers and community based health settings. Investigators who are surrounded by experienced implementation researchers, working in a setting with strong community ties, and drawing on experienced research staff can inspire greater confidence in the proposed study’s likelihood of success.

Feasibility of proposed research design and methods

One of the most important functions of preliminary work is to demonstrate the feasibility of the proposed research design and methods. Landsverk [ 108 ] urges PIs to consider every possible question reviewers might raise, and to explicitly address those issues in the application. Data from small feasibility studies or pilot work around referral flow; participant entry into the study; participant retention; and the extent to which key measures are understood by participants, acceptable for use, and capture variability can demonstrate that the proposed methods are likely to work. The methods section should contain as much detail as possible, as well as lay out possible choice junctures and contingencies, should methods not work as planned. It is not only important to justify methodological choices, but also to discuss why potential alternatives were not selected. For example, if randomization is not feasible or acceptable to stakeholders, investigators should make that clear. Letters from study site collaborators can support, but should not replace, the narrative’s detail on study methods. For example, letters attesting the willingness of study sites to be randomized or to support recruitment for the proposed timeframe can help offset reviewer concerns about some of the real-world challenges of launching implementation studies.

Measurement and analysis

A grant application must specify a measurement plan for each construct in the study’s overarching conceptual model or guiding theory, whether those constructs pertain to implementation strategies, the context of implementation, stakeholder preferences and priorities, and implementation outcomes [ 111 ]. Yet, crafting the study approach section is complicated by the current lack of consensus on methodological approaches to the study of implementation processes, measuring implementation context and outcomes, and testing implementation strategies [ 112 , 113 ]. Measurement is a particularly important aspect of study methods, because it determines the quality of data. Unlike efficacy and effectiveness studies, implementation research often involves some customization of an intervention to fit local context; accordingly, measurement plans need to address the intervention’s degree of customization versus fidelity [ 97 ]. Moreover, implementation science encompasses a broad range of constructs, from a variety of disciplines, with little standardization of measures or agreement on definitions of constructs across different studies, fields, authors, or research groups, further compounding the burden to present a clear and robust measurement plan along with its rationale. Two current initiatives seek to advance the harmonization, standardization, and rigor of measurement in implementation science, the U.S. National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) Grid-Enabled Measures (GEM) portal [ 114 ] and the Comprehensive Review of Dissemination and Implementation Science Instruments efforts supported by the Seattle Implementation Research Conference (SIRC) at the University of Washington [ 115 ]. Both initiatives engage the implementation science research community to enhance the quality and harmonization of measures. Their respective web sites are being populated with measures and ratings, affording grant writers an invaluable resource in addressing a key methodological challenge.

Key challenges in crafting the analysis plan for implementation studies include: determining the unit of analysis, given the ‘action’ at individual, team, organizational, and policy environments; shaping meditational analyses given the role of contextual variables; and developing and using appropriate methods for characterizing the speed, quality, and degree of implementation. The proposed study’s design, assessment tools, analytic strategies, and analytic tools must address these challenges in some manner [ 113 ]. Grant applications that propose the testing of implementation strategies or processes often provide preliminary data from small-scale pilot studies to examine feasibility and assess sources of variation. However, the magnitude of effects in small pilots should be determined by clinical relevance [ 113 ], given the uncertainty of power calculations from small scale studies [ 116 ].

Policy/funding environment; leverage or support for sustaining change

PIs should ensure that grant applications reflect their understanding of the policy and funding context of the implementation effort. Health policies differ in many ways that impact quality [ 117 ], and legal, reimbursement, and regulatory factors affect the adoption and sustainability of evidence-based treatments [ 118 ]. Raghavan et al. [ 119 ] discuss the policy ecology of implementation, and emphasize that greater attention should be paid to marginal costs associated with implementing evidence-based treatments, including expenses for provider training, supervision, and consultation. Glasgow et al. [ 120 ] recently extended their heretofore behaviorally focused RE-AIM framework for public health interventions to health policies, revealing the challenges associated with policy as a practice-change lever.

PIs can address the policy context of the implementation initiative through the narrative, background literature, letters of support, and the resource and environment section. Proposals that address how the implementation initiative aligns with policy trends enhance their likelihood of being viewed as having high public health significance, as well as greater practical impact, feasibility, and sustainability. It is important to note that it may behoove investigators to address the policy context within a proposal even if it is not likely to be facilitative of implementation, because it demonstrates to reviewers that the investigator is not naïve to the challenges and barriers that exist at this level.

We identify and discuss ten key ingredients in implementation research grant proposals. The paper reflects the team’s experience and expertise: writing for federal funding agencies in the United States. We acknowledge that this will be a strength for some readers and a limitation for international readers, whom we encourage to contribute additional perspectives. Setting the stage with careful background detail and preliminary data may be more important for implementation research, which poses a unique set of challenges that investigators should anticipate and demonstrate their capacity to manage. Data to set the stage for implementation research may be collected by the study team through preliminary, feasibility, or pilot studies, or the team may draw on others’ work, citing background literature to establish readiness for the proposed research.

Every PI struggles with the challenge of fitting into a page-limited application the research background, methodological detail, and information that can convey the project’s feasibility and likelihood of success. The relative emphasis on, and thus length of text addressing, the various sections of a grant proposal varies with the program mechanism, application ‘call,’ and funding source. For NIH applications, most attention and detail should be allocated to the study method because the ‘approach’ section is typically weighted most heavily in scoring. Moreover, the under-specification or lack of detail in study methodology usually receives the bulk of reviewer criticism. Well-constructed, parsimonious tables, logic models, and figures reflecting key concepts and the analytic plan for testing their relationships all help add clarity, focus reviewers, and prevent misperceptions. All implementation research grants need to propose aims, study questions, or hypotheses whose answers will advance implementation science. Beyond this fundamental grounding, proposed implementation studies should address most, if not all, of the ingredients identified here. While no application can include a high level of detail about every ingredient, addressing these components can help assure reviewers of the significance, feasibility, and impact of the proposed research.

a For more information regarding different grant mechanisms, please see: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/funding_program.htm .

Authors’ information

EKP directs the Center for Mental Health Services Research at Washington University in St. Louis (NIMH P30 MH085979), the Dissemination and Implementation Research Core (DIRC) of the Washington University Institute of Clinical and Translational Sciences (NCRR UL1RR024992), and the Implementation Research Institute (NIMH R25 MH080916).

Implementation Science. http://www.implementationscience.com ,

Institute of Medicine: Initial national priorities for comparative effectiveness research. 2009, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press

Google Scholar  

Agency for Health Care Research and Quality's Essentials of the Research Plan. http://www.ahrq.gov/fund/esstplan.htm#Preliminary ,

National Institutes of Health Grant Cycle. http://www.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/grant/cycle/Pages/part05.aspx ,

Feldstein AC, Glasgow RE: A practical, robust implementation and sustainability model (PRISM) for integrating research findings into practice. Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. 2008, 34: 228-243.

Researching Implementation and Change while Improving Quality (R18). http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-08-136.html ,

Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health (R01). http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-10-038.html ,

Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health (R03). http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-10-039.html ,

Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health (R21). http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-10-040.html ,

Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC: Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: A consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implementation Science. 2009, 4 (50): 1-15.

Stetler CB, Mittman BS, Francis J: Overview of the VA quality enhancement research inititative (QUERI) and QUERI theme articles: QUERI series. Implementation Science. 2008, 3: 1-9. 10.1186/1748-5908-3-1.

Institute of Medicine: Preventing mental, emotional, and behavioral disorders among young people: Progress and possibilities. 2009, Washington, DC: National Academies Press

Healthy People. 2020, http://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/default.aspx ,

Kitson A, Straus SE: Identifying the knowledge-to-action gaps. Knowledge Translation in Health Care: Moving from evidence to practice. Edited by: Straus S, Tetroe J, Graham ID. 2009, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 60-72.

Burns BJ, Phillips SD, Wagner HR, Barth RP, Kolko DJ, Campbell Y, Landsverk J: Mental health need and access to mental health services by youths involved with child welfare: a national survey. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2004, 43: 960-970. 10.1097/01.chi.0000127590.95585.65.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

McGlynn EA, Asch SM, Adams J, Keesey J, Hicks J, DeCristofaro A, Kerr EA: The quality of health care delivered to adults in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2003, 348: 2635-2645. 10.1056/NEJMsa022615.

Raghavan R, Inoue M, Ettner SL, Hamilton BH: A preliminary analysis of the receipt of mental health services consistent with national standards among children in the child welfare system. Am J Public Health. 2010, 100: 742-749. 10.2105/AJPH.2008.151472.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Wang PS, Berglund P, Kessler RC: Recent care of common mental disorders in the United States. J Gen Intern Med. 2000, 15: 284-292. 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2000.9908044.x.

CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Zima BT, Hurlburt MS, Knapp P, Ladd H, Tang L, Duan N, Wallace P, Rosenblatt A, Landsverk J, Wells KB: Quality of publicly-funded outpatient specialty mental health care for common childhood psychiatric disorders in California. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2005, 44: 130-144. 10.1097/00004583-200502000-00005.

Brook BS, Dominici F, Pronovost PJ, Makary MA, Schneider E, Pawlik TM: Variations in surgical outcomes associated with hospital compliance with safety. Surgery. 2012, 151: 651-659. 10.1016/j.surg.2011.12.001.

Aarons GA: Mental health provider attitudes toward adoption of evidence-based practice: the Evidence-Based Practice Attitude Scale (EBPAS). Ment Health Serv Res. 2004, 6: 61-74.

Aarons GA, Cafri G, Lugo L, Sawitzky A: Expanding the domains of attitudes towards evidence-based practice: The Evidence Based Attitudes Scale-50. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research. 2012, 5: 331-340.

Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM: Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: The RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health. 1999, 89: 1322-1327. 10.2105/AJPH.89.9.1322.

Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A, Griffey R, Hensley M: Outcomes for implementation research: Conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research. 2010, 38: 65-76.

PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Bond GR, Drake R, Becker D: Beyond evidence-based practice: Nine ideal features of a mental health intervention. Research on Social Work Practice. 2010, 20: 493-501. 10.1177/1049731509358085.

Rogers EM: Diffusion of Innovations. 2003, New York: Free Press, 5

Grol R, Wensing M: Characteristics of successful innovations. Improving patient care: The implementation of change in clinical practice. Edited by: Grol R, Wensing M, Eccles M. 2005, Edinburgh: Elsevier, 60-70.

Diner BM, Carpenter CR, O'Connell T, Pang P, Brown MD, Seupaul RA, Celentano JJ, Mayer D: Graduate medical education and knowledge translation: Role models, information pipelines, and practice change thresholds. Acad Emerg Med. 2007, 14: 1008-1014.

Westfall JM, Mold J, Fagnan L: Practice-based research: ‘Blue Highways’ on the NIH roadmap. JAMA. 2007, 297: 403-406. 10.1001/jama.297.4.403.

CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Kleinman MS, Mold JW: Defining the components of the research pipeline. Clin Transl Sci. 2009, 2: 312-314. 10.1111/j.1752-8062.2009.00119.x.

Oxman AD: Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004, 328: 1490-1494.

Ebell MH, Siwek J, Weiss BD, Woolf SH, Susman J, Ewigman B, Bowman M: Strength of recommendation taxonomy (SORT): A patient-centered approach to grading evidence in the medical literature. J Am Board Fam Pract. 2004, 17: 59-67. 10.3122/jabfm.17.1.59.

Roth A, Fonagy P: What works for whom? A critical review of psychotherapy research. 2005, New York: Guilford

Weissman MM, Verdeli H, Gameroff MJ, Bledsoe SE, Betts K, Mufson L, Fitterling H, Wickramaratne P: National survey of psychotherapy training in psychiatry, psychology, and social work. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2006, 63: 925-934. 10.1001/archpsyc.63.8.925.

Chambless DL, Baker MJ, Baucom DH, Beutler LE, Calhoun KS, Crits-Christoph P, Daiuto A, DeRubeis R, Detweiler J, Haaga DAF: Update on empirically validated therapies, II. The Clinical Psychologist. 1998, 51: 3-16.

Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care group: Data collection checklist. 2002, EPOC measures for review authors

Leviton LC, Khan LK, Rog D, Dawkins N, Cotton D: Evaluability assessment to improve public health policies, programs, and practices. Annu Rev Public Health. 2010, 31: 213-233. 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.012809.103625.

The Improved Clinical Effectiveness through Behavioural Research Group (ICEBeRG): Designing theoretically-informed implementation interventions. Implementation Science. 2006, 1 (4): 1-8.

Davies P, Walker AE, Grimshaw JM: A systematic review of the use of theory in the design of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies and interpretation of the results of rigorous evaluations. Implementation Science. 2010, 5: 1-6. 10.1186/1748-5908-5-1.

Michie S, Fixsen D, Grimshaw JM, Eccles MP: Specifying and reporting complex behaviour change interventions: the need for a scientific method. Implementation Science. 2009, 4 (Article: 40): 1-6.

McDonald KM, Graham ID, Grimshaw J: Toward a theoretical basis for quality improvement interventions. Closing the quality gap: A critical analysis of quality improvement strategies. Edited by: Shojania KG, McDonald KM, Wachter RM, Owens DK. 2004, Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 27-40.

Prochaska JO, Velicer WF: The transtheoretical model of health behavior change. Am J Health Promot. 1997, 12: 38-48. 10.4278/0890-1171-12.1.38.

Kluger AN, DeNisi A: The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychol Bull. 1996, 119: 254-284.

McKibbon KA, Lokker C, Wilczynski NL, Ciliska D, Dobbins M, Davis DA, Haynes RB, Straus SE: A cross-sectional study of the number and frequency of terms used to refer to knowledge translation in a body of health literature in 2006: A Tower of Babel?. Implementation Science. 2010, 5: 1-11. 10.1186/1748-5908-5-1.

Rabin BA, Brownson RC, Joshu-Haire D, Kreuter MW, Weaver NL: A glossary of dissemination and implementation research in health. Journal of Public Health Management. 2008, 14: 117-123.

Proctor EK, Landsverk J, Aarons G, Chambers D, Glisson C, Mittman B: Implementation research in mental health services: An emerging science with conceptual, methodological, and training challenges. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2009, 36: 24-34. 10.1007/s10488-008-0197-4.

Stetler CB, McQueen L, Demakis J, Mittman BS: An organizational framework and strategic implementation for systems-level change to enhance research-based practice: QUERI series. Implementation Science. 2008, 3: 1-11. 10.1186/1748-5908-3-1.

Aarons GA, Hurlburt M, Horwitz SM: Advancing a conceptual model of evidence-based practice implementation in public service sectors. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011, 38: 4-23. 10.1007/s10488-010-0327-7.

Magnabosco JL: Innovations in mental health services implementation: A report on state-level data from the U.S. evidence-based practices project. Implementation Science. 2006, 1: 1-11. 10.1186/1748-5908-1-1.

Michie S, Johnston M, Abraham C, Lawton R, Parker D, Walker A: Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: A consensus approach. Qual Saf Health Care. 2005, 14: 26-33. 10.1136/qshc.2004.011155.

Grol R, Wensing M, Hulscher M, Eccles M: Theories on implementation of change in healthcare. Improving patient care: The implementation of change in clinical practice. Edited by: Grol R, Wensing M, Eccles M. 2005, Edinburgh: Elsevier, 15-40.

Grol R, Bosch MC, Hulscher MEJL, Eccles MP, Wensing M: Planning and studying improvement in patient care: The use of theoretical perspectives. Milbank Q. 2007, 85: 93-138. 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2007.00478.x.

Denis J-L, Lehoux P: Organizational theory. Knowledge translation in health care: Moving from evidence to practice. Edited by: Straus S, Tetroe J, Graham ID. 2009, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 215-225.

Graham ID, Tetroe J, KT Theories Group: Planned action theories. Knowledge translation in health care: Moving from evidence to practice. Edited by: Straus S, Tetroe J, Graham ID. 2009, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 185-195.

Hutchinson A, Estabrooks CA: Cognitive psychology theories of change. Knowledge translation in health care: Moving from evidence to practice. Edited by: Straus S, Tetroe J, Graham ID. 2009, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 196-205.

Hutchinson A, Estabrooks CA: Educational theories. Knowledge translation in health care: Moving from evidence to practice. Edited by: Straus S, Tetroe J, Graham ID. 2009, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 206-214.

Mendel P, Meredith LS, Schoenbaum M, Sherbourne CD, Wells KB: Interventions in organizational and community context: A framework for building evidence on dissemination and implementation research. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2008, 35: 21-37. 10.1007/s10488-007-0144-9.

National Advisory Mental Health Council's Services Research and Clinical Epidemiology Workgroup: The road ahead: Research partnerships to transform services. 2006, Bethesda, Maryland: National Institute of Mental Health

Lindamer LA, Lebowitz B, Hough RL, Garcia P, Aguirre A, Halpain MC: Establishing an implementation network: Lessons learned from community-based participatory research. Implementation Science. 2009, 4 (17): 1-7.

Chen PG, Diaz N, Lucas G, Rosenthal MS: Dissemination of results in community-based participatory research. Am J Prev Med. 2010, 39: 372-378. 10.1016/j.amepre.2010.05.021.

Wallenstein N, Duran B: Community-based participatory research contributions to intervention research: The intersection of science and practice to improve health equity. Am J Public Health. 2010, 100: S40-S46. 10.2105/AJPH.2009.184036.

Kerner J, Rimer B, Emmons K: Dissemination research and research dissemination: How can we close the gap?. Health Psychol. 2005, 24: 443-446.

Brugha R, Varvasovszky Z: Stakeholder analysis: A review. Health Policy Plan. 2000, 15: 239-246. 10.1093/heapol/15.3.239.

Varvasovszky Z, Brugha R: How to do (or not to do) a stakeholder analysis. Health Policy Plan. 2000, 15: 338-345. 10.1093/heapol/15.3.338.

Chambers DA: Advancing the science of implementation: A workshop summary. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research. 2008, 35: 3-10. 10.1007/s10488-007-0146-7.

Glasgow RE, Klesges LM, Dzewaltowski DA, Bull SS, Estabrooks P: The future of health behavior change research: What is needed to improve translation of research into health promotion practice. Ann Behav Med. 2004, 27: 3-12. 10.1207/s15324796abm2701_2.

Schoenwald SK, Hoagwood K: Effectiveness, transportability, and dissemination of interventions: What matters when?. Psychiatr Serv. 2001, 52: 1190-1197. 10.1176/appi.ps.52.9.1190.

Training institute for dissemination and implementation research in health. http://conferences.thehillgroup.com/OBSSRinstitutes/TIDIRH2011/index.html ,

Dearing J: Evolution of diffusion and dissemination theory. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2008, 14: 99-108.

Weiner BJ, Amick H, Lee S-YD: Conceptualization and measurement of organizational readiness for change: A review of the literature in health services research and other fields. Medical Care Research and Review. 2008, 65: 379-436. 10.1177/1077558708317802.

Stamatakis K: Measurement properties of a novel survey to assess stages of organizational readiness for evidence-based practice in community prevention programs. 4th Annual National Institutes of Health Conference on the Science of Dissemination and Implementation. 2011, Maryland: Bethesda

Gagnon M-P, Labarthe J, Legare F, Ouimet M, Estabrooks CA, Roch G, Ghandour EK, Grimshaw J: Measuring organizational readiness for knowledge translation in chronic care. Implementation Science. 2011, 6 (72): 1-10.

Glisson C, Landsverk J, Schoenwald S, Kelleher K, Hoagwood KE, Mayberg S, Green P: Assessing the organizational social context (OSC) of mental health services: implications for research and practice. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2008, 35: 98-113. 10.1007/s10488-007-0148-5.

Larson E: A tool to assess barriers to adherence to hand hygiene guideline. Am J Infect Control. 2004, 32: 48-51. 10.1016/j.ajic.2003.05.005.

Grol R, Wensing M: What drives change? Barriers to and incentives for achieving evidence-based practice. Medical Journal of Australia. 2004, 180: S57-S60.

Légaré F: Assessing barriers and facilitators to knowledge use. Knowledge translation in health care: Moving from evidence to practice. Edited by: Straus S, Tetroe J, Graham ID. 2009, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 83-93.

Cabana MD, Rand CS, Powe NR, Wu AW, Wilson MH, Abboud P-AC, Rubin HR: Why don't physicians follow clinical practice guidelines?. JAMA. 1999, 282: 1458-1465. 10.1001/jama.282.15.1458.

Forsner T, Hansson J, Brommels M, Wistedt AA, Forsell Y: Implementing clinical guidelines in psychiatry: A qualitative study of perceived facilitators and barriers. BMC Psychiatry. 2010, 10: 1-10. 10.1186/1471-244X-10-1.

Rapp CA, Etzel-Wise D, Marty D, Coffman M, Carlson L, Asher D, Callaghan J, Holter M: Barriers to evidence-based practice implementation: Results of a qualitative study. Community Ment Health J. 2010, 46: 112-118. 10.1007/s10597-009-9238-z.

Manuel JI, Mullen EJ, Fang L, Bellamy JL, Bledsoe SE: Preparing social work practitioners to use evidence-based practice: A comparison of experiences from an implementation project. Research on Social Work Practice. 2009, 19: 613-627. 10.1177/1049731509335547.

Chenot J-F, Scherer M, Becker A, Donner-Banzhoff N, Baum E, Leonhardt C, Kellar S, Pfingsten M, Hildebrandt J, Basler H-D, Kochen MM: Acceptance and perceived barriers of implementing a guideline for managing low back in general practice. Implementation Science. 2008, 3: 1-6. 10.1186/1748-5908-3-1.

Jacobs JA, Dodson EA, Baker EA, Deshpande AD, Brownson RC: Barriers to evidence-based decision making in public health: A national survey of chronic disease practitioners. Public Health Rep. 2010, 125: 736-742.

Wensing M, Grol R: Methods to identify implementation problems. Improving Patient Care: The implementation of change in clinical practice. Edited by: Grol R, Wensing M, Eccles M. 2005, Edinburgh: Elsevier, 109-120.

Funk SG, Champagne MT, Wiese RA, Tornquist EM: BARRIERS: The barriers to research utilization scale. Clinical Methods. 1991, 4: 39-45.

CAS   Google Scholar  

Grol R, Wensing M, Eccles M: Improving patient care: The implementation of change in clinical practice. 2005, Edinburgh: Elsevier

Powell BJ, McMillen JC, Proctor EK, Carpenter CR, Griffey RT, Bunger AC, Glass JE, York JL: A compilation of strategies for implementing clinical innovations in health and mental health. Medical Care Research and Review. 2012, 69: 123-157. 10.1177/1077558711430690.

Straus S, Tetroe J, Graham ID: Knowledge translation in health care: Moving from evidence to practice. 2009, Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell

Recommendations to improve reporting of the content of behaviour change interventions. http://interventiondesign.co.uk/ ,

Davidoff F, Batalden P, Stevens D, Ogrinc G, Mooney S: Publication guidelines for quality improvement in health care: Evolution of the SQUIRE project. Qual Saf Health Care. 2008, 17: i3-i9. 10.1136/qshc.2008.029066.

Equator Network. http://www.equator-network.org/ ,

Goeschel CA, Weiss WM, Pronovost PJ: Using a logic model to design and evaluate quality and patient safety improvement programs. 2012, 24: 330-337.

Implementation Research Institute. http://cmhsr.wustl.edu/Training/IRI/Pages/ImplementationResearchTraining.aspx ,

Criteria for peer review of D/I funding applications. Implementation Research Institute. Edited by: Mittman BS. 2010, St. Louis, Missouri

Mauskopf JA, Sullivan SD, Annemans L, Caro J, Mullins CD, Nuijten M, Orlewska E, Watkins J, Trueman P: Principles of good practice for budget impact analysis: Report of the ISPOR task force on good research practices: Budget impact analysis. Values in Health. 2007, 10: 336-347. 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00187.x.

Raghavan R: The role of economic evaluation in dissemination and implementation research. Dissemination and implementation research in health: Translating science to practice. Edited by: Brownson RC, Colditz GA, Proctor EK. 2012, New York: Oxford University Press, 94-113.

Eccles MP, Armstrong D, Baker R, Cleary K, Davies H, Davies S, Gasziou P, Ilott I, Kinmonth A-L, Leng G: An implementation research agenda. Implementation Science. 2009, 4: 1-7. 10.1186/1748-5908-4-1.

Glasgow RE: Critical measurement issues in translational research. Research on Social Work Practice. 2009, 19: 560-568. 10.1177/1049731509335497.

Wensing M, Weijden TVD, Grol R: Implementing guidelines and innovations in general practice: Which interventions are effective?. Br J Gen Pract. 1998, 48: 991-997.

Solberg LI, Brekke ML, Fazio CJ, Fowles J, Jacobsen DN, Kottke TE, Mosser G, O'Connor PJ, Ohnsorg KA, Rolnick SJ: Lessons from experienced guideline implementers: Attend to many factors and use multiple strategies. Journal on Quality Improvement. 2000, 26: 171-188.

Grimshaw JM, Thomas RE, MacLennan G, Fraser C, Ramsay CR, Vale L, Whitty P, Eccles MP, Matowe L, Shirran L: Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies. Health Technol Assess. 2004, 8 (6): 1-72.

Wensing M, Bosch M, Grol R: Selecting, tailoring, and implementing knowledge translation interventions. Knowledge Translation in health care: Moving from evidence to practice. Edited by: Straus S, Tetroe J, Graham ID. 2009, Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 94-113.

Baker R, Camosso-Stefanovic J, Gilliss CL, Shaw EJ, Cheater F, Flottorp S, Robertson N: Tailored interventions to overcome identified barriers to change: Effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010, CD005470-

Bartholomew LK, Parcel GS, Kok G, Gottlieb NH: Planning health promotion programs: An intervention mapping approach. 2011, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Michie S, van Stralen MM, West R: The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implementation Science. 2011, 6 (42): 1-11.

Kauth MR, Sullivan G, Blevins D, Cully JA, Landes RD, Said Q, Teasdale TA: Employing external facilitation to implement cognitive behavioral therapy in VA clinics: A pilot study. Implementation Science. 2010, 5 (75): 1-11.

Aarons GA, Green AE, Palinkas LA, Self-Brown S, Whitaker DJ, Lutzker JR, Silovsky JF, Hecht DB, Chaffin MJ: Dynamic adaptation process to implement an evidence-based child maltreatment intervention. Implementation Science. 2012, 7 (32): 1-9.

Aarons GA, Palinkas LA: Implementation of evidence-based practice in child welfare: Service provider perspectives. Administrative Policy in Mental Health & Mental Health Services Research. 2007, 34: 411-419. 10.1007/s10488-007-0121-3.

Landsverk J: Creating interdisciplinary research teams and using consultants. The field research survivors guide. Edited by: Stiffman AR. 2009, New York: Oxford University Press, 127-145.

Institute of Medicine: The state of quality improvement and implementation research: Workshop summary. 2007, Washington, DC: The National Academies Press

Zerhouni EA, Alving B: Clinical and Translational Science Awards: A framework for a national research agenda. Transl Res. 2006, 148: 4-5. 10.1016/j.lab.2006.05.001.

Proctor EK, Brownson RC: Measurement issues in dissemination and implementation research. Dissemination and implementation research in health: Translating research to practice. Edited by: Brownson RC, Colditz GA, Proctor EK. 2012, New York: Oxford University Press, 261-280.

Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A, Griffey R, Hensley M: Outcomes for implementation research: Conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research. 2011, 38: 65-76. 10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7.

Landsverk J, Brown CH, Chamberlain P, Palinkas LA, Ogihara M, Czaja S, Goldhaber-Fiebert JD, Rolls-Reutz JA, Horwitz SM: Design and analysis in dissemination and implementation research. Dissemination and implementation research in health: Translating research to practice. Edited by: Brownson RC, Colditz GA, Proctor EK. 2012, New York: Oxford University Press, 225-260.

Grid-enabled measures database. https://www.gem-beta.org/Public/Home.aspx ,

Instrument review project: A comprehensive review of dissemination and implementation science instruments. http://www.seattleimplementation.org/sirc-projects/sirc-instrument-project/ ,

Kraemer HC, Mintz J, Noda A, Tinklenberg J, Yesavage JA: Caution regarding the use of pilot studies to guide power calculations for study proposals. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2006, 63: 484-489. 10.1001/archpsyc.63.5.484.

Institute of Medicine: Improving the quality of health care for mental and substance-use conditions. 2006, Washington, DC: National Academy Press

Proctor EK, Knudsen KJ, Fedoravicius N, Hovmand P, Rosen A, Perron B: Implementation of evidence-based practice in behavioral health: Agency director perspectives. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2007, 34: 479-488. 10.1007/s10488-007-0129-8.

Raghavan R, Bright CL, Shadoin AL: Toward a policy ecology of implementation of evidence-based practices in public mental health settings. Implementation Science. 2008, 3: 1-9. 10.1186/1748-5908-3-1.

Jilcott S, Ammerman A, Sommers J, Glasgow RE: Applying the RE-AIM framework to assess the public health impact of policy change. Ann Behav Med. 2007, 34: 105-114. 10.1007/BF02872666.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Preparation of this paper was supported in part by National Center for Research Resources through the Dissemination and Implementation Research Core of Washington University in St. Louis’ Institute of Clinical and Translational Sciences (NCRR UL1 RR024992) and the National Institute of Mental Health through the Center for Mental Health Services Research (NIMH P30 MH068579), the Implementation Research Institute (NIMH R25 MH080916), and a Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award (NIMH T32 RR024992). An earlier version of this paper was an invited presentation at an early investigator workshop, held at the 4 th Annual National Institutes of Health Conference on Advancing the Science of Dissemination and Implementation on March 22, 2011 in Bethesda, Maryland.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Center for Mental Health Services Research, George Warren Brown School of Social Work, Washington University in St. Louis, Campus Box 1196, One Brookings Drive, St. Louis, MO, 63130, USA

Enola K Proctor, Byron J Powell, Ana A Baumann, Ashley M Hamilton & Ryan L Santens

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Enola K Proctor .

Additional information

Competing interests.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors’ contributions

EKP conceived the idea for this paper and led the writing. BJP, AAB, AMH, and RLS contributed to the conceptualization, literature review, and the writing of this manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Rights and permissions

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Proctor, E.K., Powell, B.J., Baumann, A.A. et al. Writing implementation research grant proposals: ten key ingredients. Implementation Sci 7 , 96 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-96

Download citation

Received : 21 February 2012

Accepted : 04 October 2012

Published : 12 October 2012

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-96

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Implementation research
• Grant writing
• Preliminary studies

Implementation Science

ISSN: 1748-5908

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

The Federal Register

The daily journal of the united states government, request access.

Due to aggressive automated scraping of FederalRegister.gov and eCFR.gov, programmatic access to these sites is limited to access to our extensive developer APIs.

If you are human user receiving this message, we can add your IP address to a set of IPs that can access FederalRegister.gov & eCFR.gov; complete the CAPTCHA (bot test) below and click "Request Access". This process will be necessary for each IP address you wish to access the site from, requests are valid for approximately one quarter (three months) after which the process may need to be repeated.

An official website of the United States government.

If you want to request a wider IP range, first request access for your current IP, and then use the "Site Feedback" button found in the lower left-hand side to make the request.