course syllabus - university of jordannursing.ju.edu.jo/lists/courses/attachments/115/quantitative...

The University of Jordan

Accreditation & Quality Assurance Center

COUR S E Syllabus

The University of Jordan Course Syllabus Accreditation and Quality Assurance Center

1 Course title Quantitative Research Methodology

2 Course number 701902

3Credit hours (theory, practical) 3 credit hours (Theory)Contact hours (theory, practical) 3 contact hours (Theory)

4 Prerequisites/corequisites -

5 Program title Ph.D. Nursing Program

6 Program code -

7 Awarding institution The University of Jordan

8 Faculty School of Nursing

9 Department Graduate Studies

10 Level of course First level

11 Year of study and semester (s) 2018/2019- 1st Semester

12 Final Qualification Ph.D.

13 Other department (s) involved in teaching the course

-

14 Language of Instruction English

15 Date of production/revision 1/9/2018

16. Course Coordinator:

Office numbers, office hours, phone numbers, and email addresses should be listed.

Faculty Member: Mahmoud Alhussami, PhD, DScOffice Hours: Monday 1-3 pmOffice Location and Tel: School of Nursing, First Floor. Email and Website: Email: [email protected]

Academic website: http://eacademic.ju.edu.jo/m.alhussami E-Learning website: https://elearning.ju.edu.jo/m.alhussami

17. Other instructors:

Office numbers, office hours, phone numbers, and email addresses should be listed.

18. Course Description:

This course will assist PhD students to use organized review and critical thinking to analyze theoretical works, which are of importance to nursing as a discipline and as a profession. Students will utilize a theorist(s) upon whom to design a research study proposal in his/her area of specialization.

19. Course aims and outcomes:

1

mailto:[email protected]


A- Aims:

This course introduces the student to the main concepts of scientific research and evidence based statistical results. In addition, students will experience actual writing of research proposals and utilize critical thinking and analytical skills in reading and criticizing research articles. More specifically, the main objectives of this course are:

1. Define nursing research and identify potential research questions specific to nursing.

2. Identify a research problem and develop it based on a conceptual framework.

3. Determine the most correct method to test a hypothesis

4. Identify Type I and Type II errors and how to prevent them.

5. Review necessary sampling power.

6. Identify major types of research methodology and the role of theory in each.

7. Develop analytical and communication skills to interact with other healthcare professionals who are also using research to improve health care.

8. Examine and critique published nursing research to identify its strengths and weaknesses.

9. Critique nursing research relevant to health care promotion and health interventions.

B- Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs): Upon successful completion of this course, students will be able to:

1. Knowledge and Understanding1.1. Define concepts of research pyramid and evidence based research.1.2. Compare between different research designs and methods.

1.3. Demonstrate knowledge of measurement issues and instrument development for nursing research.

2. Intellectual Analytical and Cognitive Skills2.1. Examine credibility, rigor and ethical issues pertaining to scientific research2.2. Analyze guiding principles necessary to critique research2.3. Examine confounding and extraneous variables in research2.4. Establish Control measures.

3. Subject/ Specific/ Practical Skills3.1. Interpret concepts and issues unique to different research designs3.2. Construct scientific research proposals3.3. Distinguish different research methods strengthens and weaknesses

4. Creativity /Transferable Key Skills/Evaluation4.1. Critical thinking and analytic application through research critiques4.2. To develop and apply critical thinking skills in grant writing and assessing grant proposals.

4.3. 20. Topic Outline and Schedule:

1.

2


Topic Week Instructor Achieved ILOs Evaluation Methods Reference

Part 1: Course Objectives, Format, Requirement Part 2: Evidence for Practice Decisions

Week 1

Alhussami --- Over all Research Methods and Evidence Based concepts

Canadian Nurses Association (2010) Estabrooks (2004) Kitson (2004) DiCenso (2003) Polit & Beck (2017) Ch. 1 & Ch. 2

Research purpose, objectives and hypoytheses

Week 3 1.1, 1.3,2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 4.1

Research Presentation

Polit and Beck, 2017 ch 4Burns & Grove (2015) ch 5Isaac &Michael, 1997 ch 3Creswell, 2003, ch 6

Critiquing the Empirical Literature & Literature Reviews including Cochrane Reviews

Week 4

1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 4.1


Kalisch et al. (2015) Cronin, Ryan & Coughlan (2007) Myers & Levin (2012) Polit & Beck (2017). Ch. 5 pp 101-115, Ch. 9 pp 210-211Schick-Makaroff et al. (2016) Chang et al. (2013) Jansen et al. (2011) Jones, Lekhak, & Kaewluang (2014) Kryworuchko et al. (2013) Yost et al. (2014) Arskey & O'Malley (2005) Hutton et al. (2015) Polit & Beck (2017) Ch. 29 pp 647-671 Stroup et al. (2000) Whittemore & Knafl (2005)

Frameworks, Conceptual, & Theoretical Underpinnings of Quantitative Research

Week 5

1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 4.1


Thorne, S. & Sawatzky, R. (2014) Pahwa et al. (2012) Polit & Beck (2017) Ch. 6 pp 117-135, Ch. 11 pp 236-246

Quantiattive designs & Design Issues in Research

Week 6

1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 4.1


Bilinski, Duggleby, & Rennie (2010) Bilinski, Duggleby, & Rennie (2013) Giddings, L. S., & Grant, B. M. (2007) Harris et al. (2006) Polit & Beck (2017) Ch. 9 pp 197-203, Ch. 12 pp 249-263 , & Ch. 26 pp 577-599

Ethical Implications of Conducting Quantitative Research

Week 7

1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 4.1


Tri-Council policy statement Dennison & El-Masri (2012). Polit & Beck (2017). Ch 7 pp 137-159 U of S Ethics policies and procedures U of S research integrity policy

Sampling Design Week 8 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, Research Polit & Beck (2017). Ch. 14

3


3.1, 4.1 Presentation pp 297-330Shadish, and Campbell, (2002).Crosby, Salazar & DiClemente (2015). Chapter 6Rudolph, Crawford, Latkin, et al. (2011)

Research Grant Writing Week 9

1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 4.1


Bietz & Bliss (2005) Gray & Bliss (2005) Engberg & Bliss (2005) Bliss & Savik (2005) Colwell & Bliss (2005) Bliss (2005) Bliss (2010) Bliss (2012) CIHR (2012) CIHR (2013) Goodridge et al. (2008) Polit & Beck (2017) Ch. 3 pp 54-67, Ch. 4 pp 69-85, & Ch. 31 pp 700-715

MID TERM Week 10

Measurement Week 11

1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 4.1


Dennison & El-Masri (2012). Engberg & Berben (2012). Polit & Beck (2017). Ch. 14 pp 297-330 & Ch. 15 pp 331-355

Data Collection Week 12

1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 4.1


Polit and Beck, 2017Salazar, Crosby & DiClemente (2016). Chapter 13Kelley, Clark, Brown, Sitzia, 2003Sharma, Wilton, Senn, Fowler, Tan, 2014

Data Analysis Week 13 1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 4.1, 4.2


Polit and Beck, 2017Munro, 2012Green & Salkind, 2005

Dissemination of Research Findings and Research Utilization

Week 14

1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 4.1


Estabrooks et al. (2006) Graham et al. (2006) Kitson, et al. (2008) Polit & Beck (2017). Ch 2 pp 22-45, Ch 3 pp 60-62, & Ch 30 pp 675-699

Proposal Presentations Week 15 All Students

Proposal Presentation

Proposal Presentations Week 16 All Students


Proposal presentations Week 17 All Students


Final Exam To be Announced

1.1, 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 4.1

Final Exam

*In addition to required readings for each week, I will supplement your course readings with articles from the current literature. Students are encouraged to read beyond the suggested readings for the course and to develop a personal library of resources on quantitative research methods.

4


CLASS OUTLINE (Revised for Fall, 2018/2019)

Class One: September, 2018

Part 1: Course Objectives, Format, Requirements

Part 2: Evidence for Practice Decisions

Part 1: Course Objectives, Format, Requirements, and Academic IntegrityPrinciple I: Learning and GrowthStudent DevelopmentSubject Matter CompetencePedagogical CompetencePrinciple II: Honesty and IntegrityAcademic HonestyFair and Valid AssessmentManaging Interactions and RelationshipsPrinciple III: Respect for the Dignity of OthersConfidentialityDealing with Sensitive TopicsRespect for OthersRespect for the Institution

Reading: University of Jordan. Adherence to Academic Standards. University of Jordan. Regulations on Student Academic Misconduct.

Part 2: Evidence for Practice Decisions 1. CNA Position Statement (2010). Evidence-informed Decision-making and Nursing Practice.2. CNA Position Statement (2006). Nursing information and Knowledge Management.3. Evidence-based practice (definition, examples, hierarchy of evidence)

*Please come prepared to discuss what constitutes “sufficient” evidence.Reading:

1. Canadian Nurses Association. (2010). Position statement: Evidence-informed decision-making and nursing practice. Available at:

http://cnaaiic.ca/sitecore%20modules/web/~/media/cna/pagecontent/pdffr/ps113_evidence_informed_2010_e.pdf

2. Estabrooks, C.A. (2004). Thoughts on evidence based nursing and its science-A Canadian perspective. Worldviews on Evidenced Based Nursing, 1(2), 88-90.

3. Kitson, A. (2004). The state of the art and science of evidence-based nursing in UK and Europe. Worldviews on Evidenced Based Nursing, 1(1), 6-8.

4. Polit, D. G., & Beck, C. T. (2017). Chapter 1: Introduction to Nursing Research in and Evidence-Based Practice Environment. In Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice (10th ed.). New York, NY: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 3-21.

5. Polit, D. G., & Beck, C. T. (2017). Chapter 2: Evidence-Based Nursing: Translating Research Evidence into Practice. In Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice (10th ed.). New York, NY: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 22-45.

6. DiCenso, A. (2003). Evidence–based nursing practice: how to get there from here. Nursing Leadership, 16(4), 20-6.

Class 2 September, 20185



http://policies.usask.ca/documents/GuidelinesForAcademicConduct.php#respect

http://policies.usask.ca/documents/GuidelinesForAcademicConduct.php#others

http://policies.usask.ca/documents/GuidelinesForAcademicConduct.php#sensitive

http://policies.usask.ca/documents/GuidelinesForAcademicConduct.php#confident

http://policies.usask.ca/documents/GuidelinesForAcademicConduct.php#dignity

http://policies.usask.ca/documents/GuidelinesForAcademicConduct.php#manage

http://policies.usask.ca/documents/GuidelinesForAcademicConduct.php#valid

http://policies.usask.ca/documents/GuidelinesForAcademicConduct.php#honesty

http://policies.usask.ca/documents/GuidelinesForAcademicConduct.php#integrity

http://policies.usask.ca/documents/GuidelinesForAcademicConduct.php#pedagogy

http://policies.usask.ca/documents/GuidelinesForAcademicConduct.php#subject

http://policies.usask.ca/documents/GuidelinesForAcademicConduct.php#develop

http://policies.usask.ca/documents/GuidelinesForAcademicConduct.php#learning


Research purpose, objectives and hypoytheses• The best research demonstrates an awareness of the current conversation among scholars.• While a 10 year old article may be very informative, it is also true that since that time the

debate has taken new directions.• The best procedure is to stay with articles no more than three to five years old.

Questions addressed in this seminar: • How large or widespread is the problem?• Who is being affected?• How severe is the problem?• Who perceives the problem to be important?

Reading:1. Polit, D. G., & Beck, C. T. (2017). Chapter 4: Research purpose, objectives and hypoytheses:

Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice (10th ed.). New York, NY: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, pp. 22-27.

2. Burns, N., & Grove, S. (2015). Chapter 5: The Practice of Nursing Research Conduct, Critique and Utilization (5th ed.). Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.

3. Isaac, S. &Michael,W. (1997) Chapter 3: Handbook in Research and Evaluation (Third Edition). California, USA: Educational and Industrial Testing Services.

4. Creswell, J. (2003). Chapter 6: Research Design (Second Edition). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.

Class 3 Sep, 2018:Critiquing the Empirical Literature & Literature Reviews including Cochrane Reviews Questions addressed in this seminar: • What are the important criteria for evaluating a research article? • What is causality? What are the criteria for assessing causality? • What are levels of evidence? • What is the difference between causation, correlation and confounds? • What is the difference between a cause and an effect? *Please read the article by Kalisch et al. (2015) and be prepared to discuss the key strengths and limitations of this research using the guidelines outlined by Polit & Beck (2017). (See Box 5.2, Polit and Beck, 2017.) Reading:

1. Kalisch, B.J., Aebersold, M., McLaughlin, M., Tschannen, D., Lane S. (2015). An intervention to improve nursing teamwork using virtual simulation. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 37(2), 164-179.

2. Cronin, P., Ryan, F. & Coughlan, M. (2007). Step-by-step guide to critiquing research. Part 1: quantitative research. British Journal of Nursing, 16(11), 658-663.

3. Myers, G. & Levin, R. F (2012). Can you touch your toes? Using tables of evidence (TOES) to organize your evidence review. Research and Theory for Nursing Practice, 26(4), 238-40.

4. Polit, D. G., & Beck, C. T. (2017). Chapter 5: Literature Reviews: Finding and Critiquing Evidence. In Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice (10th ed.). New York, NY: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, pp. 87-115.

5. Polit, D. G., & Beck, C. T. (2017). Chapter 9: Quantitative Research Design. In Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice (10th ed.). New York, NY: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, pp. 183-184.

6


6. Activity: Review John Hopkins Nursing Evidence Based Practice-Assessment-Strength of Evidence and Quality Rating http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/evidencebasedpractice/_docs/appendix_e_research_evidence_appraisal_tool.pdf.

7. You might find this reading helpful: Daggett, L. M., Harbaugh, B. L., Collum, L. A. (2005). A worksheet for critiquing quantitative nursing research. Nurse Educator, 30(6), 255-258.

Critique of Peer-Reviewed Empirical Article Collaborative Research with Professionals, Scientists in Other Disciplines, and Other Stakeholders. Be prepared to discuss the following: • Methodological triangulation • Interprofessional collaborations: Synergy, opportunities, challenges • Expectations [rights and responsibilities of principal investigator(s), co- investigators, collaborators, team members, and other stakeholders; team building; funding] • How do we handle intellectual property? Reading:

1. Aboelela, S. W., Larson, E., Bakken, S., Carrasquillo, O., Formicola, A., Glied, S. A., Haas, J., & Gebbie, K. M. (2006). Defining interdisciplinary research: Conclusions from a critical review of the literature. Health Services Research, 42(1), Part 1, 329-346.

2. Corbett, C. F., Costa, L. L.. Balas, M. C., Burke, W. J., Feroli, R. E., Daratha, K. B. (2013). Facilitators and Challenges to conducting interdisciplinary research. Medical Care, 51(4) Suppl 2, S23-31.

3. Hall, J. G., Bainbridge, L., Buchan, A., Cribb, A., Drummond, J., Gyles, C., Hicks, T. P., McWilliam, C., Paterson, B., Ratner, P. A., Skarakis-Doyle, E., & Solomon, P. (2006). A meeting of minds: Interdisciplinary research in the health sciences in Canada. CMAJ, 175(7), 763-771.

4. McBride, A. B. (2010). Toward a roadmap for interdisciplinary academic career success. Research and Theory for Nursing Practice: An International Journal, 24 (1), 74- 86.

***Critique of Peer-Reviewed Article is due by Midnight, November 6th, 2018***

Literature Reviews including Cochrane Reviews Be prepared to discuss the following: • Systematic reviews (Cochrane reviews) – overview, strengths, limitations • Integrative reviews • Scoping reviews • Narrative reviews Questions addressed in this seminar: • What are the methodologies used for review of quantitative research? • What are the strength and limitations of different review methodologies? • What does a nursing PhD student need to know about review articles? • Why are review articles needed? • How can I be sure they are valid? • How do I interpret the various summary tools used in review articles? Reading:

7

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/evidencebasedpractice/_docs/appendix_e_research_evidence_appraisal_tool.pdf

http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/evidencebasedpractice/_docs/appendix_e_research_evidence_appraisal_tool.pdf


1. Schick-Makaroff, K., MacDonald, M., Plummer, M., Burgess, J., & Neander, W. (2016). What Synthesis Methodology Should I Use? A Review and Analysis of Approaches to Research Synthesis. AIMS Public Health, 3(1), 172-215. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3934/publichealth.2016.1.172 Reviews: Examine the methodology used in the following articles. Please use the accompanying methodology papers to review readings.

2. Chang, C.W., Mu P.F., Jou, S.T., Wong T.T., & Chen Y.C. (2013). Systematic review and meta-analysis of non-pharmacological interventions for fatigue in children and adolescents with cancer, Worldwide Views on Evidence-Based Nursing, 10(4), 208-17.

3. Jansen, S. L., Forbes, D., Duncan, V., Morgan, D. G., & Malouf, R. (2011). Melatonin for the treatment of dementia (Review). The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2011, Issue 7. Art. No.: CD003802. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003802.pub3.

4. Jones, K.R., Lekhak, N., & Kaewluang, N. (2014). Using mobile phones and short message service to deliver self-management interventions for chronic conditions: A Meta- review. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 11(2), 81-88

5. Kryworuchko, J., Hill, E., Murray, M. A., Stacey, D., Fergusson, D. A. (2013). Interventions for shared decision-making about life support in the intensive care unit: a systematic review. Worldwide Views on Evidence-Based Nursing, 10(1), 3-18.

6. Yost, J., Thompson, D., Ganann, R., Aloweni F., Newman, K., McKibbon, A., Dobbins, M. Ciliska, D. (2014). Knowledge translation strategies for enhancing nurses’ evidence-informed decision-making: A scoping review. Worldviews on EvidenceBased Nursing, 11(3), 156-67.

7. Methodology Papers: Arskey, H. & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19-32.

8. Hutton, B., Salanti, G., Caldwell, D.M., Chaimani, A., Schmid, C.H., Cameron, C., Ioannidis, J.P., Straus, S., Thorlund, K., Jansen, J.P., Mulrow, C., Catalá-López, F., Gøtzsche, P.C., Dickersin, K., Boutron, I., Altman, D.G., Moher, D. (2015). The PRISMA Extension Statement for Reporting of Systematic Reviews Incorporating Network Meta- analyses of Health Care Interventions: Checklist and Explanations. Annals of Internal Medicine, 162(11), 777-784.

9. Polit, D. G., & Beck, C. T. (2017). Chapter 29: Systematic Reviews of Research Evidence: Meta-Analysis, Metasynthesis, and Mixed Studies Review. In Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice (10th ed.). New York, NY: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, pp 647-674.

10. Stroup, D.F., Berlin, J.A., Morton, S.C., Olkin, I., Williamson, G.D., Rennie, D., et al. (2000). Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. Journal of American Medical Association, 283, 2008–12.

11. Whittemore, R. & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52,546-553.

Further Reading: 12. Forscher, B. K. (1963). Chaos in the brickyard. Science, 142(3590), 339. 13. The Cochrane Library.

See: http://www.thecochranelibrary.com/view/0/index.html.

Class 4 October, 2018: Theoretical Underpinnings of Quantitative Research Designs Topics for discussion:

8

http://www.thecochranelibrary.com/view/0/index.html


• Underlying philosophical paradigms of the research and the researcher • Conceptual and theoretical contexts for nursing research problems- what fits and what does not fit • Threats to internal and external validity *Using the article by Pahwa et al. (2012) come prepared to discuss the strengths and limitations of this study with particular focus on the philosophical and theoretical underpinnings of the research. Include a critique of the study validity (See Box 10.1, Polit and Beck, 2017.) In addition, come prepared to discuss your own philosophy of research. Reading:

1. Thorne, S. & Sawatzky, R. (2014). Particularizing the general: Sustaining theoretical integrity in the context of evidence-based practice agenda. Advances in Nursing Science, 37(1), 5-18.

2. Pahwa, P., Karunanyake, C.P., Hagel, L., Janzen, B., Pickett, W., Rennie, D., Senthilselvan, A., Lawson, J., Kirychuk, S., Dosman, J. (2012). The Saskatchewan rural health study: an application of a population health framework to understand respiratory health outcomes. BMC Research Notes 5:400 1-13.

3. Polit, D. G., & Beck, C. T. (2017). Chapter 6: Specific Types of Quantitative Research. In Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice (10th ed.). New York, NY: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, pp 117-136.

4. Polit, D. G., & Beck, C. T. (2017). Chapter 10: Rigor and Validity in Quantitative Research. In Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice (10th ed.). New York, NY: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, pp 216-235.

5. Estabrooks, C.A., Morgan, D. G., Squires, J.E., Bostrom, A.-E., Slaughter, S., Cummings, G.C., Norton, P.G., (2011). The care unit in nursing home research: Evidence in support of a definition, BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11:46. (Online) Available at: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/11/46

Further Reading: S

6. hadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi- experimental designs for generalized causal inference. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company. pp 26-32.

Class 5 October, 2018: Design Issues in Research • Quasi-experimental and experimental research designs • Using mixed method designs – advantages and challenges • Power analysis and sample size • Value of non-significant findings (power)

*Please read the article by Bilinski, Duggleby, and Rennie (2010) and come prepared to discuss the strengths and limitations of this mixed methods study with particular focus on study design, sample size, and power. (See Box 5.2, Box 9.1, Box 10.1, Box 11.1, Box 12.1, Box 25.1 in Polit & Beck, 2017) Reading:

1. Bilinski, H. N., Duggleby, W., & Rennie, D. C (2010). The meaning of health in rural children: A mixed methods approach. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 32(7), 949-966.

2. Bilinski, H., Duggleby, W., & Rennie, D. (2013). Lessons learned in designing and conducting a mixed methods study to explore the health of rural children. International Journal of Health Promotion and Education, 51(1), 1-10

3. Giddings, L. S., & Grant, B. M. (2007). A Trojan horse for positivism? A critique of mixed methods research. Advances in Nursing Science, 30(1), 52-60.

9

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/11/46


4. Harris, A.D., McGregor, J.C., Perencevich, E.N., Furuno, J.P., Zhi, J., Peterson, D.E., Finkelstein, J. (2006). The use and interpretation of quasi-experimental studies in medical informatics. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 13, 1623.

5. Polit, D. G., & Beck, C. T. (2017). Chapter 9: Quantitative Research Design. In Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice (10th ed.). New York, NY: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, pp 183-215.

6. Polit, D. G., & Beck, C. T. (2017). Chapter 10: Rigor and Validity in Quantitative Research. In Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice (10th ed.). New York, NY: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, pp 221-223.

7. Polit, D. G., & Beck, C. T. (2017). Chapter 12: Sampling in Quantitative Research. In Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice (10th ed.). New York, NY: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, pp 394-398.

8. Polit, D. G., & Beck, C. T. (2017). Chapter 25: Trustworthiness and Integrity in Qualitative Research. In Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice (10th ed.). New York, NY: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, pp 557-575.

Recommended Additional Reading:

1. Creswell, J., & Plano Clark V. L. (2011). Chapter 4: Choosing a mixed method design In Designing and conducting mixed methods research. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications. Lipscomb, M. (2008). Mixed method nursing studies: a critical realist critique. Nursing Philosophy, 9, 32-45. doi: 10.1111/j.1466-769X.2007.00325.x

2. Morse, J. M. (2003). Principles of mixed methods and multimethod research design. In Tashakkori, & C. Teddlie, (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 189-208). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

3. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi- experimental designs for generalized causal inference. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1-32, 103-134, 135-170.

4. Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2003). Major issues and controversies in the use of mixed methods in the social and behavioural sciences in Tashakkori, & Teddlie, (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioural research (pp. 3-50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Class 6 October, 2018: Ethical Implications of Conducting Quantitative Research Ethical principles:

1. Respect, beneficence, justice, self-determination 2. Tri-council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (Including

research involving First Nations, Inuit, and Métis Peoples of Canada) 3. Issues of accountability to the participants, funding agencies, participating agencies, society 4. Independent Study: Read the article by Dennison and El-Masri (2012). What steps did the

researchers take to address ethical aspects of the study prior to starting the study? During the study? After the study? What suggestions do you have to further strengthen the ethical aspects of this study? (See Box 5.2 and Box 7.3., Polit and Beck, 2012.).

Reading: 1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of

Canada, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. (2010). 2. Tri-Council policy statement: Ethical Conduct for research involving humans (TCPS2).

Available at: www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/pdf/eng/tcps2/TCPS_2_FINAL_Web.pdf.

10

http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/pdf/eng/tcps2/TCPS_2_FINAL_Web.pdf


3. Dennison, S., & El-Masri, M. M. (2012). Development and psychometric assessment of the Undergraduate Nursing Student Academic Satisfaction Scale (UNSASS). Journal of Nursing Measurement, 20(2), 75-89.

4. Polit, D. G., & Beck, C. T. (2017). Chapter 7: Ethics in Nursing Research. In Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice (10th ed.). New York, NY: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 137-159.

5. University of Jordan policies and procedures for ethics in human research. Available at: Further Reading: 1. Burns, N. & Grove, S. K. (2009). The practice of nursing research: Appraisal, synthesis, and

generation of evidence (6th ed.). St. Louis, Missouri: Saunders Elsevier, 184-217. 2. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. (CIHR). (2012). Publications in Ethics & Resources.

Available at: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/29371.html

Class 7: October, 2018; Sampling techniques and approachesSampling is the selection of a number of study units/subjects from a defined population

Readings and assignments:1. Polit, D. G., & Beck, C. T. (2017). Chapter 14: Specific Types of Quantitative Research. In

Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice (10th ed.). New York, NY: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, pp 297-330

2. Shadish, W.R., Cook, T.D., and Campbell, D.T. (2002). The received view of generalized causal inferences: Formal sampling pp. 342-348.

3. Crosby, Salazar & DiClemente (2015). Chapter 6: Principles of sampling. In Research Methods for Health Promotion, 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

4. Rudolph AE, Crawford ND, Latkin C, et al. Subpopulations of Illicit Drug Users Reached by Targeted Street Outreach and Respondent-Driven Sampling Strategies: Implications for Research and Public Health Practice. Annals of Epidemiology. 2011;21(4):280-89.

5. Luman ET, Worku A, Berhane Y, Martin R, Cairns L. Comparison of two survey methodologies to assess vaccination coverage. Int J Epidemiol. Jun 2007;36(3):633-41.

Class 8 November, 2018: Research Grant Writing • Identifying researchable questions • Responding to priorities for research requests for applications (RFAs): Priority Announcements, Seed Grants, New Investigator Strategic Initiatives • Preparing a grant application (application forms, common CV) *Please come prepared to discuss one written quantitative research question related to the topic of your PhD dissertation research. Discussion will focus on narrowing the research topic and questions to be potentially “researchable” for your dissertation research. In addition, in the class, you will be provided with an opportunity to create a lay summary for a research project based on a research proposal summary. Reading:

1. Bietz, J. M., & Bliss, D. Z. (2005). Preparing a successful grant proposal – Part 1. Developing research aims and the significance of the project. Journal of Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nursing, 32(1), 16-18.

2. Gray, M., & Bliss, D. Z. (2005). Preparing a grant proposal – Part 2. Reviewing the literature. Journal of Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nursing, 32(2), 83-86.

11

http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/29371.html


3. Engberg, S., & Bliss, D. Z. (2005). Writing a grant proposal – Part 1. Research methods. Journal of Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nursing, 32(3), 157-162.

4. Bliss, D. Z., & Savik, K. (2005). Writing a grant proposal – Part 2. Research methods – Part 2. Journal of Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nursing, 32(4), 226-229.

5. Colwell, J. C., & Bliss, D. Z. (2005). Preparing a grant proposal – Part 5. Organization and revision. Journal of Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nursing, 32(5),291-293.

6. Bliss, D. Z. (2005). Writing a grant proposal – Part 6. The budget, budget justification, and resource environment. Journal of Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nursing, 32(6), 365-367

7. Bliss, D. Z. (2010). Letters of support for a research grant proposal. Journal of Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nursing, 37(4), 358-359.

8. Bliss, D. Z. (2012). Writing a successful research abstract. Journal of Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nursing, 39(3), 244-247.

9. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). (2012). All funding opportunities. Available at: http://www.researchnetrecherchenet.ca/rnr16/srch.do?all=1&search=true&org=CIHR&sort=program&m asterList=true&view=currentOpps&fodAgency=CIHR&fodLanguage=E.

10. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). (2013). Guidebook for New Principal Investigators. Available at: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/27491.html

11. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. (CIHR). (2014). The art of writing a CIHR application. Available at: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/45281.html.

12. Goodridge, D., Marciniuk, D., Rennie, D., Bailey, P. (2008). Care transition outcomes for people with advanced COPD: Health status, resource utilization and caregiver burden. Grant Application to The Lung Association – National Research Programs, Canadian Respiratory Health Professionals (CRHP) – Summary of Research Proposal (Abstract), 9.

13. Polit, D. G., & Beck, C. T. (2017). Chapter 3: Key Concepts and Steps in Qualitative and Quantitative Research. In Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice (10th ed.). New York, NY: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, pp. 54-67.

14. Polit, D. G., & Beck, C. T. (2017). Chapter 4: Research Problems, Research Questions , and Hypotheses. In Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice (10th ed.). New York, NY: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, pp. 69-85.

15. Polit, D. G., & Beck, C. T. (2017). Chapter 31: Writing Proposals to Generate Evidence. In Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice (10th ed.). New York, NY: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, pp. 701-715.

16. Sample funded grant proposals from NIAID:http://www.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/grant/pages/appsamples.aspx

17. Sample funded behavioural science grant proposals from NCI:http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/brp/funding-sample-application.html

18. Singleton, R.A., & Straits, B.C (2010). Chapter 17: Writing research reports. In Approaches to Social Research, 5th ed. (pp. 568-581). New York: Oxford University Press.

Recommended Additional Reading: 1. Alley, M. (1996). The craft of scientific writing (3rd ed.). New York: Prentice-Hall, 84-135. 2. Haller, K. B. (1989). Preparing the research proposal: Half science, half art. American Journal

of Maternal Child Nursing. 14(3), 230. 3. Kraicer, J. (1997). The art of grantsmanship. Available at:

http://www.hfsp.org/sites/www.hfsp.org/files/webfm/Communications/The%20A rt%20of%20Grantsmanship.pdf.

12

http://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/brp/funding-sample-application.html

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/grant/pages/appsamples.aspx




Further Reading:

1. Burns, N. & Grove, S. K. (2009). The practice of nursing research: Appraisal, synthesis, and generation of evidence (6th ed.). St. Louis, Missouri: Saunders Elsevier, 666- 676.

2. Porter, R. (2005). What do grant reviewers really want, anyway? Journal of Research Administration, 36(2), 1539-1590.

3. Porter, R. (2007). Why academics have a hard time writing good grant proposals. Journal of Research Administration, 38(2), 37-43.

4. Stone, D. A. (2009). How your grant proposal compares. The Chronicle. Available at: http://chronicle.com/article/How-Your-Grant-Proposal-Com/47471

5. Stone, D. A. (2010). Becoming a successful principal investigator. The Chronicle. http://chronicle.com/article/Becoming-a-Successful/66133/

6. Walsh, M. M. (2009). Lessons learned from grant writing: Establishing a track record of funding involving community providers in implementation. The Journal of Dental Hygiene, 83(4), 212-213.

Assessing Research Grant Proposals • Criteria for critical review of a research grant • See the Canadian Institute of Health Research (2102) CIHR Peer Review Manual for Grant Applications, Evaluation Criteria available at http://www.cihrirsc.gc.ca/e/4656.html and the CIHR Revised Grants Evaluation CriteriaInterpretation Guidelines available at http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/39913.html)

Reading:

1. Burns, N. & Grove, S. K. (2009). The practice of nursing research: Appraisal, synthesis, and generation of evidence (6th ed.). St. Louis, Missouri: Saunders Elsevier, 598- 615.

2. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). (2012). CIHR Peer review manual for grant applications. Available at: http://www.cihrirsc.gc.ca/e/documents/peer_review_manual_grant_en.pdf 3 .

3. Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). (2011). Revised grants evaluation criteria: Interpretation guidelines. Available at: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/39913.html

4. Goodridge, D., Marciniuk, D., Rennie, D., Bailey, P. (2008). Care transition outcomes for people with advanced COPD: Health status, resource utilization and caregiver burden. Grant Application to The Lung Association – National Research Programs, Canadian Respiratory Health Professionals (CRHP) – 2. Budget, 5-7.

Class 9 November, 2018: In class Midterm Exam

Class 10 November 10th, 2017: Measurement Issues & Instrument Development (Parts 1 and 2) • Levels of measurement • Constructing scales • Reliability and validity (precision and accuracy) • Sensitivity and specificity • Questionnaire development *Please read the article by Dennison & Masri (2012) and come prepared to discuss the validity and reliability of the measurement tool assessed in this study. (See Box 5.2 and Box 14.1, Polit & Beck, 2017). Comment on the strengths and limitations of this instrument validation report. (See Box 15.1, Polit & Beck, 2017).

13


http://www.cihrirsc.gc.ca/e/documents/peer_review_manual_grant_en.pdf3


http://chronicle.com/article/Becoming-a-Successful/66133/

http://chronicle.com/article/How-Your-Grant-Proposal-Com/47471


Reading:

1. Dennison, S. & El-Masri, M.M. (2012). Development and psychometric assessment of the Undergraduate Nursing Student Academic Satisfaction Scale (UNSASS). Journal of Nursing Measurement, 20(2), 75-89.

2. Engberg, S. & Berben, L. (2012). Selecting instruments: Reliability and validity considerations. Journal of Wound, Ostomy and Continence Nursing, 39(1), 18-20.

3. Polit, D.G. & Beck, C.T. (2006). The content validity index: Are you sure you know what’s being reported? Critique and recommendations. Research in Nursing & Health, 29, 489-97.

4. Polit, D.G. & Beck, C.T. (2017). Chapter 14: Measurement and Data Quality. In Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice (10th ed.). New York, NY: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, pp. 297-330.

5. Polit, D.G. & Beck, C.T. (2017). Chapter 15: Developing and Testing Self-Report Scales. In Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice (10th ed.). New York, NY: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, pp. 331-355.

Further Reading:

1. Dillman, D.A., Smyth, J.D., Christian, L.M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail and mixed mode surveys: The tailored design method: New York, NY:John Wiley and Sons Chapter 4 (pp. 94-126). The fundamentals of writing questions

2. Polit, D.G., & Beck, C.T. (2017). Chapter 13: Data Collection in Quantitative Research. In Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice (10th ed.). New York, NY: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 266-296.

Class 11; December, 2018, Survey research and different data collection modes Criteria for Selection of a Data-Collection Instrument

1. Practicality of instrument: cost and appropriateness for the study population.2. Reliability: consistency and stability, measured by the use of corelational procedures:

correlation coefficient (-1.0 and +1.0) between two sets of scores or between the ratings of two judges.

3. Validity. The degree to which an instrument measures what it is supposed to measure.

Readings and assignments:

1. Polit, D.G., & Beck, C.T. (2017). Key Concepts and Steps in Qualitative and Quantitative Research. In Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice (10th ed.). New York, NY: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

2. Salazar, Crosby & DiClemente (2016). Chapter 13: Survey research. In Research Methods for Health Promotion, 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

3. Kelley K, Clark B, Brown V, Sitzia J. Good practice in the conduct and reporting of survey research. Int J Qual Health Care. 2003 Jun;15(3):261-6.

4. Sharma M, Wilton J, Senn H, Fowler S, Tan DH. Preparing for PrEP: Perceptions and Readiness of Canadian Physicians for the Implementation of HIV Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis. PLOS one. 2014;9(8):e105283.

14


5. Kelly CA, Hewett PC, Mensch BS, Rankin JC, Nsobya SL, Kalibala S, et al. Using biomarkers to assess the validity of sexual behavior reporting across interview modes among young women in Kampala, Uganda. Stud Fam Plann. 2014 Mar;45(1):43-58.

Week 12: December, 2018; Purposes of data analysis• To describe and summarize information thereby reducing it to smaller, more meaningful

sets of data. • To make predictions or to generalize about occurrences based on observations.• To identify associations, relationships or differences between the sets of observations.

1. Munro, B. (2012). Statistical methods for health care research (6th ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott.

2. Kremelberg, D. (2011). Practical Statistics: A quick and easy guide. California: SAGE Publications, Inc.

3. Publication manual of the American Psychological Association. (6th ed.). (2010). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

4. EndNote 6 (2002). Berkley, CA: ISI Research Soft.5. Winner, L. (2004). Introduction to Biostatistics. Florida: Department of Statistics; University

of Florida. 6. Daniel , W. (2005). Biostatistics: A foundation for analysis in the health sciences. New Jersey:

John Wiley & Sons Inc.7. Dunn, O., & Clark, V. (2001). Basic statistics: A primer for the biomedical sciences (3rd ed.).

New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Described in detail at the publisher’s Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0471354228.html.

8. Green, S., & Salkind, N. (2005). Using SPSS for Windows and Macintosh: Analyzing and understanding data (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson – Prentice Hall. Described in detail at the publisher’s Web site: http://vig.prenhall.com/catalog/academic/product/0,1144,013146597X,00.html

9. SPSS® Graduate Pack. Chicago, IL: SPSS, Inc. This software program (SPSS® Graduate Pack) is described in detail at the publisher’s Web site: http://www.spss.com/gradpack/.

Class 13, December, 2018: Dissemination of Research Findings and Research Utilization • Presentation and publication of findings • Research utilization and knowledge transfer (definitions, applications, barriers, strategies to facilitate, the PARISH framework, Rogers' Diffusion of Innovation Theory, Knowledge to Action Model) • Course review and evaluation *Come prepared to share your thoughts regarding the potential opportunities and challenges for knowledge transfer in your planned PhD dissertation research.

Reading:

1. Estabrooks, C.A., Thompson, D.S., Lovely, J.J., & Hofmeyer, A. (2006). A guide to knowledge translation theory. The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 26(1), 25-36.

2. Graham, I.D., Logan J., Harrison, M.B., Straus, S.E.., Tetroe, J., Caswell, W., Robinson, N. (2006). Lost in Knowledge translation: Time for a map? The Journal of Continuing Education for the Health Professions, 26, 13-24.

15

http://www.spss.com/gradpack/

http://vig.prenhall.com/catalog/academic/product/0,1144,013146597X,00.html

http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0471354228.html

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/104-0550622-3635947?_encoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=books&field-author=Wayne%20W%20Daniel


3. Kitson, A.L., Rycroft-Malone, J., Harvey, G., McCormack, B., Seers, K., & Titchen, A. (2008). Evaluating the successful implementation of evidence into practice using the PARIHS framework: Theoretical and practical challenges. Implementation Science, 3(1), 1-12. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-3-1

4. Polit, D.G., & Beck, C.T. (2017). Chapter 2: Evidence-Based Nursing: Translating Research Evidence into Practice. In Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice (10th ed.). New York, NY: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 22-45.

5. Polit, D.G., & Beck, C.T. (2017). Chapter 3: Key Concepts and Steps in Qualitative and Quantitative Research. In Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice (10th ed.). New York, NY: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 60-62.

6. Polit, D.G., & Beck, C.T. (2017). Chapter 30: Disseminating Evidence: Reporting Research Findings. In Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice (10th ed.). New York, NY: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 675699.

Further Reading:

1. Aita, M., Richer, M., & Héon, M. (2007). Illuminating the processes of knowledge transfer in nursing. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 4(3), 146-155.

2. Burns, N. & Grove, S. K. (2009). The practice of nursing research: Appraisal, synthesis, and generation of evidence (6thed.). St. Louis, Missouri: Saunders Elsevier, 616- 640.

3. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. (CIHR). (2012). Guide to knowledge translation planning at CIHR: Integrated and end-of-grant approaches. Available at: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/documents/kt_lm_ktplan-en.pdf.

4. Dogherty, E.J., Harrison, M. B., Graham, I. D., Vandyk, A .D., Keeping-Burke, L. (2013). Turning Knowledge into action at the point of care: The collective experience of nurses facilitating the implementation of evidenced-based practice. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 2013, 10(3), 129-39.

5. Harrison, M.B., Graham, I. D., Roadmap for a participatory research-practice partnership to implement evidence. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 2012, 9(3), 210- 220.

6. Squires, J. E., Reay, T., Moralejo, D., LeFort, S., Hutchinson, A. M., & Estabrooks, C. A. (2012). Designing strategies to implement research-based policies and procedures. Journal of Nursing Administration, 42(5), 293-297.

21. Teaching Methods and Assignments:

Development of ILOs is promoted through the following teaching and learning methods:

Group Discussion Selected readings Student Presentation Interactive lectures Use of electronic resources Student Assignments

22. Evaluation Methods and Course Requirements:

Course Assignments and Requirements. Opportunities to demonstrate achievement of the ILOs are provided through the following assessment methods and requirements:

Requirement Due date % of final grade (Must sum to 100%)

16

http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/documents/kt_lm_ktplan-en.pdf


Written Critique The Sixth Week 10%Student topic presentation All through the Course 10%

Class participation & attendance All through the Course 10%Grant proposal Week 13th 20%

Statistical analysis and interpretation Week 13th 10%Final Exam To be Announced 40%

Percentage or points earned in class

≥86 80-85 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 ≤ 59

Letter Grade equivalent A A- B+ B B- C+ CGrade Points 4 3.75 3.5 3 2.75 2.5 F

Instructions for Assignments:

1) Class participation. Students are expected to contribute actively to class. This includes coming prepared to discuss the assigned readings. It also requires the students' additional reading(s) that relate(s) to the topic and their field of interest. Details will be discussed in class.Each student must recognize that he/she bears the primary responsibility for his/her education. Classroom participation provides an opportunity to both refine your thinking and to practice expressing your ideas. Students are expected to prepare for lectures by reading the assigned materials and reviewing relevant materials. It is assumed that students will have read and thought about assigned materials before class. That is, you should at least have skimmed through them even if you don't understand them. Having documents for the session will be very helpful in following along with the material that is taught in the course. An internet access is highly encouraged.The discussions will be utilized in this course extensively. A constructive contribution helps to move the discussion forward. NONE will be penalized for floating an idea that others debunk. I encourage you to think critically, to challenge your classmates without showing disrespect, and to put forward your own ideas for consideration by others. Bonuses will be given as per faculty for outstanding participants.Students are encouraged to seek faculty assistance when they are having difficulty with content or with a specific skill. Seek help early. Don’t wait until you are too deeply in trouble to bail yourself out. Office hours are listed above and I am also available only in appointments. Just because you can doesn’t mean you should, invest your braining. Students are encouraged to talk with faculty on an individual basis if they want to explore specific content in more depth than is possible in class.

2) Student-lecture and discussion. Each student will be required to prepare a brief lecture about an article for 15-20 minutes during the semester. Students will need to choose the topic from the course outline that would like to lead prepare the lecture and then lead the class discussion of the topic/article. This is intended to provide students with an opportunity to serve in the role of instructor and independently identify key issues for discussion. Presentation days will be selected during the first class meeting.

3) Written Critique. Students will provide a written critique of the research methods and results of two journal articles—one of an observational study and one of an experimental study. The articles for the critique will be assigned in class after the discussion on evaluating research. Detailed guidelines and grading criteria will be provided in class.

4) Grant proposal. Students will prepare one research proposal that uses the Guidelines and

17


Application Form for The Eastern Mediterranean Regional Office grant proposal format addresses a Healthy People 2020 priority topic area or Special Grant for Research in Priority Areas of Public Health. The final paper needs to include all relevant sections: Specific Aims (one page); Significance, Innovation, Research Strategy (6 pages); and References.

5) Statistical analysis and interpretation. Students will conduct a statistical analysis of a research question and interpret the results. Types of statistical analyses will be upon approval. You will conduct the analysis with your own dataset or a de-identified one will be provided to you. You will provide a written summary of the data analysis/results commensurate with that expected in a typical public health focused journal. Guidelines will be provided.

6) Final Exam. In class multiple-choice exam based on class assignments/readings/discussion.

23. Course Policies:

A- Attendance policies:a. Attendance is expected. Arrival on time is expected. Students who miss more than

three class sessions with or without excuse will be dismissed from the course automatically. (See the university policies regarding absence).

b. Any student with absence of 15% of the classes of any course, will be illegible to sit for the final exam and will be given the university zero (F grade) in this course.

c. In the case (b) above, if a student submits an official sick report authenticated by university clinic or an accepted excuse by the Dean of his/her faculty, the student will be considered as withdrawn from the course, and a "W" will be shown in the transcript for this course.

d. Students are not allowed to come late to classes. Any student coming late will not be allowed to attend the class and he/she will be marked absent.

B- Absences from exams and handing in assignments on-time:

a. Failure in attending a course exam other than the final exam will result in zero mark unless the student provides an official acceptable excuse to the instructor who approves a make up exam.

b. Failure in attending the final exam will result in zero mark unless the student presents an official acceptable excuse to the Dean of his/her faculty who approves an incomplete exam, normally scheduled to be conducted during the first two weeks of the successive semester.

c. Assignments and projects should be submitted to the instructor on the due date.

C- Health and safety procedures: see student's handbook

D- Honesty policy regarding cheating, plagiarism, misbehavior:

Work submitted to the course instructor is assumed to be an expression of original ideas by the student. All students in this course are expected to adhere to university standards of academic integrity. Appropriate citation of the intellectual property of other authors is expected. Cheating, plagiarism, and other forms of academic dishonesty will neither be accepted nor tolerated. This includes, but is not limited to, consulting with another person during an exam, turning in written work that was prepared by someone other than you, and making minor modifications to the work of

18


someone else and turning it in as your own. Ignorance will not be permitted as an excuse. If you are not sure whether something you plan to submit would be considered either cheating or plagiarism, it is your responsibility to ask for clarification.Written work is expected to be your own synthesized thinking related to what you have learned from readings and classroom lecture and discussion. Written work should not be done collaboratively with other students or copied from the reading material (even if cited). Written work should be cited and referenced using APA 6th edition. Plagiarism can mean an F in the course.Cheating, plagiarism & misbehavior are attempts to gain marks dishonestly and includes; but not limited to:

Copying from another student’s work. Using materials not authorized by the institute. Collaborating with another student during a test, without permission. Knowingly using, buying, selling, or stealing the contents of a test. Plagiarism which means presenting another person’s work or ideas as one’s own,

without attribution. Using any media (including mobiles) during the exam.

E- Cell Phone Policy:Cell phones should be turned off during class time. Disruption of class by ringing cell phones and cell phone conversations is inconsiderate of fellow students and faculty.

F-Grading policy:

A grade of (C+) is the minimum passing grade for the course.

Grade PointsGrade4A

3.75A-3.5B+3B

2.75B-2.5C+2C

1.75C-1.5D+1D

0.75D-zeroF

G- Submitting Papers and Communications:Contact by an email is highly encouraged and preferred.

Other than contacts by an email, contacts should take place during announced office hours and/or ONLY by appointment.

Contact on phones, preferably office number, also is welcomed during working hours. Please be informed that I have personal and/or institutional commitments those sometime inconvenient to others to whom I usually explain that. Therefore, when needed and based on your situation, you may call on my cell; however, when so, send your name in a separate message before to make your call in order accept your calls.

Any submitted paper should be edited for grammar, punctuation, clarity, and spelling. A

19


percentage of the points for the papers will be allocated to format, spelling, and grammar. I will return written comments on papers submitted traditionally. For papers that received electronically, I will return them electronically with embedded comments.

You may submit assignments in several ways:Traditional paper format. Please make sure the document is stapled or clipped. Via diskette. Document may be in Word, Word Perfect, Adobe, or Zip format. Please make

sure you have made a backup of your diskette and label it. Please make sure all documents are free of viruses.

Via e-mail attachment. Document may be in Word, Word Perfect, Adobe, or Zip format. Please make sure you have virus checked your file. Any papers sent in the body of an e-mail will be returned to you.

To help assure good communications, when you send email messages or turn in papers electronically, please label the subject and attachments clearly and properly in this format: Course Name ("AT" is enough), Contact Issue, Your Last Name and First Initial. Being not adherent to this format will render your email out of consideration. You are solely responsible to do so.

24. Required equipment:

Audio-Visual Aids Faculty member’s Website E-Learning Website

25. References:

Required book (s), assigned reading and audio-visuals:

1. Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2017). Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice (10th ed.). New York: Wolters Kluwer.

2. Burns, N., & Grove, S. (2015). The Practice of Nursing Research Conduct, Critique and Utilization (5th ed.). Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders.

3. American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington: Author.

Recommended Readings & Resources1. Fink, A. (2010). Conducting research literature reviews (3rd ed.) Sage publications, Los

Angeles.2. Shadish W.R., Cook, T.D., Campbell, D.T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental

designs for generalized causal inference. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. 3. Plichta, S.B. & Kelvin E. (2013). Munro’s statistical methods for health care research. (6th

ed.) New York: Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott, Williams, & Wilkins. 4. Creswell, J.W. & Plano Clark, V. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research

(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 5. Dillman, D.A., Smyth, J.D., Christian, L.M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail and mixed mode

surveys: The tailored design method (4th ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.

20


Internet Resources:

1. Canadian Association for Nursing Research: www.canr.ca

2. Canadian Health Services Research Foundation: www.chsrf.ca

3. Clinical Evidence: clinicalevidence.bmj.com

4. Evidence-Based Nursing (Online Journal): ebn.bmj.com

5. Health Evidence: www.healthevidence.org

6. Health Quality Council: www.hqc.sk.ca

7. Nursing Knowledge International: www.nursingknowledge.org

8. Ontario Ministry of Health & Longterm Care--Effective Public Health Practice Project:

http://www.ephpp.ca/

9. Registered Nurses Association of Ontario. Best practices guidelines: rnao.ca/bpg

10. Sigma Theta Tau International : www.nursingsociety.org

11. The Centre for Health Evidence: www.cche.net

12. The Cochrane Library: library2.usask.ca/dbs/cochrane.html#sub

13. Access nursing journals online within the Campus net: http://e-library

* In addition to the selected textbooks, you will be receiving weekly articles related to the topic of the

week. You are expected to be prepared for discussing those articles.

21

http://www.ephpp.ca/


26. Additional information:

Guidelines for Evaluating Class Presentation

Each student (group of students) will be assigned to an oral presentation upon the arrangement with the faculty to be presented in class.

Class presentation of the selected topic will be evaluated based on the following criteria, where 1=poor; 2=satisfactory; 3=good; 4=very good; 5=excellent.

Item 1 2 3 4 5

Demonstrates breadth of reading and depth of understanding of the topic

Critiques and analyzes, not just summarizes, ideas and arguments

Presents background information for ideas

Paces presentation appropriately

Appears well-prepared

Speaks audibly and clearly

Encourages and involves class members thoughts and participation

Summarizes main points at the end of the presentation/discussion

Solicits and responds constructively to class members opinions

Utilizes appropriate audio-visual materials and teaching strategies

22


Assignment #1: Critique of a Published Research (Group)

Format: A maximum of 3 pages excluding references, typed, and double-spaced. (1-point deduction for each page over 3).

Due Date: Week 6 : Each student submits only one paper. (1-point deduction for each day late).

Assignment: Critique An Article. Each student will prepare a 3 page analysis/discussion of his/her designated articles. The following format will guide your critique of the assigned quantitative research articles. Article Citation: Critique the problem statement, purpose/aims, background and significance, theoretical framework, the research questions or hypotheses, and the design of the study.

1. Problem statement, Purpose/aims: Is the problem to be studied clearly stated? Are the purpose and aims of the study clearly stated? Restate the purpose. Compare your version with the authors.

2. Background and significance: Is the review of previous research appropriate and sufficient? Have the reported studies been critically reviewed? Have relevant studies been cited and discussed? What is the gap in knowledge? Is the significance of the problem being addressed and of the study clearly supported by a logical and scientifically sound explanation?

3. Theoretical framework: Identify the conceptual or theoretical framework for the study. Is it clear that the study is guided by a theory or theories? Are the variables being measured congruent with the theoretical framework? Diagram the theoretical framework used in the study. Can you suggest another theory or a theory that would support this study?

4. Research question(s) or hypotheses. Are the research questions or hypotheses clear and appropriate in terms of current knowledge and the chosen design? Why or why not? How would you change them? Critique the author=s choice of variables studied. Is the choice of variables logical and innovative? Are there other variables that you would add for the proposed theory?

5. Design: Identify the general classification of the design: descriptive, survey, observational, quasi-experimental or experimental, etc. Name the design precisely. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the design from a classical perspective? Has the design fully supported the collection of data? Has the design supported the analysis of data to answer the research questions or hypotheses? Examine how the elements of purpose/aims, research questions/hypotheses, theoretical framework/variables/measures interface; explain congruence or lack of congruence. If you are critiquing a quasi-experimental or experimental study, address each of the elements of internal validity (testing, history, instrumentation, etc); has the researcher controlled for these threats to internal validity? How would you redesign the study to better control for threats to internal validity? Describe an alternate design. Compare the strengths and weakness of the alternative design to the one used by the authors.

6. Critique the research methods used.a. Sample: Is the population from which the sample is drawn appropriate to answer the

research questions? Identify the sampling method used. Does sample selection introduce bias? What are the sources of error introduced by the selection of subjects? Is the size of the sample consistent with the type of research questions asked? Consistent with the degree of precision necessary? Consistent with sampling procedures and the demands of statistical analysis? How was attrition prevented? Are threats to internal and external validity identified and controlled? Was IRB/obtaining informed consent addressed?

b. Instrumentation: Identify the measures used. Discuss their reliability and validity.

23


What is the basis for reliability and validity in the chosen population? Name at least two other measures that could have been used. Considering design and sample, are the instruments that you have suggested or cited more or less useful?

c. Data Collection Protocol: Was the method clearly described? How were data collected? Was the setting well defined? Are environmental influences taken into consideration? Is enough information available to replicate the study? How were the data recorded? Were procedures standardized? How was the ordering of scales or subject error or investigator bias accounted for? Does the data collection protocol minimize error? Does it uphold confidentiality? How were data managed (e.g., coded, entered)

d. Data Analysis: Is the analysis appropriate for the design, sample, hypotheses, questions, level of data? Why or why not? Was alpha set a priori? Suggest at least one other method of analysis.

7. Critique the results and discussion sections of the paper: a. Results: Are the results clearly described in the abstract, body of the paper, and

tables/figures? What would you change? Are the results congruent with the stated theoretical frame? Are the research questions or hypotheses answered/confirmed or rejected. If any results are statistically significant but weak, is this clearly articulated? Are the tables well organized and easy to read/understand?

b. Discussion: Are the results accurately applied to the discussion? Are the conclusions based on the results? Does the author relate the findings to the purpose, research questions/hypotheses, theoretical framework, and current state of knowledge of the phenomena being studied? Are the conclusions appropriate for the reported findings? How does the author treat issues of external validity or generalizability, i.e. are the limitations of sample, setting or time at which the research occurred accounted for? Explain your answer. How could the study have been designed to increase external validity? Are the limitations of the study clearly defined? Are specific implications discussed? Are these reasonable or logical in light of the limitations of the findings? Consider what implications may not be stated.

8. Overall Presentation: Is the report logically consistent? Are there leaps in logic? Is the writing style clear and concise? Does the abstract accurately represent the study?

Evaluation: Points

Introduction 2 Method 2Results 2Discussion 2 APA Format & Overall Writing 2 TOTAL 10

24


Assignment #2: Research Proposal

Format: APA style, typed. 1-point deduction for each day late.

Due Date: Week 13

Assignment: 1. This 20-page double spaced proposal is to describe the significance of the research problem,

synthesis of the literature supporting what is known and not known and a detailed description of the methods to be used. Sections include: aims and specific research objectives/ questions, background and significance (literature review), and methods. The methods section must include design, description of sample, description of, experimental intervention (if any) and data collection procedures. A description of data analysis for the research questions should be included. APA format is to be used. All tables or figures MUST fit within the 20 page limitation. References are NOT included in the page limitations (1-point deduction for each page over 20).

2. The face page must include a title for the proposal, your full name, the course name and date submitted.

Evaluation: Points

Purpose & Specific Objectives 2 Significance and Background (including LR) 4 Methods 6Results &Interpretation 10Presentation in Class 5APA Format / Overall Writing 3

TOTAL 30

Name of Course Coordinator: Mahmoud Alhussami Signature: Date: -----

Head of curriculum committee/Department: ------------------------- Signature: -------------------------------

Head of Department: ------------------------- Signature: ---------------------------------

Head of curriculum committee/Faculty: ------------------------- Signature: ---------------------------------

Dean: ------------------------------------------- -Signature: --------------------------------- Copy to:

Head of DepartmentAssistant Dean for Quality AssuranceCourse File

25


Guidelines and Application Form

for

The Eastern Mediterranean Regional Office Special Grant for Research in Priority Areas of Public Health

26

World Health Organization

Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean

(WHO/EMRO)


1. INTRODUCTIONThe research proposal guidelines have been developed to support health research initiatives in the countries of the

Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMRO), with a focus to promote health research as a tool for national development programming, and to increase the use of evidence based action and health planning for provision of equitable health care. The guidelines were first drafted in 2001 to support EMRO's initiative for Research in Priority Areas of Public Health. Based on the experiences gained, the guidelines have been revised with the last update in 2007. Based on extensive feedback from researchers, policy makers and experts in research, the new guidelines and application form were meant to be more user-friendly to encourage as many researchers from different EM Countries to apply for the grant.

1.1 EMRO Special Grant for Research in Priority Areas of Public Health In 2002, a new grant for research, Eastern Mediterranean Regional Office Special Grant for Research in

Priority Areas of Public Health (EMRPPH), was established by the Regional Office. The guidelines, priority areas and application form have been adapted through a comprehensive process.

Through a competitive process of selection, funds are provided to successful research proposals. The focus of EMRPPH call is Health Systems Research with emphasis on health policy and systems research. The maximum EMRPPH award amount will not exceed $10,000 for a proposal, and the proposed duration for which support is requested must not exceed 12 months.

OBJECTIVES:

General objective:

To promote sustainable and efficient health systems.

Specific objectives:

1. To generate knowledge relevant to local priority problems and issues of public health importance with special emphasis on health systems research;

2. To help in capacity building for research through learning by doing and hands on training;

3. To strengthen the link between research and policy/decision making; and

4. To enhance the exchange of experiences between the countries in the region.

Only health-related research proposals meeting the following criteria are eligible for support:

1. The research proposal must be related to the research areas specified by the EMRPPH Grant; and

2. The research proposal must not duplicate a proposal to any other international or national agency for simultaneous consideration.

1.2 EMRPPH GRANT APPLICATIONThe proposal should be submitted according to the contents of the EMRPPH Application Form through email

([email protected]).

The responsibility for proper attribution and citation rests with authors of a proposal and his/her organization/institution; all parts of the proposal should be prepared with equal care for this concern.

1.3 ELIGIBILITY OF APPLICANTSFor EMRPPH, health related scientists, researchers and scholars in EMRO countries are encouraged to submit

proposals. Graduate or doctorate students are not encouraged to submit research proposals. The Principal Investigator (PI) must be a national of a country of the WHO Eastern Mediterranean (EM) Region and the research site is one of the EM Member States. One PI can submit only one proposal.

1.4 Individuals and Organizations/InstitutionsIndividuals and organizations/institutions engaged in health research are considered eligible for submitting

proposals and include:

27



i. Ministries, Universities, Research institutes, and Health Sector Partners in EMRO countries.

ii. Non-profit, Non-governmental organizations -- professional societies and similar organizations in the EMRO Region that are directly associated with health research activities.

1.5 SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS All proposals should be submitted in English language only. EMRPPH proposals should be submitted to RPC-

EMRO via ordinary mail (hard copies) and electronically via email at ([email protected]).

In both cases, the applications must be signed by the Principal Investigator and the Head of the concerned Institute. Unsigned copies will be considered incomplete and not processed.

2. INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROPOSAL PREPARATIONAll proposals to WHO/EMRO will be reviewed utilizing the merit review criteria, described in greater length in

Section 3. Conciseness will assist the RPC-EMRO staff and the reviewers in dealing effectively with proposals. Therefore, the Project Description should not exceed 10 pages. Instructions are provided in each section in the application form.

The proposal document must be typed in MS Word using font size 11” Arial” or 12 “Times New Roman”. All proposal pages must have 2.5 cm margins at the top, bottom and on each side. Line spacing must be 1.5.

3. PROPOSAL PROCESSING AND REVIEW FOR THE EMRPPH GRANTProposals received by the Research Policy & Cooperation Unit (RPC) of EMRO are immediately allotted a unique

EMRPPH Grant Proposal Number which is referred to in all subsequent communications/correspondence.

3.1 Review ProcessThe review process is carried out in two steps by the WHO/EMRO reviewers and other renowned experts of the

priority areas from EMRO countries.

3.1.1 Initial Screening All proposals received before the deadline and considered complete in all respects are carefully reviewed by a

panel of scientists, comprising RPC-EMRO Experts. RPC-EMRO may contact the PI for further information. All proposals short-listed in the initial screening are provided to the WHO/EMRO Selection Committee for the final selection.

3.1.2 Final Selection (Technical and Scientific Review)A Selection Committee constituted by WHO/EMRO comprises renowned health researchers from the EMR

countries who are also specialists of research areas eligible for EMRPPH.

The Selection procedures usually consider the merit of the proposal, degree of collaboration and expected impact of the proposal on National and Regional health issues. Further criteria also include:

Adequacy of meeting:1. EMRPPH thematic research needs (the proposal must address a research area(s) specified for

EMRPPH 2010-2011);2. National/Regional research needs;3. Scientific merit standards; and4. Ethical standards.

Adequacy of incorporating health systems research components; Contribution to National/Regional research capacity building; Potential benefit(s) of research results to strengthen health systems and improve public health; Dissemination plan of the project; and Expertise of the PIs and Co-Investigator(s) involved in the research.

The proposals will be selected for funding in the final meeting of the WHO/EMRO Selection Committee. For the EMRPPH Grant, the decision of the Selection Committee is considered final.

3.1.3 Award Recommendation Based on the recommendations of the WHO/EMRO Selection Committee, RPC-EMRO decides whether a proposal

should be declined or recommended for an award. The formal administrative approval is granted at the level of the Regional

28



Director WHO/EMRO. Because a large number of proposals are usually received for the EMRPPH Grant, the entire review and consideration process may take 1-2 months.

3.2 Condition of a Compulsory AgreementThe PIs of the approved proposals are required to sign an agreement with WHO/EMRO before receiving the award

(please, see Section 4 for the details of agreement conditions).

Applicants of EMRPPH are informed that only WHO/EMRO may make commitments, obligations or awards or authorize the expenditure of funds. An organization/institution or PI that makes financial or personnel commitments in the absence of an agreement does so at its own risk.

3.3 REVIEW Information After the final selection of the proposals for the award, verbatim copies of reviews may be provided to the PI whose

proposal are awarded or declined by WHO/EMRO. However, this will not include any information which identifies either reviewers or other pending or declined proposals.

4. GENERAL CONDITIONS RELATING TO THE AGREEMENT CONCERNING EMRPPH GRANT

The following are the general conditions which become effective if an agreement is signed between WHO/EMRO and the Organization/Institution of a PI whose proposal is accepted for funding by the EMRPPH Grant. Applicants of the EMRPPH Grant are strongly advised to read these conditions before writing a proposal, as in case their proposal is accepted for funding and their respective Organizations/Institutions sign an Agreement with WHO/EMRO, they will have to strictly abide by these conditions.

29


4.1 PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR AND HIS/HER EMPLOYER ORGANIZATION/INSTITUTION

a. The Organization/Institution and the Principal Investigator (or Responsible Technical Officer), who must be an employee at the Organization/Institution, shall be jointly responsible for all the technical and administrative aspects of the work referred to in the proposal.

b. The Organization/Institution is required to notify WHO/EMRO immediately of knowledge that the Principal Investigator will cease or ceases to be an employee of the Institution or is no longer continuing the responsibilities described in the proposal. Under such circumstances WHO/EMRO has the right to:

(i) Cancel the funding or

(ii) Agree to continue the project under a new Principal Investigator proposed by the Organization/Institution and approved by WHO/EMRO.

4.2 FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTSPayments shall be made into the bank account(s) of the Organization/Institution as specified in the Agreement and

in accordance with the schedule of payments contained therein. The funds allocated to this agreement may not be used to cover any item that is not mentioned in the budget section of the application form and shall be expended only in accordance with its terms. In the event of this Agreement being cancelled under any circumstances, the Institution shall refund to WHO the balance of uncommitted funds.

4.3 RELATIONSHIP AND RESPONSIBILITY OF PARTIES The relationship of the Organization/Institution to WHO/EMRO shall be that of an independent contractor. The

employees of the Organization/Institution are not entitled to describe themselves as staff members of WHO/EMRO. The Organization/Institution shall be solely responsible for the manner in which work on the project is carried out and accordingly shall assume full liability for any damage arising from research or other technical services under this Agreement.

4.4 EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES Unless otherwise agreed, and subject to subparagraph below, any equipment acquired under this Agreement shall

become the property of the Organization/Institution. The Organization/Institution and the Principal Investigator shall be jointly responsible for the proper safeguard, maintenance and care of all equipment acquired under this Agreement.

4.5 REPORTS, USE OF RESULTS, EXPLOITATION OF RIGHT AND PUBLICATIONa. The Institution or Principal Investigator shall correspond with RPC/EMRO for any follow-up, submission of reports,

requests for further release of funds, and any other technical matters.b. The Principal Investigator shall submit technical and financial reports to WHO/EMRO in accordance with the

following provisions:

i. Technical reports shall be forwarded through and countersigned by the authorized official of the Institution or his/her authorized representative. The day the amount of the first installment of the fund is received by the Principal Investigator will be considered as the starting date of the project.

ii. After the first six-months, a progress report shall be submitted according to EMRO format of progress reports.

iii. The final report shall be provided before the expiry date of the project, according to EMRO format for final reports.

iv. Fiscal reports shall be forwarded to WHO/EMRO after being jointly certified by the Institution's chief technical officer and the Principal Investigator.

v. All financial and technical reports are subject to audit by WHO/EMRO, including examination of supporting documentation and relevant accounting entries in the Institution’s books. The final technical and financial reports must be submitted before the expiry date of the project.

vi. The results of the project may be freely used or disclosed provided that, without the consent of WHO/EMRO, no use may be made for commercial purposes and confidentiality shall be maintained with respect to results that may be eligible for protection by property rights. The Institution shall provide WHO/EMRO with the results, in the form of relevant know-how and other information, and to the extent feasible tangible products.

30


vii. The industrial or commercial exploitation of any intellectual property rights, including the ownership of know-how, arising from the project shall be designed to achieve, in so far as circumstances permit, the following objectives in the following order of priority:

the general availability of the products of creative activity; the availability of those products to the public health sector on preferential terms, particularly to

developing countries. viii. In any publication by the Institution or the Principal Investigator relating to the results of the project, the

responsibility for the direction of the work shall not be ascribed to WHO/EMRO. All publications should include a notice indicating that the underlying investigation received- financial support from WHO/EMRO. TWO off-prints or copies of each publication should be sent to WHO/EMRO.

4.6. RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS a. Ethical Aspects: It is the responsibility of the Institution and the Principal Investigator to safeguard the rights and

welfare of human subjects involved in research supported in whole or in part by funds from the EMRPPH Grant, in accordance with the appropriate national code of ethics or legislation, if any, and in the absence thereof, the Helsinki Declaration and any subsequent amendments. Such funds may be used only to support investigation where:

i. The rights and welfare of the subjects involved in the research are adequately protected, ii. Freely given informed consent has been obtained, iii. An ethical clearance is given to the project by the research ethics review committee and iv. Any special National requirements have been met.

b. Protection of Subjects: Without prejudice to obligations under applicable laws, the Institution shall make appropriate arrangements to eliminate or mitigate the consequences to subjects or their families in the case of death, injury or illness resulting from the conduct of research.

4.7 PUBLICITYThe Institution and the Principal Investigator shall not refer to the relationship of WHO/EMRO to the project or to

products or processes connected with the project, in any statement or material of a publicity or promotional nature issued for commercial purposes, or with a view to financial benefit.

4.8 LITIGATION AND LIABILITIESWHO/EMRO will not be responsible for any litigation or liabilities that may stem from views and conclusions of the

study by the Institution or the Principal Investigator.

31


5. PRIORITY AREAS FOR EMRPPH Grant 2010-2011 The priority areas for the EMRPPH 2010-2011 are as below: Research proposals only in the areas mentioned below will be eligible and considered for funding for EMRPPH research grant.

1. Climate change and environmental health

2. Preparedness, risk reduction, and response to emergencies and disasters (man-made and natural)

3. Knowledge generation leading to evidence informed health policy

4. Assessing the burden of non-communicable diseases: cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular, and renal diseases

5. Development and sustainability of community ownership in socioeconomic and health-related interventions

32


APPLICATION FORMThe Eastern Mediterranean Regional Office Special Grant 2010-2011 for Research in Priority Areas of Public Health

COVER SHEET OF APPLICATION FORM SHADED AREA FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

DATE RECEIVED (dd/mm/yy)

EMRO/WHO PROPOSAL ID NUMBERRPC/EMRPPH 10/……………..

NAME OF COUNTRY OF APPLICANT HAS THIS PROPOSAL BEEN SUBMITTED TO ANOTHER AGENCY FOR FUNDING

YES NO

NAME OF ORGANIZATION/INSTITUTION IF YES, WRITE NAME OF AGENCY WITH ACRONYM

TITLE OF PROPOSAL (120 characters maximum):

WHAT IS THE PRIORITY AREA ADDRESSED BY THIS PROPOSAL?

NAME OF PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR (PI)

LAST NAME: FIRST NAME(S):

TITLE:

POSTAL ADDRESS:

TEL . MOBILE: FAX:

E-MAIL 1: E-MAIL 2:

NAME OF PI’s ORGANIZATIONAL/INSTITUTIONAL HEAD:

TITLE

ADDRESS

TEL . MOBILE: FAX:

E-MAIL 1: E-MAIL 2:

UNIVERSITY GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION NON-PROFIT, NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION

REQUESTED AMOUNT (US$) PROPOSED DURATION (MONTHS)

SIGNATURE (AND STAMP) OF THE PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR SIGNATURE (AND STAMP) OF INSTITUTIONAL / ORGANIZATIONAL HEAD

NAME & DATE: NAME & DATE:

33


1. PROPOSAL SUMMARY

Please provide one page Summary only, with up to 500 words. The summary should include (i) brief background (ii) objectives, (iii) brief methods, (iv) impacts on human health; and (v) the broader impacts resulting from the proposed activity.

34


2. BACKGROUNDPlease provide one page background, with up to 2 pages. Background includes literature review of previous studies on the subject, stating the problem, and its public health importance/significance and justification of the study with its probable benefit/impact (please quote references).

35


3. OBJECTIVES3.1. General objective: the aim or goal that you will achieve out of this research.

-

3.2. Specific objectives: not more than 5 clearly stated objectives that are measurable and achievable through the methodology

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

36


4. METHODOLOGY An appropriate clear description of activities and information on the general plan of work should be provided here. The methodology section should describe;

4.1. Study design (mention the type of the study as case-control, cross-sectional, interventional, ..etc)

4.2. Study setting (where the study will be conducted? Describe the area as necessary)

4.3. Study population (who are the study subjects, their characteristics, specific inclusion and exclusion criteria)

4.4. Sample size (how many subjects will be recruited for this study? Mention the inputs for the sample size estimation)

4.5. Sampling method/technique (mention the method that will be used to select subjects ensuring a representative sample of the target population in your study)

4.6. Data collection (methods that will be used to collect the data including the description of data collectors)

37


4.7. Instruments/tools (describe the tool(s) that will be used for data collection such as questionnaires, focus group guidelines, checklists, procedures for examination, laboratory procedures etc. Complete questionnaires should be attached as appendices)

4.8. Data management plan (A clear plan of data entry, quality control, analysis including statistical tests and software to be used. Where necessary, dummy tables must be shown as annexes)

4.9. Monitoring, supervision and quality control (for data collection, laboratory, ..)

4.10. Ethical considerations:All research proposals submitted for the EMRPPH must adhere to ethical conduct. This commitment will be ensured by the WHO/EMRO Selection Committee. The PIs are required to get clearance from a national, institutional or any other official Ethical Review Committee before submitting the proposals. Litigation involving human research has must be accompanied by a copy of ethical clearance certification and the informed consent document.

Please describe your proposal:1. Does this research involve human subjects?

38


Yes No 2. If yes, have you received an ethical approval for this research?

Yes No

3. Is there a research ethics committee or institutional review boards at your institution that reviews human subject research?

Yes No a) If yes, has this committee given ethical approval for the conduct of this research?

Yes No

4. If you do not think that ethical clearance is needed for your study, please explain why not?

5. Is written informed consent from human subjects needed in this research?Yes No

If no, please explain why not?

If yes, please attach a copy of the informed consent form that will be used in your research

6. Shall confidentiality of the information (e.g. medical records, biological samples) obtained from subjects be protected in this research?

Yes No

7. Have you received any training on ethics of biomedical research?Yes No

39


5. TIME FRAME OF PROPOSED ACTIVITIES (Gantt chart)

(please indicate the activities to be conducted and check the corresponding timing by marking (X) in the appropriate cell(s)

Starting Month:_________________ Year:____________

Activity 1st QUARTER 2nd QUARTER 3rd QUARTER 4th QUARTER

M 1 M

2

M 3

M4

M 5

M6

M 7

M 8

M 9

M 1 0

M 11

M 12

Submission of the Progress Report X

Submission of the Final Report X

40


6. BENEFICIARIES OF RESEARCH RESULTS (who are the direct beneficiaries of the study, what are the benefits they are likely to accrue in the short or long term, who are the indirect beneficiaries and what benefits they are likely to accrue in short or long term

7. DISSEMINATION PLAN of the research results (how the results would be shared and communicated to the target audience, what activities will be undertaken to do this)

41


8. REFERENCES CITED

Any references cited should be listed here. References should be listed in numerical ascending order with corresponding citations in the text, marked as shown [#]. List of references in this section should follow the sequence given below:

The published articles should start with name of author (with suffix et. al, if more than three authors), followed by title of study, name of journal, volume, page numbers and year of publication (in bold at the end).

Books should start with the title, followed by Editors, Publishers, Chapter number if necessary and year of publication (in bold at the end).

Reports should start with title, followed by name of writer, reference to agency or organization for which it was written, reference number of report if any and year of reporting (in bold at the end)

42


9. PROPOSAL BUDGET WITH JUSTIFICATIONS

[Budget breakdown should be provided in tabular format as shown below with the full term of requested budget from EMRPPH Grant. The maximum EMRPPH award amount will not exceed $10,000. The Breakdown should be restricted to 2 pages.

Instructions for budget items:i. Stipends to Personnel

WHO/EMRO expects that the PIs and Co-Investigators will be faculty members at the eligible institutes, with research as one of their normal functions. EMRPPH funds may not be used to pay salary or augment the total or part of the salary of PIs and Co-Investigators. Personnel costs therefore include compensation to data collectors, field workers, technicians, data entry and analysis specialists.. etc.

ii. Equipment

EMRPPH Grant does not support general purpose equipment, such as a personal computer, telephone sets, photocopying and fax machines etc.

iii. Materials and Supplies

The budget must indicate the general types of expendable materials and supplies required, with their estimated costs. The breakdown should be more detailed when the cost is substantial.

iv. Human Subjects (Patients)

The needs for requiring direct charging of these subjects must be fully justified.

v. Travel

Travel and its relation to the proposed activities must be specified and itemized by destination and cost. EMRPPH Grant does not support the foreign travel (travel outside the Applicant’s country).

vii. Field Work

Funds may be requested for field work necessary for data collection other than the personnel cost.

Viii. Training

Training expenses should be minimized to only specialized training needed by the staff for handling the equipment or improving a research technique skill.

ix. Dissemination/Utilization of Research Results

The cost involved must be in accordance with the proposed dissemination plan such as conferences, publications and dissemination workshops.

x. Other Costs

The budget must identify and itemize other anticipated costs not included under the headings above. Examples include minor telephone calls, service charges, and photocopying. Reference books, periodicals and other scientific literature may be charged to the Grant only if they are specifically required for the project.

43


OUTLINE OF THE BUDGET (ALL AMOUNTS IN US $)Total Amount Requested: US $:

Budget Breakdown

No ITEM OR ACTIVITY Amount Requested from

EMRO Grant

Amount available from other Sources

JUSTIFICATION

1. Personnel*--

2. Equipment--

3. Materials & Supplies--

4. Human Subjects / Patients--

5. Travel

6. Field work--

7. Trainings--

8. Dissemination of results**--

9. Other Costs***---

Total US $

*Up to 20 % of the total budget**Up to 10 % of the total budget maximum. ***Up to 5 % of the total budget maximum

44


10. BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES OF PI AND CO-INVESTIGATOR(S)

Biographic Sketches or Personal Information in respect of PI, and (not more than three) other main Co Investigator(s) / Research Associates should be provided.

11. APPENDICES

Please provide as appendices instruments of investigation (e.g., questionnaires, procedure of examination, laboratory protocols, etc.) described in Methodology.

DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS

EMRO has established 15th April 2010, as deadline for submission of proposals. Proposals received after the deadline shall not be considered in this round. Applicants should allow up to two months for programmatic review and processing. However, RPC WHO/EMRO makes every effort to reach a decision and inform the applicant promptly.

The completed Application Form for the Eastern Mediterranean Regional Office Special Grant 2010-2011 for Research in Priority Areas of Public Health should be sent to:

Dr Naeema Al-GasseerAssistant Regional Director,

World Health OrganizationRegional Office for the Eastern MediterraneanAbdel Razzak Al Sanhouri StreetNasr City, PO Box 7608, Cairo 1137, EgyptFax: (202) 2670 24 92/94; (202) 2276 54 20 E-mail: [email protected]

NOTE:

PLEASE DO NOT ATTACH COPY OF THE GUIDELINES WITH YOUR RESEARCH PROPOSAL APPLICATION

45



ANNEXI

CERTIFICATIONS [FORMAT]

Certification for Proposal

I certify to the best of my knowledge that:

i. all the statements in the proposal titled

“…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………”

ii. (excluding scientific hypotheses and scientific opinions) are true and complete, and

iii. the text and graphics herein as well as any accompanying publications or other documents, unless otherwise indicated, are the original work of the signatories or individuals working under their supervision.

I agree to accept responsibility for the scientific conduct of the project and to provide the required project reports if an award is made from EMRO-COMSTECH Grant as a result of this proposal.

NAME (TYPED) Signature Date (dd/mm/yy)

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

CO-INVESTIGATOR-1

CO- INVESTIGATOR-2

CO- INVESTIGATOR-3

ORGANIZATIONAL/INSTITUTIONAL HEAD OR HIS/HER AUTHORIZED REPRESENTAVE

NAME (TYPED) Signature Date (dd/mm/yy)

TITLE

TELEPHONE NUMBER FAX NUMBER E-MAIL ADDRESS

46

course syllabus - university of jordannursing.ju.edu.jo/lists/courses/attachments/115/quantitative...

Documents