The Society for Pediatric Sedation (SPS) is pleased to offer a Scholarly Grant to support pediatric sedation-related quality improvement projects, research activities, or educational (teaching) initiatives that aim to advance the mission of the Society. The awarded project results will be presented (via abstract, workshop, or other appropriate medium) at the SPS Annual Conference and should result in products that can be disseminated to other sedation providers/institutions. Projects should be completed within a one-year period.
Striving to be the international multidisciplinary leader in the advancement of pediatric sedation by promoting safe, high quality care, innovative research and quality professional education
Applicants may request up to $10,000 in direct costs for one year. Indirect costs are not allowed.
All SPS members are eligible to apply for a Society for Pediatric Sedation Scholarly Grant.
- Letter of Intent (LOI) Submission: November 17, 2017 (5:00 p.m. EST)
- Application submission: February 5, 2018 (5:00 p.m. EST)
- Award Announcement: May 2018 at the SPS 2018 Annual Conference in Atlanta, GA
- Anticipated start date of the project: May 28, 2018
- Funding is for one year—Completion date by May 28, 2019
- Anticipated presentation of project results: May 2019 at SPS 2019 Annual Conference
SPS Grant Letter of Intent 2018
Application Submission Process
- Create a single PDF document named as follows: PI’s Last Name_SPSGrant_2018. This document should include the application form as well as all biographical sketches and additional forms.
- Email the document to Joye Stewart (firstname.lastname@example.org) by February 5, 2018 at 5:00 p.m. EST.
- Questions? Contact Joye Stewart, Grant Administrator at (804) 565-6354 or email@example.com.
SPS Scholarly Grant Application Instructions
Applicants must use the application form provided. Enter text in the shaded areas on the form in the space provided.
Review Process and Criteria
SPS seeks proposals of high scholarly merit from investigators who show promise of disseminating their work at the SPS Annual Conference, at other high-impact conferences, and in peer-reviewed scientific journals, as well as obtaining continued external funding.
A review group will convene to evaluate applications for scientific and technical merit. As part of the initial review, all applications:
- Will receive a written critique.
- Will undergo a selection process in which only those applications deemed to have the highest scientific merit, generally the top half of applications under review, will be discussed and assigned a priority score.
- May receive a second level of review by the review group, which makes the final funding recommendation to the SPS Board of Directors.
This peer review panel will evaluate proposals according to the following criteria, adapted from the NIH:
- Significance. Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability and/or clinical practice be improved? How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services or preventative interventions that drive this field?
- Investigator(s). Are the Principal Investigator (PI), collaborators and other researchers well suited to the project? If the project is collaborative, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise? Are the leadership approach, governance and organizational structure appropriate for the project?
- Innovation. Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation or interventions? Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation or interventions novel to one field or novel in a broad sense? Is a refinement, improvement or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies instrumentation or interventions proposed?
- Approach. Are the overall strategy, methodology and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project? Are potential problems, alternative strategies and benchmarks for success presented? If the project involves clinical research, are the plans for protection of human subjects from research risks justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed?
- Environment. Will the environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional support, equipment, and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed? Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations or collaborative arrangements?
- Budget: The reasonableness of the proposed budget and the requested period of support in relation to the proposed research plan.