Workshop on proposal writing on research for health care professionals: a brief report

Abstract

A one-day workshop on proposal writing for research for health care professionals was organized by Hospital Research Board (HRB), Nepal Cancer Hospital and Research Center Pvt. Ltd, Harisiddhi, Lalitpur, Nepal on 2nd March 2019. The main aim of this workshop was to identify, motivate and prepare health care professionals for conducting research in their respective professional institution in collaboration. The workshop was facilitated by international and national resource persons. The deliberations of the workshop were focused on seven topics: “Turning research into impact, Essentials of the research protocol, Why proposals are rejected?, Plagiarism in medical research, Research with medical records, Grant writing workshop, Manuscript writing workshop” based on a presentation by the different resource persons. Ninety-nine persons participated in the workshop including physicians, medical oncologists, pharmacists, nurses and other allied health professionals. The interactive teaching-learning methods were utilized in all sessions of the workshop. The feedback of the participants was taken on semi-structured feedback format. Overall evaluations from the feedback forms showed that majority (90%) of the participants agreed that the workshop achieved its objectives with a major recommendation as to the allocation of short duration for the workshop and timely organize of research activities regarding scientific writing. In conclusion, the workshop on research proposal writing for health care professionals was successfully organized and the participants are looking forward for future ones.

Keywords:

• workshop
• proposal writing
• research
• health care professionals; Nepal

Acknowledgments

The author(s) acknowledge Dr. Subish Palaian, Associate Professor of Pharmacy Practice from Gulf Medical University for the concept of organizing a workshop at Nepal for health care professionals. The author(s) also acknowledge Dr. Bijesh Raj Ghimire, Medical Director of Nepal Cancer Hospital and Research Center and members of organizing committee of the workshop of for their valuable sugguestions and support.

Disclosure

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

Supplementary materials

Appendix I

Evaluation by participants

The following questionnaire was given to participants to evaluate the workshop.

Participant Name (optional): ______________________ _____ Date: _______________

Job Title: ____________________________________ ______

Years in present position: _____ years

1) What is your overall assessment of the event? (1 = insufficient – 5 = excellent)

  1  2  3  4  5

2) Which topics or aspects of the workshop did you find most interesting or useful?

3) Did the workshop achieve the workshop objectives?

  Yes  No  If no, why?

4) Knowledge and information gained from participation at this event?

Met your expectations   Yes  No  Somehow

Will be useful/applicable in my work   definitely  mostly   Somehow  Not at all

5) How do you think the workshop could have been made more effective?

6) Please comment on the organization of the event (from 1 = insufficient to 5 = excellent)

  1  2  3  4  5

7) Comments and suggestions (including activities or initiatives you think would be useful, for the future)

8) Further comments or suggestions

9) What other improvements would you recommend in this workshop?

10) What did you like best about this workshop? __________________________________ ___

11) What did you like least about this workshop?

Are you interested in receiving other educational materials/workshops from or e-mail updates about this project? Yes No.

If so, please write your name, address, e-mail, phone number, and the subject(s) and grade level(s) you work with most.

Appendix II

Quantitative analysis

Table S1 Overall assessment and comment on the organization of the event

Table S2 Descriptive table showing the frequency of participants and their feedback on worthiness of individual topics (multiple responses)

Table S3 Frequency showing the overall result of feedback on achievement of program objective and possible suggestions

Table S4 Frequency of participants reporting the knowledge gained after the events

Table S5 Descriptive table showing the frequency of participants and their feedback on the worthiness of overall workshop

In-depth qualitative analysis category

Best feature of the workshop

For the responses to these questions, four categories are developed from our coding. The participants of the workshop seemed to be enthusiastic about the quality of the workshop and its contents.

• 1. Resource person/Speaker of the workshop

“Expert Advice Dr. Izham’s Sessions”, “Good tutor”, “Familiar Interaction by resource persons”, “Prof Izham Breakthrough skills,” etc., are things wrote by the participants of the workshop. They also acknowledge that they like sessions.

• 2. Time management by resource persons and organizers

Some of the participants like the time management by resource persons along with organizers. Participants wrote that “Excellent Time management”, “Everything was on time”.

• The practical significance of the workshop

Participants cherished techniques that were “Helpful in future research work” and helped them with “manuscript writing” and “grant writing”. Many participants wrote that they gained knowledge in different aspects of proposal writing.

• The event management of the workshop by the organizers

The participants were high in number in accordance with the size of the hall. However, participants expressed gratitude for organizing committee writing that “Well-Managed”.

Dissatisfaction about the workshop

For the responses to these questions, three categories are developed from our coding.

• The short length of the workshop

As the workshop was conducted for one day only, most participants complained about the short duration of the workshop. One of the participants wrote“, “Please have a two-three day of the workshop,” another participant wrote that “Contents are too much but one day is not enough“. Majority of participants were happy with the workshop but they dislike the length of the workshop.

• Logistical/locations criticisms

In this category, we label it as a minor criticism to the workshop or venue settings. One of the participants wrote that “Arrange big hall for future events” and another one wrote, “To have round table settings for discussion and group work”. Similarly, one of the participants wrote that “Please invite fewer participants” and another one disliked the food of the workshop. One participant was unhappy with the registration system for the workshop and wrote: “Registration should be done via online”.

• Fewer interactions/group discussion during workshops

As there was less group discussion during workshops, some of the participants were dissatisfied. Some participants of the workshop were dissatisfied with less practical base sessions on grant proposal writing and manuscript writing workshop. They wanted more practical-based sessions on such theme of manuscript writing and grant writing.

Recommendations for improving forthcoming workshops

The different recommendations from participants were obtained for improving future workshops which will be organized. In these open-ended questions, our aim was to find out what recommendations participants might have as a way to offer feedback for resource persons, the content and objectives of workshop and organizers. Participants as an alternative appeared to use this open question to express their appreciation and demand for additional future workshop opportunities.

• Necessity of this kind of research workshops

Most of the participants were seeking for this kind of workshops or training. They are also seeking for chances to attend workshops in the future. As one participant wrote, “Please organize such of workshops”. Participants are requesting organizers to organize such kind of programs in the future. Participants wrote that “Invite/Inform in next workshop”, “Organize a workshop on SPSS”.

“Need more similar class,” “please organize more such workshops, seminars, and conferences especially on qualitative research, mixed research, plagiarism”.

“Conduct periodically to enhance research skills,” “keep providing such program,” “looking forward for same kind of program,” “more workshops in pharmacy for upgrading.

• More interactive during workshops with round table discussion

Most of the participants were dissatisfied with less interaction during workshops. One of the participants wrote to “keep fewer participants so that more interaction is possible” and another participant wrote “Please have round table discussion”.

• Appreciation

Many participants of the workshop have one voice which stated gratitude for the experience of the workshop. Participants wrote, “Thank you for this workshop opportunity”, “Thank you for the wonderful workshop”, “I feel lucky to participate”. Others expressed gratitude to resource persons and contents of the workshop” saying “Resource person have influential personality” Some of the participants wrote expressed gratitude to organizers saying” Excellent and well organized”, “Well managed and organized systemically”, “every session was on time”, “perfect time management”, etc.

• Demanded longer duration for workshop

As many of the participants were dissatisfied with a shorter duration for the workshop, they suggested organizing such kind of workshops with long duration.