Grant Proposal: a continuation of the previous assigment (Literature Review/ sources are in the reference page) attached here.
The research question could be any related with the topic or what was conclude it in the literature review)
You are to design a hypothetical research project and propose it to a funding source. You will be asking for funding (research grant) so you could (hypothetically) conduct (or continue) your research. You are requesting funding to conduct an ongoing study of
clinical outcomes of patients that receive treatment for heart attacks. You are submitting this proposal to Hahn R&D Enterprises.
When researchers submit a grant proposal, the process of
being awarded funds is extremely competitive. Here are three grading elements
that help you sell your idea:
1.
Accuracy and precision
(no false claims)
2.
Presentation of the
argument why your project should be funded over the other grant proposals
received by Hahn R&D Enterprises for funding (but not fancy or artful
fluff, use the template provided). Grantors will not like your proposal if it
does not use the provided template or specifically directed format.
3.
Proposal and Research
Protocol Design (local flow of information).
So far in this course, you have completed the following
tasks:
· Searched for and found full-text
PubMed articles concerning one or two specific medical treatment techniques for
acute myocardial infarction (MI).
· Created an individual annotated
bibliography for one article reporting Fibrinolytic treatment or Percutaneous
Coronary Intervention (PCI), or a compare/contrast of each.
· Reported who did what, where
(population), when, why, how, as well as the most significant findings in your
annotation.
· Your group submitted a combined
Annotated Bibliography. You received lots of feedback, and read the
entire graded product, thus becoming familiar with other Fibrinolytic or PCI
articles.
· Wrote an individual review of the
literature (Fibrinolytic &/or/vs PCI) by critically reading and fully
expanding your annotated bibliography. You reflected on how your article
relates to others on this topic (using other group members’ annotated
bibliographies). Your literature review discussed the strength of the evidence,
described research findings, strengths and limitations, biases, and how the
research compares/contrasts with others. You also discovered connections and
gaps in knowledge of the topic, likely thinking, “Why doesn’t someone
research _______?”
Now you fill in the _____. What problem or oversight
would you solve? What question would you answer? Discuss how your
originally chosen article and others, lead you to formulate an interest, shaped
your argument, and how you think about the topic of Fibrinolytic therapy and
PCI.
We are all at some level of risk for a MI. There are
numerous risk factors for MI including family history, dietary intake, physical
activity levels, cholesterol and lipid levels, and pre-existing chronic
diseases (i.e. hypertension). Consider the following questions:
· If you were to have an MI and
called 911 for EMS, which treatment would you prefer? Why?
· If you lived in a rural
area would your preference change? Why or why not?
· Would you want an EMT to
thread a balloon in you at your house or wait for the balloon at a Cardiac
Surgical Unit?
· Would fibrinolytic
pill or IV be sufficient?