ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To summarize a preconference workshop that focused on how to be successful in obtaining funding by making one's scholarship innovative and significant. METHOD: In 2021, at the annual American Psychiatric Nurses Association (APNA) Conference, a panel of nurse scholars reflected on and discussed how to make grant proposals innovative and significant. Two moderators posed questions to five panelists at different stages in their research trajectories about four key research concepts: idea conception, framing for the funding agency, significance, and innovation. RESULTS: Conceptualizing an innovative, scholarly idea starts with a passion for the topic, a team of experts and scholarly community, and time to think and delve into the literature. For funding opportunities, start small, read the funding announcements thoroughly and carefully, and make sure it is the right fit. Strategies to illustrate significance include avoiding generalizations, maintaining objectivity, being clear about impact, and using strength-based language. Contemplate the many facets of innovation as well as balance innovation and feasibility. CONCLUSIONS: Inclusion of challenges in composing significance and innovation sections of grant proposals offers knowledge for psychiatric nurse researchers to add to their toolkits as they seek funding and conduct research and scholarship.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Identifying and sharing psychiatric mental health (PMH) research priorities can help identify gaps in the literature, determine training needs for nurses, and assist investigators in locating funding. AIMS: The aims for this project included: (1) identify PMH nursing specialty research priorities from large, public funding entities; (2) compare the identified research priorities and scholarly articles published in 2020; and (3) outline future directions for advancing the science of PMH nursing. METHODS: Strategic plans of funding entities for PMH research were reviewed for research priorities. Summarized priorities were then compared with publications from peer-reviewed PMH nursing journals. Work conducted in the United States was extracted and categorized as original research, evidence-based practice (EBP), or quality improvement (QI), then design and population. RESULTS: Priorities from 13 funding entities comprised three domains (education, research, and practice), with nine areas, 30 topics, and subtopics. Eight journals produced 432 articles with 99 (23%) conducted in the United States. Among these journals, publications fitting research priorities ranged from 1 to 33 articles. Of the 99 articles, 85% were original research and 15% were either EBP or QI. Descriptive articles comprised 64% and 23% tested interventions. Populations studied included workforce; adults; infants, children, and adolescents; and parents. CONCLUSIONS: All published articles by the U.S. PMH nurses matched the funding priorities, but not all funding priorities were addressed by 2020 publications. The majority of work was conducted outside of the United States and most published from the United States was descriptive, contrary to many United States funders' priorities for interventional research.
