Real-World Evidence Research Proposal Competition

Summary and Rules Document

SISPE 2024

Competition Goals

1. Foster student engagement within ISPE and collaboration among peers
2. Provide an opportunity for engagement with experts in pharmacoepidemiology, including collaboration with the Real-World Evidence (RWE) Collaborative SIG
3. Enhance pharmacoepidemiology proposal writing skills among students

Competition Overview

• Participants will assemble a team of up to three students
• Teams will submit a research proposal on any topic of pharmacoepidemiology interest that includes the use of real-world data
• Pharmacoepidemiology experts will review and score proposals based on predefined criteria
• The winning team will be recognized at the 2024 ISPE Annual Meeting
• The winning team will have the opportunity to present their proposal at an ISPE webinar in Fall 2024

Timeline

• Student team registration opens April 16^th, 2024
• Student team registration closes on May 15^th, 2024
• Research Proposal submission opens on May 16^th, 2024
• Research Proposal submissions due by June 15^th, 2024 at 11:59 PM EST
• Winners will be notified by August 1^st, 2024
• All teams will receive reviewer feedback by August 1^st, 2024

Incentives to compete

• ALL competing teams will receive extensive feedback from pharmacoepidemiology experts on their research proposal
• Winning Team will be recognized at the 2024 ISPE Annual Meeting and will be presented with a Certificate of Achievement
• Winning Team will have the opportunity to present their proposal at an ISPE webinar in Fall 2024

Competition Rules

• Teams
  • Teams can consist of one to three students
    • One team member will be designated corresponding author
    • The corresponding author must be a student member of ISPE
    • Other team members do not need to be ISPE members
    • Team members do not need to all be affiliated with the same institution
  • All members must be students at the time of submitting the teams for the competition (May 15^th)
    • Students who graduate before the competition is complete are eligible to compete
  • Teams are allowed to consult with faculty advisors (or other non-student experts), but advisors are not permitted to contribute a level of effort that would qualify them as an author of the proposal 
• Registration
  • Teams must register using the Participant Sign-up form by the enrollment deadline (May 15^th, 2024)
    • Participant Sign-up Form is available here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1AdVX2DVyGrLdMN1zo0kcTK8J0V23u1m7CRiQNa7YIuo/edit
  • Late registrations are not allowed
• Proposal
  • Submit proposals via email by 11:59 PM (EST) on June 15^th, 2024
    • Submit one PDF document including a title page, proposal (3 pages maximum), and references
    • Submissions will be emailed to the SISPE Gmail account: sispechair@gmail.com
    • The proposal should be submitted by corresponding author only using the email account that was used to register for the competition
  • Proposals are limited to 3 pages and should include:
    • Background
    • Significance
    • Research question, specific aims, and hypotheses
    • Methods
      • Data source, study population, exposure, outcome(s), addressing bias and confounding, analysis plan
    • Limitations
  • Formatting
    • 11-point font, single-spaced
    • Arial, Georgia, Helvetica, Palatino Linotype
    • One-inch margins
  • Figures
    • Figures are allowed, but are included in the overall page count
  • Title Page
    • Include the title of the proposal, team members names and university affiliations
  • Title Page and References are NOT included in the page count

• Scoring
  • Reviewers will be recruited through the RWE Collaborative SIG
  • Reviewers will score submissions using an evaluation rubric see Appendix 1  
    • The review form will have a comment box for each category on what the student team did well and what needs improvement for that category
    • Reviewers will score each of the following categories from 1 (lowest) - 4 (highest/best): background/introduction, significance, research question and hypotheses, methods, limitations
  • Each proposal will be scored by two reviewers
  • The team with the highest average score for all categories will be the winning team
  • In the case of ties, two reserve reviewers will be contacted to review the tied proposal(s) and select the winner
  • Neither reviewers nor submissions will be blinded

APPENDIX 1

2024 ISPE Student RWE Research Proposal Challenge

Scoring Rubric

Please complete one scoring rubric for each proposal you review. For each category, identify strengths and areas for improvement, ensuring that your comments are constructive and actionable. Your insights will play a crucial role in guiding the student teams towards success in pharmacoepidemiology research.

Scoring:

Utilize a scale of 1 to 4 for each category, with 1 being the lowest and 4 the best. The winning team will be the one with the highest average score across all categories.

Non-Blinded Review:

Both reviewers and submissions will not be blinded. Transparent evaluations contribute to an open and fair assessment process.

Optional Discussion with Participants:

Please indicate below if you are available to schedule a brief meeting with the student team to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal. Students may reach out to reviewers to plan a time to meet.

Name(s) of Student Team Members:

Title of Proposal:

Name of Reviewer:

Available to schedule a meeting to discuss: (Yes/No)

If yes, email:

1. Background

• Score 4 (Best): Presents an exceptionally thorough literature review, pinpointing a specific knowledge gap with a compelling rationale; exhibits a comprehensive understanding of the field with no identified weaknesses.
• Score 3: Commendable literature review and identification of a knowledge gap. While overall strong, there may be one or a few minor weaknesses, such as the need for additional depth or clarification in certain areas.
• Score 2: Has a major weakness, affecting overall strength. This could involve a lack of clarity in identifying the knowledge gap or deficiencies in the literature review.
• Score 1 (Lowest): Has multiple major weaknesses significantly impacting the proposal's quality. The identification of the knowledge gap may be unclear, and the literature review might lack depth or relevance.

Score:

Comments:

2. Significance/Innovation

• Score 4 (Best): Clearly and strongly describes the importance of the proposed research in addressing a pertinent problem or gap in knowledge. The presentation is compelling, highlighting the critical relevance of the study with no identified weaknesses. Provides how this project is innovative and could have a public health impact.
• Score 3: Effectively communicates the importance of the proposed research in addressing a relevant problem or knowledge gap. While strong overall, there may be one or a few minor weaknesses, such as the need for additional depth or clarification in certain areas.
• Score 2: Has a major weakness impacting overall strength. This could involve a lack of clarity in conveying the importance of the research or deficiencies in addressing the relevant problem or knowledge gap.
• Score 1 (Lowest): Has multiple major weaknesses significantly impacting the proposal's quality. The demonstration of the research's importance may be unclear, and the addressing of the relevant problem or knowledge gap might lack depth or relevance.

Score:

Comments:

3. Research question and hypotheses

• Score 4 (Best): Clearly and strongly articulates well-defined research question, specific aims, and hypotheses that precisely align with the research question. The objectives are focused and achievable, with no identified weaknesses.
• Score 3: Effectively communicates well-defined research question, specific aims, and hypotheses that align with the research question. While strong overall, there may be one or a few minor weaknesses, such as the need for additional precision or clarification in certain areas. The objectives remain generally focused and achievable.
• Score 2: Has a major weakness in articulating the research question, specific aims or hypotheses, impacting overall strength. This could involve a lack of clarity in alignment with the research question or deficiencies in focusing on achievable objectives.
• Score 1 (Lowest): Has multiple major weaknesses significantly impacting the proposal's quality. The articulation of the research question, specific aims, or hypotheses may be unclear, and the focus on achievable objectives might lack depth or relevance.

Score:

Comments:

4. Methods

• Score 4 (Best): Presents a rigorous and meticulously described pharmacoepidemiology research methods that align closely with the study objectives. The data source, study population, exposure, outcome(s), approach to address bias and confounding, and analysis plan are clear and there are no significant weaknesses.
• Score 3: Effectively details pharmacoepidemiology research methods that align well with the study objectives. While strong overall, there may be one or a few minor weaknesses, such as the need for additional clarity or elaboration in certain areas of the methods including the data source, study population, exposure, outcome(s), approach to address bias and confounding, or analysis plan.
• Score 2: Research methods have a major weakness, impacting overall strength. This could involve a lack of clarity in aligning with the study objectives, deficiencies in explaining the data source, study population, exposure, outcome(s), approach to address bias and confounding, analysis plan, or inappropriate selection of methods for the study aims.
• Score 1 (Lowest): Has multiple major weaknesses significantly impacting the proposal's quality. The description of research methods may be unclear. The description of data source, study population, exposure, outcome(s), approach to address bias and confounding, and analysis plan might lack depth or relevance, or the selection of methods are inappropriate for the study aims.

Score:

Comments:

5. Limitations

• Score 4 (Best): Provides a comprehensive identification and acknowledgment of potential limitations in the study design, approach, and data sources. The discussion reflects a profound understanding of the impact these limitations may have on the research, leaving no unidentified weaknesses.
• Score 3: Effectively addresses potential limitations in the study design, approach, and data sources. While strong overall, there may be one or a few minor weaknesses, such as the need for additional depth or clarity in certain areas of the discussion regarding the impact of these limitations.
• Score 2: Has a major weakness in addressing potential limitations, impacting overall strength. This could involve a lack of comprehensive identification or acknowledgment of limitations, or deficiencies in the discussion of their impact.
• Score 1 (Lowest): Has multiple major weaknesses significantly impacting the proposal's quality. The identification and acknowledgment of potential limitations may be incomplete, and the discussion regarding their impact might lack depth or relevance.

Score:

Comments: