Educational grant proposal review

GSK will review all submitted proposals against standardised criteria. All educational grant proposals must address the following areas:

Compliance

All educational grant applications will be reviewed on the completeness and quality of the application as well as the potential impact the proposal could have in enabling patients to do more, live longer and feel better. Providers must comply with the following to qualify for consideration of funding:

  • Proposals must be free from commercial influence; educational content must be non-promotional, fair and balanced.
  • Education must be in a disease area or areas in which GSK has an authorised product.
  • The budget must be customary and line items allocated to appropriate categories.
  • Where possible the educational content should be accredited by a nationally or internationally recognised accreditation body that requires content development and activities to be independent from commercial interest.
  • Providers must comply with GSK’s transparency initiative and EFPIA disclosure requirements. GSK publically discloses all approved educational grants provided to healthcare organisations and reserves the right to post summaries of the funded educational initiatives and educational outcomes achieved on our website.
  • Proposals must include details on how conflicts of interest will be identified and resolved. Anyone who is involved in developing educational content must disclose any relevant financial relationship with commercial interest that creates a conflict of interest. Failure to disclose and resolve known conflicts of interest will disqualify the grant applicant.

Identified healthcare professional education need

Proposals must highlight and address evidence-based clinical performance gaps that impact patient health in the selected disease area. This should include a rigorous assessment of the gaps between current practice and evidence-based best practice that identifies healthcare professional learning needs.

Examples of an educational need assessment could be expert interviews, a healthcare professional survey, a review of peer-reviewed scientific literature, an audit of patient records, or a national consensus.

Educational initiative design

Initiatives should clearly define specific, measurable learning objectives that are aligned to the identified healthcare professional educational need and expected knowledge or practice change. Proposed initiatives should incorporate interactive and innovative formats that are designed to improve healthcare professional knowledge, skill, practice and ultimately patient health.

Initiatives should target the intended audience’s learning preferences; they may be multiple curriculum-based initiatives or tailored multidisciplinary learning environments. Whatever format is outlined a compelling rationale should be provided for the educational design selection.

Educational outcomes

Initiatives should strive to measure an educational outcome. Only initiatives that are designed to objectively measure a change in healthcare professional knowledge (Level 3 in Moore’s model below) with UK reach, or a change in healthcare professional practice or patient outcome (higher than a Level 3) with regional or local reach (e.g. more than 5 GP practices) will be considered for funding.

Education outcomes

Description

Source of data

Community Health

(Level 7)

The degree to which the health status of a community of patients changes due to changes in the practice behaviour of participants

Objective: epidemiological data and reports

Subjective: community self-report

Patient Health

(Level 6)

The degree to which the health status of patients improves due to changes in the practice behaviour of participants

Objective: health status measures recorded patient charts or administrative databases

Subjective: Patient self-report of health status

Performance

(Level 5)

The degree to which participants do what the CME activity intended them to be able to do in their practices

Objective: observation of performance in patient care setting, patient charts, administrative database

Subjective: self-report of performance

Competence

(Level 4)

The degree to which participants show in an educational setting how to do what the CME activity intended them to be able to do

Objective: observation in education setting

Subjective: self-report of competence, intention to change

Learning procedural knowledge

(Level 3b)

The degree to which participants state how to do what the CME activity intended them to know how to do

Objective: pre-and post test of knowledge

Subjective: self-report of knowledge gain

Learning declarative knowledge

(Level 3a)

The degree to which participants state what the CME activity intended them to know how to do

Objective: pre- and post tests of knowledge

Subjective: self-report of knowledge gain

Satisfaction

(Level 2)

The degree to which the expectations of the participants about the settings and delivery of the CME activity were met

Questionnaires completed by attendees after CME activity

Participation

(Level 1)

The number of physicians and others who participated in the CME activity

Attendance records

Table from Moore, D., JCEHP, 29 2

A strategy to make the educational design or outcomes that have been measured available to a wider healthcare professional audience should also be included.

 


1. Moore, D. Activities in Achieving Desired Results and Improved Outcomes: integrating planning and assessment throughout learning activities: ‘TABLE 1. Comparison of an Expanded Outcomes Framework with the Original Framework for Planning and Assessing CME’, Journal of Continuing Education for Healthcare Professions, 2009, (29), issue 1, p. 3.

2. Please refer to Moore D. E., Journal of Continuing Education in the Healthcare Professions, 2009, (29), issue 1, pp. 1-15 http://www.sacme.org/Resources/Documents/Virtual%20Journal%20Club/Moore_evaluation_article.pdf