Menu
The Society of Directors of Research in Medical Education (SDRME) is issuing a call for review paper-proposals. SDRME is interested in review proposals that will make a substantial contribution to advancing practice, theory, or research in medical education.
We welcome a variety of review methods for identifying and synthesizing relevant published literature, including (but not limited to) critical, conceptual, scoping, realist and systematic reviews. Reviews are expected to be completed within two years from the time grant monies are first received. Up to $5000 in funding will be awarded to the first author. Travel expenses to attend the SDRME meeting to present the completed research will also be awarded ($2000 in addition to the grant award).
Request for Application for 2024 Award cycle will come out in June. View 2023 RFA
Examples of successful proposals and an example of Budget Justification
A list of previous funded reviews, representing a broad range of topics and review types
A list of published reviews by our awardees, showcasing their scholarly accomplishments
A must-read list of fundamental articles for the conduct of high-quality reviews
A reference list of methodological and reporting guidelines for various review types
Organizations promoting and supporting evidence-based practices across disciplines
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing the elit Aliquam placerat dolor
The SDRME does not have a specific agenda of priority research topics, and thus we cannot comment in advance on the priority of specific topics. During the review process, we prioritize topics that will have a substantial and broad impact on the field. If a given topic represents a pressing problem for the education of health professionals, then that would be viewed favorably.
No. The award is a fixed amount. We make no allowance for indirect costs or other grant processing fees.
You may combine the proposal and the CV’s into a single document, or you may have 2 documents (1 for the proposal, the other for all of the CV’s merged). In either case, each author’s CV should start on a new page.
No. The first author is always the corresponding author, and will be the person named on the award check. All communications will occur directly with the first author. Only the first author will be listed as the recipient on SDRME records and website. The investigator team can do whatever they feel is appropriate in giving credit and listing the application and the award on, for example, their own curriculum vitae.
Maybe, but proposed changes should first be discussed with the Invited Review Committee Chair. Award decisions are made based on the project as described in the application; other approaches might have been viewed less favorably. As such, any changes beyond “minor” may invalidate the award and preclude the second disbursement of funds.
No. Award decisions are based only on the merits of the proposal. We encourage investigators to apply for the maximum award amount ($5000) if warranted by anticipated expenses.
We place no restrictions on how funds are spent. All investigators will be responsible to adhere to local institutional policies on the expenditure of grant funds.
One of the review criteria is “feasibility.” To the extent that experience will enhance the likelihood of success, we do consider experience as an important factor in our decisions. However, we do not look only at the first author, but rather at the entire review team. For example, if the first author has limited experience, but another core member of the team has experience with systematic reviews, the latter’s experience would be viewed favorably (provided there is assurance that the experienced author will play an active role in the project).
Yes, go to ‘Proposal Examples’ above.
Unfortunately, no (not as the first author / primary investigator). SDRME is a group of representatives from LCME-accredited medical schools. We appreciate the need for interdisciplinary collaboration, and know that health professionals can learn much from one another. However, we have only limited funds, and we feel that we need to focus our funding efforts toward those research questions that directly influence the training of physicians. Anyone may participate as a collaborator.
No. The first author is the corresponding author, and must be eligible as described above.
The budget justification can be very brief (see examples posted online). We just need to know how you will spend the award funds.
We realize that the award will usually fall short of covering all the costs incurred in conducting a high-quality literature review. You will need to plan for this as you prepare the proposal, and include a brief note explaining how any shortfall will be met.
• Be sure to follow instructions for proposal format (2 pages, 500 words). Merge all CV’s into a single document. Each CV should start a new page.
• Clearly indicate how your review will meet all four evaluation criteria (see above).
• Indicate what reviews or summaries have already been published on this topic, and how your review will improve or build upon these.
• In the Methods, explain (among other things) how you will identify relevant primary studies, and how you will synthesize/integrate the information learned from these studies. (Simply citing another source, e.g. published guidelines, will rarely suffice.)
• Highlight the team’s collective expertise in conducting reviews (hint: the CV narrative is a good place to elaborate on this).
• Be realistic in what you can accomplish, and if possible present evidence that the project will be feasible in a reasonable length of time.
• Avoid unsupported platitudes such as “We are confident this review can be completed within 12 months” or “This review will be of great importance to medical education.” (These are fine if they are supported by specific evidence/information.)
• Teams are nearly always more successful than single investigators (both in the grant application, and in the conduct of the review).
• If planning a systematic review, you might consider incorporating the suggestions from the following resources:
• Cook DA, West CP. Conducting systematic reviews in medical education: a stepwise approach. Medical Education 2012; 46:943–952.
• Hammick M, Dornan T, Steinert Y. Conducting a best evidence systematic review. Part 1: From idea to data coding. BEME Guide No. 13. Medical Teacher 2010; 32:3-15.
• If planning a scoping review, you might consider incorporating the suggestions from the following resources:
• Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol 2005;8:19–32.
• Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implementation Science 2010; 5(1): 69.
• If planning a realist review, you might consider incorporating the suggestions from the following resources:
• Wong, G, Greenhalgh, T, Westhorp, G. et al. RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses. BMC Med 2013; 11: 21.
• If planning a narrative review, you might consider incorporating the suggestions from the following resources:
• Ferrari, R. Writing narrative style literature reviews, Medical Writing, 24:4 (2015), 230-235.
• The following resource contains suggestions relevant to literature reviews of any type:
• Cook DA. Tips for a great review article: crossing methodological boundaries. Medical Education 2016;50:384-7.
• Gordon, M, Gibbs, T. STORIES statement: Publication standards for healthcare education evidence synthesis. BMC Med. 2014;12, 143.
• McGaghie WC. Varieties of integrative scholarship: why rules of evidence, criteria, and standards matter. Acad Med. 2015;90(3):294-302.
The SDRME Invited Review Committee
Chair: Satid Thammasitboon , MD, MHPE
Committee Members: Cha-Chi Fung, PhD, Paul Haidet, MD,
Patricia O'Sullivan, EdD, Caren Stalburg, MD