Scoring criteria for full proposals

All full proposals submitted to HERE are evaluated on each section by its Governing Council. To facilitate evaluation, it is required that proponents structure their narrative and organize them according to the available templates of the Foundation. 

Proposals submitted to HERE are scored on the following criteria:

1.  Review of Related Literature (weight of 5%, scored 1 to 4 points)

Greater value will be awarded for literature reviews that comprehensively critique the state of the art in the study of the health inequity problem identified. The literature should be reviewed in terms of both previous content AND methodologies used.

2. Significance and potential impact (weight of 25%, scored 1 to 4 points)

Greater value will be awarded for research proposals investigating solutions intended to mitigate inequities in health and healthcare directly that are systemic in nature, easily scalable and sustainable. Studies on measurement or understanding of health inequities will also be accepted. Proposals that include the disadvantaged population as collaborators or essential co-researchers and not merely as subjects, will merit additional points. 

3. Alignment of study objectives (weight of 20%, scored 1 to 4 points)

Greater value will be awarded for objectives that are clearly articulated. These studies may be on mitigation, understanding or measurement of health inequities. Objectives will be structured in the Population (P), Exposure (E), and Outcome (O) format. 

4. Rigor of methodology (weight of 25%, scored 1 to 4 points)

Greater value will be awarded for this section whose methodology is clear, sufficiently detailed and aligned to the objectives of the study. Analysis plans that are clear, sufficiently detailed, and adequately described with identified project risks and control measures will likewise be awarded greater merit. 

5. Advocacy and pathway to impact (weight of 10%, scored 1 to 4 points)

Greater value will be awarded to proposals that provide a sufficiently detailed advocacy plan that could lead to positive change in the health inequity problem they are researching. The plan must present a clear pathway from the research to the intended change sought by the proponents. Additional value will be given to plans that show clear scalability and sustainability of research outputs if they are applicable.

6. Ethical soundness (yes or no)

While this is not part of scoring, proposals must be ethically sound and produce tangible benefits to the community to even be considered for funding. 

7. Work plan feasibility and budget appropriateness (weight of 15%, scored 1 to 4 points)

Greater value will be awarded for proposals that present a sufficiently detailed, clear work plan, and budget that reflect a realistic assessment of the activities and financial resources needed to produce rigorous results for the proposed research.

Table 1. Full proposal sections and evaluation criteria.