Strata Academy

SSC & Intercalated Research Project Proposal Template

Structured proposal sections for UK medical student SSCs and intercalated degrees: PICO, feasibility, ethics, supervision, and timeline

1. What examiners want from a student proposal

SSC (Student Selected Component) and intercalated BMedSci/MRes proposals are contracts between you, your supervisor, and the medical school. They are judged on clarity, feasibility within the allotted weeks, ethical proportionality, and alignment with your educational objectives — not on sounding like a Nobel grant application.

Evidence synthesis projects (systematic reviews, scoping reviews, diagnostic test accuracy reviews) are popular because they teach appraisal skills without wet-lab infrastructure. They still fail at proposal stage if the PICO is too broad, duplicate PROSPERO registrations exist, or the student has no librarian support.

Critical appraisal series (appraising five RCTs on one topic with ROB 2 worksheets) are underrated and often more feasible than full reviews in eight-week SSC blocks.

Whatever design you choose, the proposal must read as one coherent project — not a literature review bolted onto a vague quality improvement idea.

2. Recommended proposal structure

Most UK schools expect 1,500–3,000 words plus references. Adapt section headings to your local template but cover the elements below.

1. Title — specific, not 'Diabetes systematic review'
2. Background — clinical problem, guideline gap, why now (½ page)
3. Research question — structured PICO or PEO
4. Objectives — primary + 2–3 secondary (measurable)
5. Methods — design, search, screening, appraisal tools, synthesis
6. Feasibility — scoping search, duplicates on PROSPERO, resources
7. Ethics — exemption or IRAS pathway
8. Supervision — roles, meeting schedule
9. Timeline — week-by-week Gantt or table
10. Dissemination — dissertation, poster, optional publication
11. References — include key trials and methods guidance

3. Writing a defensible PICO

Population: define age, condition, setting (e.g. 'adults ≥18 with heart failure NYHA II–IV in ambulatory care').

Intervention/exposure: specify drug, dose, device, or policy — not 'treatment'.

Comparator: standard care, placebo, or another active agent — state clearly.

Outcomes: one primary (e.g. all-cause mortality at 90 days) and pre-listed secondaries. Examiners penalise unfocused outcome lists.

Study design eligibility: RCT only, or RCT + cohort with ROBINS-I? Decide now.

4. Methods paragraph (systematic review template)

We will conduct a systematic review per Cochrane methods and report with PRISMA 2020. The protocol will be registered on PROSPERO before formal screening.

Search: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov; supplemented by reference checking. A university librarian will peer-review the strategy.

Selection: dual independent title/abstract and full-text screening in [Rayyan/Covidence]; conflicts resolved by discussion or third reviewer.

Data extraction: piloted form; dual extraction for primary outcome; ROB 2 for included RCTs.

Synthesis: meta-analysis if ≥2 studies report comparable outcomes; otherwise narrative synthesis. Random-effects model pre-specified. GRADE certainty for primary outcome.

Adapt this block for scoping reviews (JBI methods), diagnostic reviews (QUADAS-2), or appraisal series (no synthesis — structured ROB 2 on five pre-selected trials).

5. Feasibility and duplicate checks

Run a scoping search and report approximate hit counts. Zero hits means rethink; 5,000 hits means narrow the PICO.

Search PROSPERO and Epistemonikos for duplicate teams. If a Cochrane review is in progress, say how your review differs (population, intervention, outcome) or pivot.

State resources: screening tool access, librarian time, supervisor systematic review experience, whether you work in a pair.

Intercalated students have more weeks — specify milestones for protocol publication or conference poster, not just dissertation submission.

• PROSPERO duplicate check documented
• Scoping hit count with date
• Named screening tool and librarian support
• Realistic sample size for meta-analysis (≥2 comparable trials)

6. Ethics and governance

Systematic reviews of published literature typically qualify for ethics exemption or institutional self-assessment — but policies vary by university. Do not write 'N/A' without checking your faculty guidance.

Primary data collection (surveys, interviews, patient notes) requires IRAS or local equivalent. Start ethics early — approval can exceed eight-week SSC length.

Patient and public involvement (PPI) is increasingly expected for intercalated projects with patient-facing questions. Even one patient advisor reviewing your plain-language summary strengthens the proposal.

AI use: if you plan AI-assisted screening, disclose it in methods and confirm supervisor and school policy compliance.

7. Timeline and supervision plan

Include a week-by-week table. For 12-week dissertations, use our dissertation timeline guide. For 8-week SSC, compress: Weeks 1–2 protocol and PROSPERO; Weeks 3–4 search and pilot screen; Weeks 5–6 screening; Weeks 7–8 extraction, appraisal, write-up.

Supervision: name lead supervisor expertise, co-supervisor if any, and fortnightly meetings. State what you bring (screening labour) vs what supervisor provides (methods oversight, viva prep).

Risk mitigation: 'If <2 trials eligible, pre-specified narrative synthesis and discussion of power for meta-analysis.'

Dissemination: faculty dissertation, optional BSSR poster, optional student journal — do not promise Lancet publication.

• Fortnightly supervisor meetings minimum
• PROSPERO registered before Week 3 screening
• Week N buffer for examiner formatting queries
• Contingency if meta-analysis not possible

Interactive version (quizzes, walkthroughs) loads when JavaScript is enabled.