Getting started with research involves multiple considerations. As we discussed previous post, launching a research project can feel like an exciting new adventure, full of possibility, new ideas, and potential impact. But your excitement can be short-lived when you hit the budgeting section of the grant application.
For many nurse researchers, creating a research budget can feel daunting. The terminology is full of words like effort, indirect costs, and participant stipends that can be confusing if you’re not used to thinking in terms of percentage of effort or institutional costs. The good news is that budgeting is a great first step in grant development because your budget will help to put realistic, important parameters around your research proposal
When I am writing a grant, I write the budget as a second step in grant preparation (the first being the pecific aims page). I map out the research award amounts per month for the grant and put in salaries for the investigators, research staff, and consultants. If human subjects will be recruited, I map out when I expect to recruit patients and appropriate the money per month. Be realistic about your recruitment goals! I then add lab testing, supplies, and other costs—walk through your protocol and make sure you account for all costs. When starting out, have a colleague look at your budget to help identify areas you may have missed.
Understanding Effort and Buying Out Time
It’s important for nurses interested in research to determine what percentage of their professional time—also known as effort—can be devoted to a research project. Be realistic in this estimation. Many nurses, not recognizing the hours of work necessary to conduct research, will offer to incorporate it into their other responsibilities. Doing so will be perceived negatively in a grant review. You must identify some level of dedicated effort (e.g., hours per week) to the project and include written documentation that your supervisor supports your dedicated research effort and will concurrently decrease your effort in other areas.
For example, If you are a faculty member working 100% full-time equivalent (FTE) and you plan to spend 20% of your work week on a project, that equals one day or 20% effort. Most grant budgets convert this percentage to a dollar amount based on your salary plus benefits. In many academic settings, this is called salary support or “buying out time.” Essentially, the grant pays a portion of your salary so that you have protected time to work on the project instead of clinical, teaching, or administrative duties. Many agencies also have salary caps that limit the maximum annual salary rate they will reimburse, such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which caps out at $225,700. This is not usually an issue for nurses, but it may affect other team members.
Paying Participants Fairly
Human subject research can involve participant costs that must be reflected in the budget. For grants longer than one year, you will need to map out on a timeline how many participants you expect overall and how that recruitment will be divided per month. You can then determine the monthly and annual budget for your expected subject payments. These can include stipends or gift cards to compensate participants for their time, reimbursement for transportation, or childcare support. Participant incentives are ethically important because they recognize participants’ time and help with recruitment. Budgeting too little can result in poor accrual, but budgeting too much can raise ethical concerns with your institutional review board. The best practice is to align your compensation with
Planning for Supplies and Other Direct Costs
Supplies are typically broken into consumables (things that will be used up, like paper, printing, or lab kits) and durable items like recording devices. In addition, you might budget for software, postage, or other study-related expenses. Make sure to include realistic estimates. Reviewers expect your numbers to match real market rates.
Adhering to Restrictions and Allowability
Every funding source has rules. Common restrictions include food and beverages (unless necessary for study procedures), gifts, entertainment, office furniture, and general administrative salaries. If you are unsure whether a cost is allowable, consult the funding opportunity announcement or your office of grants. Unallowable costs will be flagged during review.
Other Budgeting Considerations
Indirect costs—also called facilities and administrative (F&A) costs—cover the infrastructure needed to conduct research, such as space, electricity, research administration, and compliance offices. They are calculated as a percentage of your total direct costs. For example, if your institution has a 55% F&A rate and your direct costs are $100,000, your indirect cost request would be $55,000.
Right now, the indirect rate at the federal level is under scrutiny and will most likely be lowered. You can find your institution’s federally negotiated F&A rate by checking with your budget office. Depending on the type of grant you apply for, indirect costs may not be allowed. Again, this will be spelled out in the instructions.
Contributed effort (cost sharing)
occurs when you or your institution commits a portion of time or certain resources to the project without requesting reimbursement. For example, you might commit 10% effort but not request salary support. This shows commitment but creates an obligation to track and report this effort to the sponsor.
Physician collaborators often have high salaries, so even small percentages of effort can consume large portions of a budget. When possible, request only the minimum effort needed for them to fulfill their role or ask if they can contribute unpaid effort.
Final Tips for a Strong Budget
Align budget items with specific aims, be specific in descriptions, and justify unusual expenses. Use realistic cost estimates from vendors, explain effort clearly, and double-check allowability. Work closely with your grants office to ensure compliance and accuracy.
Sample Budget Table
|
|
|
|
|
|
PI: 20% effort (salary + fringe)
|
|
|
|
Research assistant: 50% effort
|
|
|
|
50 participants x $50 each
|
|
|
|
Interview transcription software, printing
|
|
|
|
Local travel for participant recruitment
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Budget Justification (Sample)
The NINR 40th Anniversary Symposium
Building research capacity was one of the themes highlighted at the National Institute of Nursing Research’s (NINR’s) 40th Anniversary Symposium held at the NIH campus on September 17, 2025. The symposium celebrated the institute’s evolution since 1985 with a retrospective session titled “NINR Through the Decades.” Leading scholars highlighted major scientific achievements during a keynote panel while early-stage investigators showcased innovative research in digital health, chronic disease, and health equity. Scientific sessions focused on translating nursing research into practical solutions for population and community health. A community panel emphasized the value of lived experiences and engagement, and a poster session featured diverse, impactful projects from across the country. As the discussions about shaping the future of nursing research were held it was clear to see the alignment with ONS’s research priorities—including symptom science, health equity, and team-based innovation.
I was honored to present a poster, “Addressing the Research to Practice Gap Through DNP and PhD Collaboration: Outcomes of the ONS Think Tank,” that summarized findings from a think tank held at the 2023 ONS Congress addressing optimal strategies to integrate PhD- and DNP-prepared nurses into research teams to advance symptom science. The poster highlighted the importance of allocating protected time, creating mentorship pathways, and revisiting how we educate nurses in doctoral programs to ensure nurse scientists can fully engage in discovery and implementation work. The overall event highlighted nurse scientists and the impact of their work on important health outcomes, serving as an essential reminder that nursing science influences patients, families, and communities with health-promoting research.
Roberts, S.F., Fischhoff, M.A., Sakowski, S.A., & Feldman, E.L. (2016). Perspective: Transforming science into medicine: How clinician-scientists can build bridges across research’s ‘valley of death.’ Academic Medicine, 91(2), 230–. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182446fa3