Transcript Document

Kim M. Gans, PhD, MPH, LDN
Professor, Dept. of Behavioral & Social Sciences
and
Director, Institute for Community Health
Promotion
Brown University School of Public Health
1




1992-present: Assistant to Associate to Full Professor at
Brown University School of Public Health
2009-present: Director, Institute for Community Health
Promotion
Starting in Fall 2014: Professor, Department of Human
Development and Family Studies and CHIP, University of
Connecticut
Research: Intervention studies in community-based
settings to improve eating habits, increase physical
activity and prevent/treat obesity

Many grant review committees

Past 4 years - standing member of CLHP study section
2

Funded continuously on federal grants since 1986

PI grants:

1 USDA grant

1 R21 grant

4 R01 grants (Another R01 pending)

2 R18 grants (like R01 but translational
research)

1 R13 (pending)

4 Foundation grants (RWJF and Tufts Health Plan
Foundation)
3
Function of Importance and Likelihood
1. Importance—the significance and innovation of the
research problem—its ability to move the frontier of
knowledge forward
2. Likelihood—the ability that you, the PI, can achieve
your ends, as judged by your experimental design, the
expertise of your team, and the resources at your
disposal to execute the project
Impact = function of importance (significance,
innovation) and likelihood (approach, investigator,
environment)
4

The peer review criteria reviewers use to
assess the importance of your
application

Must highlight these factors effectively

“Sales job”
6
7


“NIH doesn’t want all the detailed minutiae about
what reagent you’re going to use, who the vendor
is, and what temperature you’re doing the
experiment at.
If you’re conveying those things, without having
spent the time (i.e. space) to convince the reader
in the first place about the value of the work that
you’re doing, then your proposal will be received
much like a proposition for a long night of sex
after one short speed date.”
http://morganonscience.com/grantwriting/nih-grant-writing-tips-thenew-format-significance-innovation-approach/
8
9

Significance


Innovation


The positive effect that successful completion of your research
project is likely to have as the result of solving an important,
NIH-relevant problem
A new and substantially different way of considering/addressing
an important, public-health relevant problem that results in
substantive departure from the status quo, thereby enabling
new horizons that are pertinent to NIH
Both seek to advance the field and speak to the
importance of the research
Russell, SW and Morrison, DC. The grant application writer’s workbook.
National Institutes of Health Version
10





Will your project advance your field and fit the NIH
mission to improve health through science?
Whether the project is worth doing
How important your research would be if
everything worked perfectly
It does not take into account your ability to
conduct the research
Assumes success - that the “aims of the project
are achieved” and/or will be “successfully
completed”
11
1.
Does the project address an important problem
or a critical barrier to progress in the field?
2.
If the aims of the project are achieved, how will
scientific knowledge, technical capability,
and/or clinical practice be improved?
3.
How will successful completion of the aims
change the concepts, methods, technologies,
treatments, services or preventative
intervention that drive this field?
12




Score the Significance criterion independently of your
evaluation and scoring of the other 4 review criteria
Consider whether this specific project advances the
field; not whether the field is important
Does the project address an important problem or a
critical barrier to progress in the field, or has the
ability to improve knowledge, technical capability or
clinical practice in a major (1-3), moderate (4-6) or
minor (7-9) way?
Relevance to human disease is not required for
significance
13
Three parts to significance:
1. Review literature and write contribution
statement
2. Statement of significance
3. Discussion of benefits
Russell, SW and Morrison, DC. The grant application writer’s
workbook. National Institutes of Health Version
14
Part 1: Review primary literature that substantiates
why its an important problem that needs to be
addressed

Explain the importance of the problem (i.e. prevalence
data, morbidity, etc.)

Background of the field

Detail existence of research gaps/needs/opportunities

Frame why this is an important problem to solve
Conclude with a sentence that explicitly describes
the contribution that you expect to make.

Should relate back to your specific aims

The expected contribution of the proposed research is…
15
Part 2: Statement of significance

Why the expected contribution is important /
significant.

What is the positive impact that your contribution
will have?

Most important sentence that you will write in the
application

Simple and direct

Specific and substantive

Use Bold or italics
The proposed research will have a significant positive impact on the
field of public health because ….:
16

Part 3: Discussion of benefits

Advancement of the field

Relevant to NIH’s mission

How will proposed research enable subsequent
thinking and research

How will it decrease morbidity/mortality,
improvements in QOL and/or medical outcomes,
reduction in costs, etc.

Provides support for the significance statement

Include references
17


Prepare an outline with Bullets of the points you
want to make
Then Expand into sentences - Subheadings are
one sentence that highlight a key point

Then evidence given for that point follows

Summarize all points of significance at the end
18



If you are using a specific Program
Announcement, mention it , use specific language
from it and cite it.
Scan review committee roster to see who potential
reviewers might be

Determine how well reviewers may know your field and
add write accordingly

Cite reviewers on the committee if possible
Preliminary studies?
19

No more than 2 pages (shorter for non-R01)
Use bolding, italics, and sectioning to highlight key
points and make it easier for reviewers to read

If significance section is somewhat long, summarize
it at the end

If you have trouble writing significance, explain the
significance to others verbally and tape yourself (or
use Dragon software).

Complete Approach section before tackling
Significance because you will have a clearer overall
perspective of your proposal

20






Point out the project's significance throughout the
application (not just in significance section)
Should extend and validate Specific Aims section
Describe importance of your hypothesis to the
field and human disease
Shows that you are aware of opportunities, gaps,
roadblocks, and research underway in your field
States how your research will advance your field,
highlighting knowledge gaps and showing how
project fills one or more of them
Don’t forget to discuss sustainability,
dissemination capability
22

How advancement of the field results from using
innovative approaches that deviate from traditional
approaches

Not just “novelty”

Implies not only newness, but a sense of unique utility

An innovative grant proposal will propose to solve a
problem in new ways

Show how your proposed research is new and unique,
e.g., explores new scientific avenues, has a novel
hypothesis, will create new knowledge.
23

Does the application challenge and seek to shift
current research or clinical practice paradigms by
utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or
methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions?

Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies,
instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field
of research or novel in a broad sense?

Is a refinement, improvement, or new application
or theoretical concepts, approaches or
methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions
proposed?
24
Part 1: Document ( with citations) what the norm has
been to this point

Create a literature-based foundation that will allow
reviewers to appreciate what the status quo is
Part 2: Statement of innovation: The proposed
research is innovative, in our opinion, because [what
sets your research apart from existing research]
Part 3: Discuss positive impact – advancement that
would have been unlikely without the departure from
the status quo
Russell, SW and Morrison, DC. The grant application writer’s workbook. National Institutes
of Health Version
25

NIH’s three bullet points for Innovation are good
guidelines, but don’t make each a subhead and address
them individually

Provide a narrative that demonstrates you have thought
about the pioneering nature of what you are proposing
and that you have considered how your approach is
different from others

Highlight significance and innovation in other parts of the
application, such as the Abstract, Aims, Summary of
Strengths
http://www.i2at.msstate.edu/pdf/NIH_R01_Series_Part4_Research_Plan.pdf
26





Length: No longer than a paragraph
or two. ½ to ¾ page max
Don’t try to pretend that your science is innovative
when it isn’t.
Describe how your project is new and unique, but
not too far out of the box
Usually do not see grant applications that are
shifting paradigms
They are using new approaches or models, working
in new areas, or testing innovative ideas
27
We believe that the proposed research is very innovative because: 1) It is
focused on FCCHs – a novel setting for obesity prevention research; 2) It
will include Spanish-speaking FCCPs, which no prior studies in any child
care setting have done; 3) It will utilize peer counselors to support and
empower FCCPs to change FCCH environments, a novel approach for
obesity prevention interventions in childcare settings. Moreover, while
peer counselors have previously been shown to be effective in changing
individual health behaviors in certain populations outside of childcare,
studies have not adequately evaluated their ability to foster
environmental change, which will be our focus.; 4) It will integrate peer
counseling with tailored written materials and videos, which is a novel
intervention strategy never before studied. Dr. Gans has piloted this
approach with families; but only using tailored print materials, not
tailored videos, and not in childcare settings. The proposed research will
expand our knowledge about the efficacy of this innovative approach.
Overall, the intervention setting, target population and intervention
approaches are all novel. The proposed research will move the frontier
of obesity prevention research in childcare forward.
28


Positive impact of significance stems from the
concrete benefit that is relevant to NIH’s mission.
Positive impact of innovation stems from
advancement because of the departure from the
status quo.
29




Writing style

Clear, Direct, Succinct writing

Simple declarative sentences

NIH suggests no more than 20 words per sentence
If the writing is unclear, often the thinking is
unclear.
Write so that reviewer can summarize in 2 to 3
sentences
If you want to make a number look large, precede
it with the word “fully,” (fully 30%). If you want to
make a number look small, precede it with “only,”
(only 70%).
30

Application makes a solid case for the reason
your research is important

Focus on how your project addresses critical
research opportunities that can move the
frontier of knowledge in your field forward

Highlight significance and innovation in other
parts of the application, such as the Abstract,
Aims, Summary of Strengths at end of grant
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/grant/strategy/pages/3significance.as
px
31
1. Russell, SW and Morrison, DC. The grant
application writer’s workbook. National
Institutes of Health Version
2. Pequegnat, W; Stover, E and Boyce, CA.
How to write a successful research grant
application. A guide for social and
behavioral scientists 2nd edition
3. Morgan Giddings:
http://morganonscience.com/
32


http://www.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding
/grant/Documents/Ratnerfull.pdf
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding
/grant/Documents/Parrishfull.pdf
33

http://public.csr.nih.gov/ReviewerResourc
es/MeetingOverview/Documents/Orientati
ontoPeerReviewFinaltoPostCAK.pdf
34
35