Transcript NIH Peer Review & Grant Writing for Success Michael A. Sesma, Ph.D. National Institute of Mental Health Roger G.

NIH Peer Review &
Grant Writing for Success
Michael A. Sesma, Ph.D.
National Institute of Mental Health
Roger G. Sorensen, Ph.D., M.P.A.
National Institute on Drug Abuse
with inspiration from Coelho, Perl, Frascella & Levitin
2008 NIH Mini-Regional, Albany
1
“Anatomy” of Grant Process
Program Staff
Researcher
Revision
Collaborators
Program
Announcement
or RFA
Idea
Institution
Grant Application
(R01, R03, R21,
K01, K08, etc.)
$
Program Staff
National
Advisory
Council
CSR
Referral
and Review
2
The NIH Peer Review Process
Division of Receipt and Referral (DRR),
Center for Scientific Review (CSR)
Application received by CSR DRR
Assignments made


Initial peer review
Funding considerations
SRG (CSR or IC)
IC(s) – duals possible


Second level of review
National Advisory Council/Board

IC Director (funding decisions)
3
The NIH Peer Review Process
Division of Receipt and Referral, CSR
• Checks for completeness
• Determines area of research
• Assigns an identification number
• Assigns a grant number
• Assigns application to specific
NIH IC for possible funding
• Assigns a Scientific Review Group
NIH receives ~ 80,000 applications per year
Central receiving point for all competing applications
4
The NIH Peer Review Process
Receipt and Referral
CSR Review
 Most R01s, fellowships,
and small business
applications
 Some Program
Announcements (PAs,
PARs), Requests for
Applications (RFAs)
Institute/Center Review
 IC-specific features
 Program projects
 Training grants
 Career development
awards
 RFAs
5
The NIH Peer Review Process
First level of review
Scientific Review Group (SRG)
- Provides initial scientific
merit review of grant applications
- Rates applications and makes
recommendations concerning level
of support and duration of award
Second level of review
Advisory Council
- Makes recommendations to
IC staff concerning funding
- Evaluates program priorities
and relevance
6
- Advises on policy
The NIH Peer Review Process
Scientific Review Officer (SRO)
An Extramural Scientist responsible to NIH for the scientific
and technical review of applications
 Designated Federal Official manages SRG, ensures
fair and unbiased evaluation of scientific and technical
merit of applications for grants, contracts, cooperative
agreements
 Identifies and assigns reviewers to the SRG
 Provide accurate summaries of the evaluation to aid
funding recommendations made by National Advisory
Councils to Institute Directors
Point of contact for applicants during the review process
(i.e., after submission, until review is completed)
7
The NIH Peer Review Process
Scientific Review Groups (SRGs)
Make recommendations:
• Scientific and technical merit
• Budget and project duration
• Bars to award – human subjects,
vertebrate animals, biohazards
• Resource Sharing Plans
• Other administrative factors
Study Sections
 Priority scores or UN
do not make
 Written critiques
funding decisions!
(summary statements)
8
Who are the Peer Reviewers?
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
Demonstrated Scientific Expertise
Doctoral Degree or Equivalent
Mature Judgment
Work Effectively in a Group Context
Breadth of Perspective
Impartiality
Interest in Serving
Adequate Representation of
Women and Minority Scientists
9
The NIH Peer Review Process
Reviewer Assignments
• ≥ Three qualified reviewers (2 + 1)
• Based on scientific content of
application
• Expertise of reviewer
• Suggestions from PI on types of
expertise – not names!
• Suggestions from Program staff
• Conflicts of interest
Telephone reviewers – discuss and score
Mail-in reviewers – do not discuss, do not score10
The NIH Peer Review Process
Remember Review Criteria
• Included in the Funding
Opportunity Announcement (FOA)
• Sent to reviewers with applications
• Guide discussion at the meeting
• Format for critiques in summary statement
• Standardized across NIH by type of
mechanism
11
The NIH Peer Review Process
Remember Review Criteria
Standard criteria*: Factored into priority score
• Significance
* Research projects and contracts
• Approach
• Innovation
• Investigator(s)
• Environment
• Protection of human subjects
from research risks
• Vertebrate animal welfare
• Biohazards
12
The NIH Peer Review Process

Significance: Does the study address an important
problem? How will scientific knowledge be
advanced?

Approach: Are design and methods well-developed
and appropriate? Are problem areas addressed?

Innovation: Are there novel concepts or approaches?
Are the aims original and innovative?

Investigator: Is the investigator appropriately trained?

Environment: Does the scientific environment
contribute to the probability of success? Are there
unique features of the scientific environment?
13
The NIH Peer Review Process
Review Criteria
Additional considerations:
Not factored into priority score
• Budget
• Foreign institutions
• Resource Sharing
Establishment of Multiple Principal Investigator Awards for the
Support of Team Science Projects
(http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-07-017.html)
Encouraging Early Transition to Research Independence: Modifying
the NIH New Investigator Policy to Identify Early Stage Investigators
(http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-08-121.html)
14
The NIH Peer Review Process
Research Plans
• Introduction to Application
(resubmission or revision only)
• Specific Aims
• Background and Significance
• Preliminary Studies/Progress Report
• Research Design and Methods
• Inclusion Enrollment Report
• (renewal or revision only)
• Bibliography and References Cited
15
The NIH Peer Review Process
Research Plans - continued
• Protection of Human Subjects
• Inclusion of Women and Minorities
• Targeted/Planned Enrollment Table
• Inclusion of Children
• Vertebrate Animals
• Select Agent Research
• Multiple PD/PI Leadership Plan
• Consortium/Contractual Arrangements
• Letters of Support
• Resource Sharing Plans
16
The NIH Peer Review Process
SRG Meeting Procedures
• Call to Order - Chairperson
• Policy and instructions – SRO
• Conflicts of Interest
• Confidentiality
• Streamlining
• Discuss each application
• Scoring
• Discuss other considerations
 Resource Sharing Plans
 Foreign institutions
17
The NIH Peer Review Process
SRG Meeting Procedures
Discussion format
• Members with conflicts excused
• Initial levels of enthusiasm (assigned reviewers)
• Primary reviewer explains project, strengths/weaknesses
• Other assigned reviewers follow
• Open discussion (full panel)
• Levels of enthusiasm (assigned reviewers)
• Reviewer workload
~ 6 – 8 as “reviewer”
~ 2 – 3 as “discussant”
18
The NIH Peer Review Process
SRG Meeting Procedures
• If 60 applications/SRG meeting
~ 50% streamlined
30 applications to discuss and score
• If 9 hour SRG meeting (8:00 AM – 5:00 PM)
~ ½ hour introduction, streamlining
~ 1 hour lunch, 2 x 15 minute breaks
Review Implications
~ 14 minutes/application
~ 3 - 4 minutes/reviewer
Clarity and brevity
are essential!
19
The NIH Peer Review Process
SRG/Study Section Actions

Scored, Scientific Merit Rating
(priority scores and percentiles)

Unscored (lower half)

Deferral
20
The NIH Peer Review Process
eRA Commons Post Review
• Priority Score
 Three days after conclusion of SRG meeting
• Summary statement
 4 – 8 weeks after conclusion of SRG meeting
 Available to Program Officers at that time
 Confidential document
• Available to
 PD/PIs
 NIH officials
 Advisory Council members
21
The NIH Peer Review Process
Summary Statement
• Program Officer, Contact information
• Priority Score, Percentile (if applicable)
• Description (provided by applicant)
• Resumé and Summary of Discussion
• Reviewer critiques – essentially unedited
• Committee Recommendations
 Budget
 Human subjects
 Vertebrate animals
 Inclusion plans
• Administrative Notes
22
The NIH Peer Review Process
After the Review
• Program Officer = Point of Contact
• Wait for summary statement
• Read summary statement carefully,
several times, take notes
………then contact program officer
The score/percentile rank is not
a guarantee of funding!
23
The NIH Peer Review Process
After the Review
• Consult Program Officer
• Consider options if outcome
unfavorable
 Revise and resubmit application
Consider critiques in summary statement
Address critiques in introduction and text
 Appeal review outcome
Procedural deficiencies
Factual errors
May result in re-review of same application by
different SRG
24
The NIH Peer Review Process
After the Review
Consult Program Officer
If an award is likely the program officer will
• Discuss responses to issues raised by
reviewers
 Budget
 Human subjects or animal welfare issues
 Inclusion issues
 Administrative requirements
• Negotiate Funding Amounts
• Study Section Recommendations
• NIH and Institute Guidance
25
The NIH Peer Review Process
Advisory Council/Board
Second level of review
• Advisory to IC Director
• Rosters: http://www1.od.nih.gov/cmo/committee/index.html
• Schedule: http://www1.od.nih.gov/cmo/committee/index.html
26
The NIH Peer Review Process
Advisory Council/Board
Panel of scientific experts and lay members
provide advice to Institute Director on
• Research priority areas
• Funding
• Policy and program development
• Appeals of review recommendations
• Quality of SRG review
 Concur with SRG recommendations
 Modify SRG recommendations
 Deferral for re-review
 Cannot change priority score from SRG
27
The NIH Peer Review Process
Funding Considerations
• Scientific and technical merit
(initial peer review)
• Council recommendation
• Relevance to IC program priorities
• Availability of funds
28
Who Actually Makes the
Funding Decisions?
The Institute Director!

Factors Considered:





Scientific Merit
Contribution to Institute Mission
Advisory Council Recommendation
Program Balance
Availability of Funds
29
The NIH Peer Review Process
Additional Information
• Enhancing Peer Review Initiative
http://enhancing-peer-review.nih.gov/
• Office of Extramural Research
Peer Review Process
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer_review_process.htm
• Peer Review Policies & Practices
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer/peer.htm
• Center for Scientific Review
http://cms.csr.nih.gov/AboutCSR/Welcome+to+CSR/
30
Changes are coming to Peer Review
31
http://enhancing-peer-review.nih.gov/
The NIH Peer Review Process
Enhancing Peer Review at NIH
The preliminary implementation plans for 2009-2010 calendar
years are:
• Engage the Best Reviewers
• Recruit and retain the best reviewers; enhance reviewer training
• Increase flexibility for reviewers through virtual reviews
• Improve the Quality and Transparency of Review
• Improve scoring transparency and scale
• Score streamlined applications
• Shorten and restructure applications – e.g., 12 page R01 research plan
• Ensure balanced and fair reviews across scientific fields and career
stages, and reduce administrative burden
• Fund the best science earlier, reduce resubmissions
• Review like applications together, e.g., ESI or clinically focused projects
http://www.nih.gov/news/health/sep2008/od-30a.htm
32
Grant Writing for Success
Writing the Application
• Start early
• Seek advice from colleagues
• Start with a good idea
• Talk to your NIH Program Official(s)
• Use the NIH webpage (www.nih.gov)
• Remember review criteria
• Follow instructions carefully
Transition to Electronic Submission
(http://era.nih.gov/ElectronicReceipt/)
33
Grant Writing for Success
Urban Myth of
Grantsmanship
It is not a process by which bad ideas
get transformed into good ones …
… rather, it is more often the
case of a good idea disguised as a
bad one.
34
Principles of Success


Understand the peer review process
Understand the agency mission


Secure collaborators (mentors) to complement
your expertise and experience


Every IC is different!
Don’t compete … collaborate!
Learn and practice the skills of writing
applications for grant funds
35
Remember … Before you start


Talk to Program Staff at appropriate IC
Read instructions for application form


Know your audience


SF 424 R & R or PHS 398
Which review committee is most likely to get your
application?
Propose research about which you are
passionate and totally committed to doing
36
The Formula for Writing a
Successful Grant Application
37
Good Idea




Does it address an important problem?
Will scientific knowledge be advanced?
Does it build upon or expand current
knowledge?
Is it feasible …


to implement?
to investigate?
38
Good Grantsmanship

Grant writing is a learned skill
–Writing grant applications, standard operating
protocols and manuals of procedures that get
approved are learned skills
–Writing manuscripts that get published in peer
reviewed journals is a learned skill

Grantsmanship is a full time job
–Learn about the grant application process
39
Good Grantsmanship




Contact NIH program staff early
Assess IC interest & “goodness of fit”
Are there related FOAs?
Searching NIH web sites is good start … but
follow up with personal contact
40
Good Grantsmanship

Show your draft application to a colleague

Show your draft application to a colleague
who does not already know what you intend
to do

Show your draft application to a colleague
who is not your best friend
41
Good Grantsmanship

Your draft reviewers need to understand





What you intend to do
Why you believe it is important to do
Exactly how you are going to do it
If they don’t get it, you must revise your
application
Leave enough time to make revisions
42
Good Presentation
3 Simple Steps:



Read the application instructions carefully
Read the application instructions carefully
Don’t forget …
... read the application instructions carefully
43
Good Presentation
Organize the Research Plan to answer 4
essential questions:

What do you intend to do?

Why is the work important?

What has already been done?

How are you going to do the work?
44
Good Presentation
Address the 5 review criteria

Significance

Approach

Innovation

Investigator

Environment
45
Good Presentation

Provide well-focused research plan

Keep specific aims simple … and specific

Link hypotheses to specific aims

Explain method to test every hypothesis

Don’t wander from the main theme

A conceptual model can clarify ideas
46
Good Presentation



Be realistic … not overly ambitious
Discuss potential problem areas
Discuss possible solutions



Explain rationale for your decisions
Be explicit
Reviewers cannot read your mind …
Don’t assume they know what you intend
47
Good Review
Get to the right review group
 Title, abstract, specific aims all point to the
main goals of your project
 Attach a cover letter



suggest IC and review group assignment*
outline areas of key expertise needed for appropriate
review
do not name specific reviewers
48
* Consult with Program Officer
Good Luck
Results from:
 Good Ideas
 Good Grantsmanship
 Good Presentation
 Good Review
49
50
Grant Writing
for Success
51
Top 10
Common Reviewer
Concerns
…..or How Not To
Get DINGED!
52
Grant 1
Hypothesis: The proposed research seeks to examine the
relationship between neurotransmitter A and neurotransmitter
B signaling in Brain Region of Interest and in vivo
electrophysiological measures of Brain ROI output during the
transition from chronic morphine exposure to morphine
withdrawal…..additionally seeks to determine whether
putative Brain ROI projection neurons exhibit altered basal
and behaviorally-correlated firing profiles during these
states……..finally seeks to determine whether the observed
behavioral, neurochemical, and neurophysiological indices
associated with morphine dependence and withdrawal are
dependent on Neurotransmitter A projections to the Brain
ROI.
53
Grant 1
SA #1: Examine alterations in Brain ROI neurotransmitter A
and neurotransmitter B efflux in response to acute morphine
challenge and withdrawal in morphine-dependent rats
SA #2: Examine alterations in Brain ROI single-unit neuronal
activity in response to acute morphine challenge….
SA #3: Determine the sensitivity of withdrawal-associated
neurotransmitter A efflux, single unit neuronal activity, and
withdrawal-associated behaviors to lesions of the
neurotransmitter A afferent inputs
54
Grant 1
Reviewer Comments:
1.
2.
3.
4.
This application appears to lack a hypothesis driven
from a specific mechanism.
Enthusiasm … dampened by the lack of a specific
mechanism
…..the proposal begins to look more like a
collection of experiments where the applicants are
simply listing experiments according to their
expertise in specific techniques
….overambitious nature of the project
55
# 1 Concern
There is not a
CLEAR HYPOTHESIS, or
WELL DEFINED GOALS



Provide a focused hypothesis, objectives
Describe the importance and relevance of your
problem
Be clear on how your project will move the field
forward
56
Grant 2
Hypothesis: The increase in brain receptor subunits
after chronic morphine is an adaptation to reduced
tonic neurotransmitter release in the brain region of
interest and elevates the threshold for opioid
analgesia.
Objective: Study is to design opioid-based pain relief
paradigms with extended analgesic efficacy and
reduced risk of abuse.
Purpose: To determine whether these brain receptors
are good targets for “anti-tolerance” drugs
57
Grant 2

SA #1: Determine the anatomical location(s) of
chronic morphine-induced changes in brain receptor
subunit levels

SA #2: Examine the role of brain receptor subunits in
opioid-induced behaviors other than analgesia

R01
Requested $225,000 direct costs / 5 years

58
Grant 2
Reviewer Comments:
1.
Unfortunately, several of the experiments proposed do not
directly test the hypothesis and may or may not aid in our further
understanding of opioid tolerance.
2.
..it is not clear whether such changes would correlate with antinociceptive function
3.
..there is a lack of preliminary data determining whether such
studies can be accomplished and whether any significant changes
can be measured
4.
..the literature reports 15 to 20 different mechanisms
demonstrating the inhibition of opioid anti-nociceptive tolerance,
yet none of these are addressed …
5.
..studies proposed in aim 2 lack rationale
59
# 2 Concern
The SPECIFIC AIMS do NOT TEST
the Hypothesis,
The SPECIFIC AIMS DEPEND on
results from previous aims

The best proposals are those with independent
specific aims that address your hypothesis using
different approaches
60
Grant 3
Hypothesis: Sustained electrical activity enhances neuronal
process X activity, targeting select proteins essential for
synaptic vesicle neurotransmitter release and downregulating
presynaptic output in neurotransmitter A neurons
Objective: To define the cellular pathways initiated during
periods of increased electrical activity to induce subsequent
decreases in synaptic output
Propose: Signal Transduction pathway 1 acts ultimately to
phosphorylate and protect the key presynaptic targets of the
process X structure
61
Grant 3

SA #1: Investigate the interplay between process X function
and Signal Transduction 1 signaling in persistent neuronal
plasticity

SA #2: Validate roles for the presynaptic proteins ABC1 and
ABC2 in persistent neuronal plasticity

R01
Requested $225,000 direct costs / 5 years

62
Grant 3
Reviewer Comments:
1.
..the investigator presents an unrealistically simplistic picture of
Signal Transduction 1 signaling in neurons
2.
The general experimental design relies on correlative studies of
signaling systems that are highly complex, and which act at multiple
levels.
3.
The anticipated outcomes are discussed only superficially and assume
only that the experiments will turn out to support the investigator’s
hypothesis…many outcomes can be imagined
4.
The paradigms still place the neurons in unnatural (non-physiological)
environments for extraordinarily long periods of time....this model
system (cultured cells) reduces the significance of the project because
the relevance to more realistic neuronal networks remains unclear
5.
..experiments have been added which are outside the technical
expertise of the investigator and for which preliminary data are not63in
hand
Grant 4
Hypothesis: Combined Treatment A/B group will have a
greater reduction in substance use and better outcomes three
months after study entry, and lower HIV risk from drug or
sexual behaviors
Purpose: Examine the utility of a Combined Treatment A/B
protocol in the [hospital] emergency department with persons
at risk for drug addiction and its associated health
consequences
SA #1: Determine the impact of a Combined Treatment A/B
protocol on substance use, HIV risk reduction, health care
utilization, and health status among persons at moderate or
high risk for substance abuse seeking treatment in a [hospital]
64
emergency department
Grant 4
Reviewer Comments:
1.
The initial model of care is not different from the current
practice….thus, it is not clear that this Combined Treatment
A/B protocol will have an impact of identifying new patients
who need counseling.
2.
..the significance of this Combined Treatment A/B
application is compromised by the failure to integrate the
intervention into existing practice.
3.
The recruitment process is not based on a uniform screening
protocol (lack of specifics on subject recruitment, interview
process, support personnel, follow-up strategy).
65
# 3 Concern
The Proposal is:
NOT MECHANISTIC, or
NOT SCIENTIFICALLY RELEVANT


Do not propose correlative studies, propose strong
associations
Do not propose general observations, propose
specific manipulations
66
Grant 5
Hypothesis: Amphetamine-induced Behavior A targets
Transcription Factor X to dendritic structures such as
the spines of pyramidal cells or the dendrites of
interneurons of the Brain ROI
SA #1: Amphetamine-induced Behavior A alters
Transcription Factor X immunoreactivity in
pyramidal neurons and/or interneurons
SA #2: Amphetamine-induced Behavior A targets
Transcription Factor X to dendrites and spines that
receive excitatory synapses
67
Grant 5
Reviewer Comments:
1.
This proposal ……is somewhat novel, although mainly in
the sense that no one previously has examined this issue
before in the Brain ROI. However, in essence this question
reflects more of an incremental advance in our knowledge as
opposed to the novel ideas targeted by the R21 mechanism.
68
# 4 Concern
This Application is not
Appropriate for the
Grant Mechanism


A R21 is NOT a R01
A Career Development Award (K) is NOT a
Research Project Grant (R)
69
# 5 Concern
The Proposal is
OVERLY AMBITIOUS

Set realistic goals for the budget and project
period you propose
70
# 6 Concern
Preliminary Data is lacking



Include preliminary data for all aims
Use preliminary data to show knowledge of
methods and data analyses
But DO propose more than just confirming
preliminary results
71
# 7 Concern
I’m not sure that the
Investigator can do the
PROPOSED EXPERIMENTS



Don’t propose what you can’t do
Include Collaborators and Consultants on your
project
Describe the value of datasets and
experimental models
72
Grant 6
Objective: Study is designed to revise and evaluate
Intervention Model A for homeless adolescents
Purpose: Intervention Model A has been thoroughly developed
and standardized for adults, but not as well for adolescents,
and certainly not within existing services. This will be a stage
I, early treatment development project, with the aim of refining
Intervention Model A for homeless adolescents
73
Grant 6

SA #1: Refine the existing Intervention Model A [for adults]
program to develop an integrated Intervention A and Intervention
B treatment program for homeless adolescents presenting
symptoms of substance use disorders and self-injury/suicidality

SA #2: Examine the feasibility of delivering the new Integrated
Intervention program within the context of the [currently used]
youth Intervention program recently developed …. for homeless
adolescents

SA #3: Conduct a pilot study, comparing the new Integrated
Invention program to Treatment-as-Usual in a randomized two
group repeated measures design, assessing clients enrolled in [the
currently used] homeless adolescent Intervention program who
are experiencing substance abuse use disorder symptoms and
suicidality/self-injurious behaviors
74
Grant 6
Reviewer Comments:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
..the application does not provide a balanced, critical review
of Intervention Model A with substance-abusing adults, and
why this approach would, in turn, be promising with
homeless youth
..there is an almost complete absence of focus on substance
abuse or the integration of Intervention Model A [previously]
adapted for this problem
Other more serious design problems include different
assessment schedules, attendance burden, and discharge
rules between the two conditions
..inclusion criteria …are extremely broad…would seem to
introduce enormous heterogeneity to the sample selected
What is not well-specified in the application is how the team
will decide if the results of the trial warrant the move to a 75
large efficacy trial.
# 8 Concern
The Background section is
missing key publications and
experimental findings



Thoroughly describe the literature, especially
controversies, but
Support your views and ideas
Be sure you have found key references
76
# 9 Concern
Experimental Details,
Alternative Approaches, or
Interpretation of Data
are Inadequately Described



Don’t assume the reviewers know the methods
Provide other experimental directions you might
use should you encounter problems
Show the reviewers that you have thought about
your research plan
77
# 10 Concern
The Proposal is
NOT RELEVANT to the
MISSION of the INSTITUTE

Don’t try to make your application FIT the
Mission of a Particular Institute
78
Funded Applications
79
Good Grant 1
Hypothesis: Chronic drug exposure upregulates the expression
of Factor X, which triggers and sustains the exocytotic
trafficking and surface expression of functional Receptor A
Purpose: To investigate the molecular mechanisms for Factor
X-induced Receptor A trafficking
80
Good Grant 1

SA #1: Determine the signaling pathways mediating Factor Xinduced Receptor A trafficking

SA #2: Determine Factor X involvement in drug-induced
Receptor A trafficking

SA #3: Determine the synaptic sites of Receptor A trafficking
and Receptor A-B interactions

SA #4: Determine the behavioral significance of emergent
Receptor A and behavioral Receptor A-B interactions
81
Good Grant 1
Reviewer Comments:
1.
Strengths are numerous and include novel and innovative
hypotheses, sound experimental design using
multidisciplinary approaches, a highly qualified investigator
and research team, and a high likelihood of meaningful
findings
2.
Strengths include the significance of the central hypothesis,
the well-designed experimental plan, supportive preliminary
data ….
3.
..the rationale for the studies are clearly delineated,
appropriate controls are in place, scope of the studies is
appropriate, and there is … complete discussion of possible
limitations of some approaches and how findings will be
interpreted
82
Good Grant 2
Objective: To use … conceptual and statistical models to
address challenges in the development of practical strategies
for measuring the quality of community treatment programs
Purpose: To extend previous approaches to casemix adjustment
for performance measurement, and the feasibility of valid
outcomes-based performance measurement systems for
community treatment.
83
Good Grant 2

SA #1: Test whether Treatment Program A demonstrates
efficacy under experimental conditions relative to communitybased care programs, can be translated to a set of communitybased care programs, and is effective relative to a set of
community-based care programs

SA #2: Identify program features associated with good client
outcomes which might serve as indicators of the quality of
community-based treatment programs

SA #3: Identify candidate quality indicators appropriate for
assessing the performance of community-based care programs in
serving key client subgroups
84
Good Grant 2
Reviewer Comments:
1.
The evaluation of Treatment Program A .. in real world
settings, and the examination of efficacy, translational, and
effectiveness outcomes in a single study represents a highly
significant endeavor.
2.
..the approach to aim 1 is elegant
3.
The study has the potential to address a major gap in
treatment services research, and to guide diffusion of
research-based practices to real world settings
4.
The solid design and measurement aspects of the study and
the innovative analytical approach ..make this an exciting
application with the potential for high impact on the field 85
86
More Web Resources
87
Funding Opportunities
Sites with important information:
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/index.cfm
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/welcome.htm#introduction
http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/funding.htm
http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/extra/extdocs/grantrevprocess.htm
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/grants/default.htm
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/grants/charts/default.htm
http://www.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/glossary/default.htm
88
grants1.nih.gov/grants/grant_tips.htm
89
grants.nih.gov/grants/glossary.htm
90
http://www3.cancer.gov/admin/gab/links.htm
91
deainfo.nci.nih.gov/consumer.htm
92
deainfo.nci.nih.gov/extra/extdocs/gntapp.htm
93
www.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/grants/
94
http://era.nih.gov/
95
https://commons.era.nih.gov/commons/
96
http://era.nih.gov/virtualschool/
97
grants2.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2003
98
grants2.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2003
99
1
5
2
6
3
4
http://era.nih.gov/ElectronicReceipt/
100
Office of Extramural Research
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/oer.htm
New “Parent” FOA page added for
quick reference to unsolicited
101
applications.
Enter search
criteria or
Select
Advanced
Search
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/index.html
102
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/parent_announcements.htm
Select the FOA number to open
the announcement.
103
eSubmission
Automated Training Tutorials




eRA Commons Registration
Completing an Application Package (Grants.gov)
Find & Download a Funding Opportunity
Check Submission Status & View Assembled
Application (PI & SO versions)
era.nih.gov/ElectronicReceipt/training.htm
104
eSubmission




Frequently Asked Questions
era.nih.gov/ElectronicReceipt/faq.htm
Avoiding Common Errors
era.nih.gov/ElectronicReceipt/avoiding_errors.htm
Presentations, Quick Reference Materials, Brochures, Drop-in
newsletter articles
era.nih.gov/ElectronicReceipt/communication.htm
Training Videos, Videocast Archives
era.nih.gov/ElectronicReceipt/training.htm
105