Presentation on theme: "Go Behind the AHRQ/NIH Study Section Door"— Presentation transcript:
1Go Behind the AHRQ/NIH Study Section Door A Mock Review
2The Panel Linda Greenberg, PhD Willard Manning, PhD Ming Tai-Seale, PhD
3The Agenda Relevant funding mechanisms: Rs, Ks Life of a proposal Scientific review: who, where, howCritical areas for improvementMock reviewSummary statementHow to work with federal officialsQuestions and answersIf they can be a speck on the paper of the proposal, we will take them through the process
5Rxx GRANTS FOR HEALTH SERVICES DISSERTATION RESEARCH (R36) R01, R03, … Support students seeking a doctorateafter successful dissertation defensein areas relevant to health services researchTotal direct costs <$30,000R01, R03, …Barbara?
6Relevant Funding Mechanisms: K01, K02, K08, … Mentored Clinical Scientist Development Award (K08)Development of outstanding research scientists.Specialized study support for trained professionals who are committed to a career in research and have the potential to develop into independent investigatorsFocuses on progression to independenceStudy and development consistent with his/her needs, and previous research or clinical experience.The proposed length of the award must be well explained and justifiedSupport will only be provided for the period deemed necessary to achieve independence
9Who Serve on Study Sections? DisciplinesAnthropologyBiostatisticsEconomicsEpidemiologyHealth services researchMedicineNursingOrganizational TheorySociologyMethodological OrientationsQuantitativeQualitativeMixedStages in Their Own CareersSenior ScholarsEmergent scientistsEveryone has equal weight in scoring, you have to communicate clearly, especially to those who don’t share your disciplinary training,You have to convince them why your proposal is good.
13Protection of Human Subjects Applicant must address:Risks to human subjectsAdequacySummary reviewer choices:Human subjects NOT involvedHuman subjects involved, ACCEPTABLEHuman subjects involved, UNACCEPTABLEHuman subjects involved, exemption claimed
14Inclusion of Women and Minorities Gender Code:First Character = G1= Both Gender2= Only Women3= Only Men4= Gender UnknownThird Character:A= Scientifically acceptableU= Scientifically unacceptableMinority Code:First character = MSecond character:1=Minority and Nonminority2= Only Minority3= Only Nonminority4= Minority unknownThird Character:A= Scientifically acceptableU= Scientifically unacceptable
15Inclusion of AHRQ Priority Populations Checklist IncludedExcludedNot addressedChildrenElderlyRuralInner cityLow incomeDisabledChronically illEnd of lifeThis is only for portfolio purpose, we are not suppose to ding them on this.Adequate numbers for sub-group analysis?For excluded, including rationale?
16Inclusion of Women and Minorities Gender Code:First Character = G1= Both Gender2= Only Women3= Only Men4= Gender UnknownThird Character:A= Scientifically acceptableU= Scientifically unacceptableMinority Code:First character = MSecond character:1=Minority and Nonminority2= Only Minority3= Only Nonminority4= Minority unknownThird Character:A= Scientifically acceptableU= Scientifically unacceptable
17Adjectives Used in Review OutstandingExcellentVery GoodGoodAcceptable
18Priority Score How is the summary priority score calculated? Group averageEqual weightWhat is the fundable range?Study sections can have different normsWhen in doubt, ask the project officer
20Critical Areas for Improvement for K0x It Is Not About5 years of support75 percent buyout$$$
21It Is AboutMentoredClinical ScientistDevelopment
22It Is About (cont’d) It does require mentoring It is about career development for researchersNot just about more educationNot just about doing preliminary studiesDon’t confuse K with series of R03’s
23Disconnected MentorMentor’s letter not closely tied to content of proposal.Mentor’s letter written by proposer and it looks like it.Mentor approached with proposal with only week left before due date.Little impact on proposal.Worse if proposal is naïve.
24Distant Mentor Always very hard to sell. Study section distrusts supposed level of commitment by mentor.Plans for linkage, visiting vague.
25Who is in charge? Too many mentors No strong primary Nobody with oversight responsibility
26Career Development Plan R-AvoidanceIts thinly disguised research support for 5 years.Little or no education component.A La Carte Education:Lacks coherent rationale for what’s proposed.Need to lay out individual strengths and weaknesses.It’s OK to say you’re imperfect!!!
27Career Development Plan Educational elements too vagueVisiting Prof. Jones T times per year. T small.Lack of specificityNot clear depth of trainingFormal course work preferredif a good match for needs.if level appropriateAvoid lower level MPH courses.
28Critical Areas for Improvement in Rs Design problemMeasurementChoice of variablesIntervention/comparisonAnalysis problemChoice of approachTechniqueTest
29Critical Areas for Improvement in Rs Weak justification for studyBackground and significance unconvincingLiterature review incompleteInvestigator expertise deficientNeeds consultants or collaboratorsTheoretical or conceptual model or frameworkMissing, deficient, or erroneous
32Mock Review Chair: Willard Manning, PhD Primary: Ming Tai-Seale, PhD Secondary: Willard Manning, PhDUsually there is a tertiary reviewerK08 – Mentored Clinical Scientist Development Award
33Review Guideline Candidate Career development plan Research plan Mentor/co-mentorEnvironment and institutional commitmentBudgetHuman subjectsWomen/minorities/childrenSUMMARYmajor strengths and weaknessesRecommendation for or against funding
34Summary StatementAsk Will about the story of the Pink SheetMing
35How to Read the Pink Sheet Expect the language to beFrank, andNot overly enthusiasticBe emotionally detached, after the initial…Talk to an experienced grant-makerResubmit unless you see “fatally flawed”Do NOT resubmit right awayRecruit a “cold reviewer”
38What Can You Expect From Project officersRead your concept paper and draftSend it in EARLY!Interpret the fundability of your priority scoreScientific review administratorsAssign reviewers who may have expertise to review your proposalFrancis