Presentation on theme: "Go Behind the AHRQ/NIH Study Section Door"— Presentation transcript:
1 Go Behind the AHRQ/NIH Study Section Door A Mock Review
2 The Panel Linda Greenberg, PhD Willard Manning, PhD Ming Tai-Seale, PhD
3 The 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
5 Rxx 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?
6 Relevant 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
9 Who 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.
13 Protection 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
14 Inclusion 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
15 Inclusion 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?
16 Inclusion 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
17 Adjectives Used in Review OutstandingExcellentVery GoodGoodAcceptable
18 Priority 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
20 Critical Areas for Improvement for K0x It Is Not About5 years of support75 percent buyout$$$
21 It Is AboutMentoredClinical ScientistDevelopment
22 It 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
23 Disconnected 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.
24 Distant Mentor Always very hard to sell. Study section distrusts supposed level of commitment by mentor.Plans for linkage, visiting vague.
25 Who is in charge? Too many mentors No strong primary Nobody with oversight responsibility
26 Career 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!!!
27 Career 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.
28 Critical Areas for Improvement in Rs Design problemMeasurementChoice of variablesIntervention/comparisonAnalysis problemChoice of approachTechniqueTest
29 Critical 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
32 Mock Review Chair: Willard Manning, PhD Primary: Ming Tai-Seale, PhD Secondary: Willard Manning, PhDUsually there is a tertiary reviewerK08 – Mentored Clinical Scientist Development Award
33 Review Guideline Candidate Career development plan Research plan Mentor/co-mentorEnvironment and institutional commitmentBudgetHuman subjectsWomen/minorities/childrenSUMMARYmajor strengths and weaknessesRecommendation for or against funding
34 Summary StatementAsk Will about the story of the Pink SheetMing
35 How 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”
38 What 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
40 Resources Video on Peer Review for Clinical Research Instructions on how to prepare your applicationOur contact informationLinda:Will:Ming:Can’t comment on any current proposal in the review process