Demystifying the Federal
Grant Review Process
AcademyHealth ARM
June 27,, 2010
Panel Overview
 Writing a successful grant application -
Diane Martin
 Responding to the study section review
– Ming TaiTai-Seale
 Funding opportunities from AHRQ –
Francis Chesley
 Questions and Answers
Writing a Successful Grant
Application
Diane P
P. Martin
Martin, PhD MA
Dept. of Health Services
University of Washington
Outline
 Planning the research
 Preparing the application
 Administrative issues and
institutional policies
**Focus on new investigators
g
I.
I Planning the Research
 Begin 6 months in advance
 Establish
E t bli h an eRA
RA C
Commons accountt
 Become familiar with g
grantmanship
p
 Choose mentorship group and 2
‘cold’
cold reviewers
 Seek institutional support
Select an Important Topic
 Consider
C
id iimportant
t t problems
bl
or
controversies in healthcare
 Discuss gap in knowledge/research,
rationale
ti
l ffor your project
j t
 Begin by writing 2
2--3 page synopsis of
specific aims, significance and methods
 Consider impact
Establish Research Independence
 Conduct personal SWOT analysis
 Increase publications
 Practice critical thinking by reviewing
j
journal
l articles,
ti l
grants,
t conference
f
abstracts
 Generate preliminary data
Choose Funding Opportunity
 Consider appropriate funding source:
AHRQ,
Q, NIH institute or CDC
 Choose grant mechanism; success rates
 Two pathways for new investigators to
become independent researchers
– Career Development
p
Awards - K01, K08
– Research Awards – R03, R21, R01
Funding Opportunity Announcement
 Read instructions carefully – vary by




branch,
branch by FOA
Understand additional review criteria
Address each review criterion in your
application
pp
Construct application calendar,
calendar, working
back from due date
Follow page limits, font, use of appendices
Obtain Information
 Innovation and nonnon-duplication
– RePORTER (Research Portfolio
Online Reporting Tool)
– HSRProj
HSRP j – AcademyHealth
A d
H lth
database
 Obtain full copies of successful grants
funded
u ded by ta
target
get b
branch
a c
 Use NIH & CTSA grant writing tips
Discuss with Many People
 Federal officials in target branch,





Scientific Review Officer ((SRO))
Faculty
P titi
Practitioners,
community
it groups
Successful awardees
Peers
N i
National
l experts iin area
Know About Changes
 Changes
g in scoring
g of applications
pp
 Changes in NIH format
Review Criteria
 Overall Impact score (1 exceptional –
9 poor) x 10 (All members score)
 Core
C
review criteria ((rated 1
1--5 by 3
reviewers)
– Significance
– Investigators (K includes mentors)
– Approach: methods and data
– Innovation
– Environment:
E i
t ffacilities
iliti and
d
resources
Format – Page limits
NIH
AHRQ
 1 page Aims
 1 page Aims
 Research strategy
 Research
R
h strategy
t t
 R01 – 12 pp
 R01 – 25 pp
 R03 – 6 pp
 R03 – 15 pp
 K01,, K08 – 12 pp
 K01, K08 – 25 pp
II.
II Preparing the Application
Investigators
 Choose
Ch
C
Co-PI and
Cod iinvestigators
ti t
with
ith
strong expertise
 If you will work with outside experts or
organizations, invite them early
 Highlight potential to be an independent
productive researcher
 Team will p
produce successful research
K - Career Development
 Candidate and mentors are a team
 Describe roles and interactions with
mentors
 Propose a specific career development
plan explaining depth of training and how
it will contribute to your research
 Propose a specific research plan for the
nextt 33-5 years
Specific Aims (Most Important)
 Aims testable, stated clearly, in
unambiguous language
 Stress significance & impact of
research
 Revise this page many times; share
with others
 Integrate aims in research strategy
using parallel construction
Research Strategy
 Write
W it brief
bi fb
background:
k
d synthesize
th i and
d




integrate previous research; describe
controversies; cite others
Identify gap your research will fill
Highlight your preliminary data,
feasibility of research
Present overview of research methods
and then the details
Provide research timeline
Significance (Important)
 Why is the problem important?
(State explicitly)
 How will results advance scientific
or technical knowledge? Improve
clinical practice?
 How will project contribute to
i
improved
d methods?
th d ?
Impact (Overall Score)
 What is the likelihood for project to exert
a sustained,
t i d powerful
f l iinfluence
fl
on th
the
research fields involved?
 What is innovative, novel?
 How will project results likely be used to
change practice and policy?
Provide Rationale
 Present study design and target




population
p
p
& sample
p
Describe interventions, comparisons
Cl l d
Clearly
define
fi measures, choice
h i off
variables
Include analytic model, statistical
techniques,
tec ques, & mock
oc tables
tab es
Acknowledge problems, provide
alternate strategies
Make it Easy for Reviewers
 Think like a reviewer
 Give big picture, then explain details
 Make the review criteria stand out
– “This research is innovative because…”
 Don’t
D ’t assume reviewers
i
kknow jjargon,
methods
 OK to repeat important points
Final Writing and Editing
 Reread
R
d research
h priorities,
i iti
FOA review
i





criteria
Revise using critiques of colleagues, 2
‘cold’
cold reviewers
Ensure that work matches grant period
Ensure consistency across science &
administrative p
parts of application
pp
Use clear concise writing
All
Allow
titime ffor th
thorough
h editing
diti
III. Administrative Issues and
Institutional Policies
 Warning – This can take as long as
writing
iti the
th specific
ifi aims
i
and
d research
h
strategy
 Know institutional policies and
deadlines for approvals
Other Sections of Application
 All reviewed by study section
– Environment
– Budget
– Human subjects protection
– Inclusion of women and minorities
– AHRQ priority populations
– Data sharing plan
Obtain Administrative Support
 Aid in building application calendar
 Construct the budget and budget
justification
– Understand direct and indirect costs
– Subcontracts and DUA
 Letters of support and cover letter
 Environment,
Environment facilities and resources
 Editing help
Human Subjects and Inclusion
 Human subjects issues, institutional
review board
– Must justify exempt status
 Inclusion of women/minorities and
priority populations
– Must justify and estimate numbers
available
Application Submission
 Ready to submit – Yes/No?
Consider carefully and obtain advice
 Approval by department, school, OSP
 Allow time for initial e
e--submission
 Correct any administrative errors
Prior to Study Section Review
 Send 6 weeks in advance to SRO:
 Additional pilot data
 Manuscripts accepted for publication
 Other major accomplishments regarding
feasibility
Th k you!!
Thank
dianemar@uw.edu
Resources
 Reports of federal grants
projectreporter.nih.gov/reporter
j
g
 Information on different K grant
mechanisms
grants.gov/training/careerdevelopmentawards
.htm
htm
 Instructions on how to prepare your
application
grants.gov/Apply