1
JDP in Public Health - Health Behavior Concentration
Division of Health Promotion, Graduate School of Public Health
College of Health and Human Services, San Diego State University
PH 867 Seminar: Grant Proposal Writing for Health Behavior Research
Spring 2012, Schedule Number: 22227
Class Schedule:
Location:
Office Hours:
Mondays, 1:00pm -3:40pm
Sky Park Court, Suite 221 conference room
By appointment (eallen@projects.sdsu.edu)
Instructor:
Guadalupe X. Ayala, PhD, MPH
Professor
IBACH, 9245 Sky Park Court, Suite 220
San Diego, CA 92123
T: 619-594-6686; F: 619-594-2998
COURSE OVERVIEW AND GOALS
Through a seminar/small group discussion format, this course will train students in skills needed to
successfully compete for research funding, with a specific focus on National Institutes of Health (NIH)
funding, though also inclusive of other funding sources such as the Centers for Disease Prevention and
Control, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s obesity prevention initiatives (Active Living Research,
Healthy Eating Research), American Cancer Society, and others. Content will include hands-on experiences
with grant writing, submission, review, and revision processes, as well as vital background information about
NIH and other funders review and funding procedures and mechanisms.
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, THE HEALTH PROMOTION DIVISION
AND PH867
The Mission of San Diego State University's Graduate School of Public Health is to advance the public’s
health through:
1. The preparation of professionals in public health practice through academic and professional education,
research, and service using methods that analyze and manage unresolved community public health
problems, and teach proactive , interactive and accountable approaches to their solution;
2. The provision of interdisciplinary leadership and direct assistance by being a regional and international
resource in public health education, research and advocacy in defining and solving public health
problems in the various multicultural populations both nationally and internationally, especially in the
border region of California and the Pacific Rim; and
3. Serving as a catalyst and vehicle for forming and maintaining collaborative relationships among public
health, preventive and curative health-related academic, health care delivery, and financing, and
community and service organizations in both the public and private sectors to strengthen capacities and
services and to help resolve community public health issues and problems.
Working within this broader mission, the Division of Health Promotion and Behavioral Sciences trains
students at the Undergraduate, Masters and Ph.D. levels in theory, research and practical applications in
planning, implementing and evaluating public health behavior change efforts. PH867 students focus
specifically on acquiring grant writing skills to compete successfully for grant funding.
2
COURSE OBJECTIVES:
By the end of the course, students should be able to:
1. Describe relevant NIH funding mechanisms, including RFAs, R01s, R03s, R21s, and K07s.
2. Describe the typical 2-tiered review process for R01s.
3. Write (grant proposals and other documents) with greater conciseness, clarity, impact, and
persuasiveness.
4. Describe the general format for the NIH research proposal, and specific tips for strengthening each
section.
5. Describe “how NIH reviewers think.”
6. Conceptualize and write a research proposal while addressing potential concerns of reviewers.
7. Revise a research proposal to effectively address the reviewers’ concerns.
Required Text and Materials:
 Russell, S.W. & Morrison, D.C. (2010). The grant application writer’s workbook. National Institutes
of Health. (Available at: http://www.grantcentral.com/workbooks.html)

LaRocque, P., (2003). The book on writing: the ultimate guide to writing well. Oak Park, IL:
Marion Street Press, Inc. (Available for purchase online)

Warriner, J.E. & Griffith, F. (1965). English grammar and composition, revised edition. New York,
NY: Harcourt, Brace & World. (Available on Blackboard - Part 3: Composition: Sentence Structure,
pgs. 197-299)

Other materials and links available on Blackboard.
Final Grade:
A. Participation
30%
There are two parts to participation, each worth 15% of your grade. Part 1 involves in-class
participation and Part 2 involves participation in a grant writing activity outside of class.
In-class participation involves regular attendance, thoughtful reflections of readings, completion of
the assignments, contributing to in-class discussions, and critiquing each other’s efforts in a helpful
way. Please make plans to attend all classes. Small classes such as this one function best when all are
present. Also, I anticipate that we will exchange many written messages over the course of the
semester. Emails and other communication should always look professional, including proper
salutation, good English, correct grammar, etc. Unless you have a compelling reason not to, you
would “market” yourselves best by having an SDSU.EDU or UCSD.EDU address.
Out-of-class activities can include involvement in the development and writing of a grant proposal,
attendance at a grant writing workshop, or another skill development opportunity identified by the
3
student and approved by the instructor. Final decisions about how the student will complete this
requirement should be made by the date indicated below.
 The overarching goal with the proposal development activity is to connect some of what you
may already be doing outside of class to in-class activities, thereby enriching both
experiences. If you select the grant proposal development option, the hope is that your
participation is active, for example, you are a regular participant at grant development
meetings, you are writing sections of the grant proposal, you are collecting formative data,
etc. If you would like to experience the grant writing activity and don’t know of any such
opportunities, please let me and we can identify an opportunity together.

A workshop will provide you with some of the necessary skills to write grants effectively. I
have identified several options (both free and paid) but I am sure you will come across others
(see Blackboard folder).
Irrespective of which option you select, you are expected to write a short reflection paper (1,000
words) on your experiences. Reflections on what you learned that will generalize to your own grant
writing are most welcome.
B. R03 grant proposal
40%
Plus critique classmates’ R03s and prepare a response to your three reviewers
C. Three assigned activities (each 10%)
30%
1) Write the candidate and training sections of a career development proposal
2) Identify research gaps in NIH funding and developing your writing skills
3) Critique an R21
Grading:
A
AB+
B
B-
95-100
90-94
87-89
84-86
80-83
C+
C
CF
77-79
74-76
70-73
<70
4
This schedule may be modified over the course of the semester to meet class needs and competencies (red
indicates revisions since the one distributed on the first day of class).
Date
1: Jan 23
2: Jan 30
3: Feb 6
Topics
Introduction to course
 Dual focus on grant writing
and writing in general
 Skills based
Types of funding agencies
 NIH
 CDC
 RWJF
 ACS
Types of grant proposal mechanisms
 Post-doctoral
 Junior investigator - the R03
 Mid- and Senior-level
investigator
Developing a program of research
through funding
4: Feb 13
5: Feb 20
Training component of a career
development grant proposal
No in-class session today
NIH Grant review process
 View NIH review meeting
video
In-Class Activity
Complete student handout
Share experiences in grant
writing and what you hope
to gain from this class.
Be prepared to discuss
R&M readings
WW1: The effective
paragraph - Suchi
Be prepared to discuss
R&M reading.
Readings and
Assignments Due
None
Read Russell &
Morrison Preface,
Overview, Ch. 1 & 2.
WW1: Read Warriner
pgs 312-343.
Read Russell &
Morrison Ch. 3.
Finalize Part 2 of
participation grade with
instructor.
WW2:A dozen guidelines
for good writing – Chs. 1-4
- Emily
WW2: Read LaRocque
pgs 10-14 and Ch. 1-4.
N/A
Activity 1: Write the
training section* of a
K-grant proposal per
NIH guidelines. Due
5pm PST on Feb 13th,
2012 in hard copy to
Ms. Allen AND via
Blackboard dropbox.
Be prepared to discuss
R&M readings.
*See Blackboard for
details.
Read Russell &
Morrison Ch. 4 & 6.
Be prepared to briefly (5
mins) share ideas re: your
R03 grant proposal.
Proposal: Read
guidelines for the R03.
.
WW3:A dozen guidelines
for good writing – Chs 5-8
- Julie
WW3: Read LaRocque
Ch. 5-8.
5
6: Feb 27
Long class:
1:006:40pm
Writing for the Reviewers
 Specific Aims
 Significance
 Innovation
Be prepared to discuss
R&M readings.
Read Russell &
Morrison Overview,
Ch. 7 -9.
Activity 2a: RePORT
abstract assignment due
in class in hard copy.
WW4:A dozen guidelines
for good writing – Chs. 912 – Catherine
WW4: Read LaRocque
Ch. 9-12
WW5:A dozen guidelines
for good writing – Ch. 2325 - Kristi
N/A
WW5: Read LaRocque
Ch. 23-25
7: Mar 5
No in-class session today given
previous long class
8: Mar 12
Writing for the Reviewers
 Approach, including
preliminary studies
Be prepared to discuss
R&M readings.
Read Russell &
Morrison Ch. 10-11.
Compare proposal critiques
Be prepared to share your
critiques of Ayala’s R21
grant proposal.
Activity 3: Critique of
Ayala’s grant proposal
due in class in hard
copy
WW6: Sentence
completeness &
Coordination and
subordination - Alex
Be prepared to discuss
R&M readings.
WW6: Read Warriner
pgs 198-221.
WW7: Clear reference &
Placement of modifiers Kyle
WW7: Read Warriner
pgs 222-238.
9: Mar 19
10: Mar 26
Writing for the Reviewers:
 Title, Summary, Cover Letter
SDSURF visit - TENTATIVE
 Finding grant mechanisms
 Submitting a grant
Spring break
Activity 2b: Complete
the abstract condensing
assignment and submit
to dropbox by 5pm PST
March 5th, 2012 (see
additional resources on
blackboard)
Read Russell &
Morrison Ch. 18-22.
6
11: Apr 2
12: Apr 9
Writing for the Reviewers:
 Budget
 Human Subjects and Data
Safety and Monitoring Boards
Writing for the Reviewers:
 Introduction to Revised
Application
Be prepared to discuss
R&M readings.
Read Russell &
Morrison Ch. 12, 13,
15, & 16.
WW8: Parallel structure &
Unnecessary shifts in
sentences - Jongho
Be prepared to discuss
R&M readings.
WW8: Read Warriner
pgs 239-253.
Read Russell &
Morrison Ch. 5.
Proposal: Grant
proposal due to fellow
students in class
(instructor wants hard
copy).
13: Apr 16
WW9: Sentence
conciseness & Sentence
variety - Gina
WW9: Read Warriner
pgs 254-278.
WW10: Effective diction Jennie
WW10: Read Warriner
pgs 279-299.
WW fun activity
Proposal: Introduction
to reviewer comments
due in hard copy in
class.
Review session #1
14: Apr 23
Review session #2
15: Apr 30
Review session #3
16: May 7
Wrap up, discussion, next steps
7
Activity 2a: Editing RePORT Abstracts Assignment
Objectives:
 To improve the participant’s writing skills.
 To become familiar with the NIH RePORT data base.
 To see what types of studies NIH has funded.
Instructions:
 Browse abstracts on RePORT in your areas of interest (Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool).
http://projectreporter.nih.gov/reporter.cfm
 Type in your preferred topic at “term search”. Select the year(s) you want.
 Select research projects at “funding mechanism”.
 Submit query.
 From the hit list, select from R01’s, R03’s, or R21’s that are health-behavior oriented—click on the title
to get to the abstract.
 Find five abstract(s) that contain at least one unique problem below.
 Print out the abstract(s).
 Designate (clearly) on the hard copy the words that have the specific “problem” by circling them. With
an arrow, connect this to the margin and indicate which problem it exemplifies (e.g., bad jargon, etc.).
 On a separate sheet, organized by the numbers corresponding to the problems, type a new word(s) or
sentence(s) that corrects the problem (without changing the meaning).
 Staple the sheets together and hand in.
Problems:
1. overly long sentence
2. pretentious wording
3. unnecessarily long or difficult word
4. bad jargon
5. cliché
6. use of wrong word
7. sentence beginning with an unnecessarily long dependent phrase
8. unnecessary use of passive voice
9. unnecessary adverb or qualifier
10. a sentence with too many prepositional phrases
11. a sentence with too many numbers
12. a sentence with too many acronyms and/or abbreviations
8
Activity 2b: Abstract Condensing Assignment
Objective: To improve writing and editing skills.
Instructions:
The abstract found on Blackboard has 216 words, excluding the title.
Using the track changes tool in Word, condense the abstract to 150 words or less (excluding the title)
without changing the meaning or deleting important information. Use the strategies for clear, concise writing
suggested in your readings.
Bring one hard copy of the document to class—be sure the Track Changes notes, etc. are visible.
9
Activity 3: Critiquing an R21 proposal
Write a critique of the proposal using the reviewer guidelines and templates provided in Blackboard.
You should give the following sections both a score (1 to 9, with 1 being the best—to the right of each
heading) and a written review, with key strengths and weaknesses: Overall Impact; Significance;
Investigator; Innovation; Approach; and Environment. Use whole sentences, even though this is in bulleted
format.
Also complete the “Protection for Human Subjects” section of the template. Reviewing the budget is
optional.
Use the following materials to write your critique:
1) See the following in Blackboard under Course Documents/Activity 3: Critique documents: a) NIH
guidelines for reviewers (be sure and read the Reviewer Orientation and other relevant instructions); and
b) the “Review Critique Template” (most recent version) for an R21.
2) Additional examples of grant submitted and critiques received will be uploaded as I receive them from
other faculty. Some of these may provide more limited guidance given that they used the old format.
Turn in a hard copy of your critique to Dr. Ayala in class on the deadline date.
The day after the deadline, Dr. Ayala will post the actual study section’s critique so you can see how you
compared with the other reviewers.
10
Grant Proposal Instructions
You will write a proposal for a small grant (R03) in any health behavior research area you choose. The
project can be either an observational (i.e., nonintervention) study or an intervention study. For the purpose
of this assignment, assume that all NIH Institutes/Centers allow researcher-initiated R03 proposals.
Follow the instructions (for form PH398) regarding font size, margins, and other formatting requirements.
Look at the NIH Small Grant (R03) description (in Blackboard) and look at PA-11-262 to see what an
“official” R03 announcement looks like. However, my instructions on this sheet will supersede any other
instructions, should the 2 sources differ.
Sections to include:
1. Face page (Form Page One) of PHS 398.
2. Project Description—complete only the summary/abstract and public health relevance sections.
3. Your NIH biosketch (no others) using PHS 398.
4. Main body of proposal (not to exceed 7 single-spaced pages):
A. Specific Aims (approx. 1 page)
B. Research Strategy (6 or fewer pages), including the following sections: (1) Significance; (2)
Innovation; and (3) Approach (which includes preliminary studies).
In Preliminary Studies section:
Required: describe the roles and expertise of the members of your research team.
Optional (include only if you have this): Describe any preliminary studies conducted by
you or other members of the research team that are relevant to the proposed project.
Describe any relevant pilot data.
5. Human Subjects and Targeted Enrollment Tables
6. Literature Cited
7. Proposed letters of support – do not include actual letters. Just state who you would ask to provide
letters.
Include a cover letter that requests (and gives justification for) a specific, actual NIH study section and an
NIH funding Institute or Center.
The project may not exceed 2 years.
The budget may not exceed $50,000 in direct costs in any one year. You are required to submit a modular
budget and justification as outlined in the NIH guidelines.
11
Ideas for types of research
A. Methodological Studies
1. develop and validate a new measure
2. collect reliability and validity data on an existing measure
B. Observational (Non-intervention) Studies
1. collect cross-sectional data to evaluate correlates of a health behavior (or condition)
2. collect longitudinal data to evaluate predictors of a health behavior (or condition)
3. analyze existing data set to assess correlates/predictors
C. Intervention-Related Research
1. Conduct formative evaluation and use it to develop an intervention
2. Pilot test a previously developed intervention (with a new population)
3. Both 1 and 2
4. Conduct a small, controlled study
This list is not all-inclusive. But remember to keep your proposed research relatively narrow in scope, not
overly-complex, and feasible. Make a case for how the findings will inform a future, larger study and or
randomized controlled trial (R01 mechanism). For example, the ideas under “B” could help researchers
develop more effective interventions. C 2-4 studies could generate valuable data regarding sample size
calculations (i.e., effect size), acceptability, and feasibility for future trials. Studies in A are crucial for
advancing research in general. Additionally, the results may suggest whether a particular measurement tool
or strategy is justified for use in a larger, expensive study.
Grading your proposal
I will use all of the formal NIH Review Criteria for R03s (Significance, Approach, etc.). However, you are
not expected to have pilot data. Additionally, I will consider the following factors:

Is the scope of your proposed study appropriately narrow (and feasible) for an R03?

Is the design simple, yet elegant?

Have you organized the content so that it is easy to follow and tells a coherent story?

Did you write clearly and concisely?

Did you follow LaRocque’s rules for good writing?

Is the proposal legible? Does the presentation facilitate the reader’s job (e.g., appropriate use of
tables, etc.)?

Have you eliminated typos and other physical problems?

Have you complied with the NIH rules for fonts, margins, etc.?
12
PH 867 - Student Information Sheet
Name:
Phone number:______________________________________________________________
Emergency contact information:
1. Grant writing experience, indicate if as principal investigator.
2. What are you short-term (2-3 years) and longer term (5-8 years) goals for grant proposal submission?
3. Is there anything else you want me to know about you that will help me tailor the class