Dissertation awards
R36
• To support dissertation research costs of students
in accredited research doctoral programs in the
United States (including Puerto Rico and other
U.S. territories or possessions).
• Supported by multiple NIH agencies as well as
AHRQ
– Mental Health
– Aging
– Drug Abuse
Details:
• Typically due 3 times per year
• Direct costs not to exceed $40,000 per year
and no more than 17 months
• Proposal length not to exceed 6 pages…
The candidate
•
•
•
•
•
•
individuals with the skills, knowledge, and resources necessary to carry out the
proposed research and career development activities are invited to work with their
mentor and sponsoring institution to develop an application for support
Candidates must be U.S. citizens, non-citizen nationals, or permanent residents by
the time the award is issued.
Candidates must be full-time students in good standing, who are enrolled in an
accredited research doctoral program in such fields as the social or behavioral
sciences, mathematics, engineering, health services research, nursing, social
sciences, epidemiology, biostatistics, health policy, and health informatics.
Candidates with more than part-time employment (defined as greater than twenty
hours per week), in addition to the requirements of their current, full-time
academic student appointments, are not eligible to apply for this grant
mechanism.
Students must complete all non-dissertation requirements for their doctoral
degree by the time of submission of the application (except in cases where a
clinical internship is required to follow the dissertation phase).
Approval of the dissertation proposal by the doctoral committee is required before
the grant award is issued.
Research Objectives--generally
• Applications for dissertation research grants
must be responsive to [AHRQ’s mission],
Mission from AHRQ
– The research sponsored and conducted by the Agency develops and presents scientific
evidence regarding all aspects of health care in the United States. It addresses issues of
organization, delivery, financing, utilization, patient and provider behavior, outcomes,
effectiveness and cost. It evaluates both clinical services and the system in which these
services are provided. These scientific results improve the evidence base to enable better
decisions about health care, including such areas as disease prevention, appropriate use of
medical technologies, improving diagnosis and treatment in cost-effective ways, long-term
care, and reducing racial and ethnic disparities.
•
AHRQ has identified strategic goals as priority research areas. Applied research
applications must address one of these areas. Applicants are strongly encouraged
to focus on topical areas unique to AHRQ, demonstrating how expected results can
be used or made available for use to enhance healthcare quality. Results should
be directly relevant to customers, such as providers and practitioners,
administrators, payers, consumers, policymakers, and insurers. The strategic
research goals are:
– Safety/quality – Reduce the risk of harm from health care services by promoting the delivery
of appropriate care that achieves the best quality outcomes
– Efficiency – Achieve wider access to effective health care services and reduce health care costs
– Effectiveness – Assure that providers and consumers/patients use beneficial and timely health
care information to make informed decision choices.
Grant Sections:
• Introduction (required attachment for resubmission and revision
application) is limited to one page.
• Specific Aims is limited to 1 page.
• Research Strategy, including tables, graphs, figures, diagrams, and
charts, is limited to 6 pages. Research Strategy should include the
Significance, Innovation, and Approach.
– Part of the research strategy must describe any potential outcomes,
products and/or impact of the proposed dissertation on policy or
practice, as well as dissemination plans, which involve traditional
academic as well as nontraditional means of communicating relevant
research findings to policymakers or health care delivery personnel.
– A clear description of the unique contribution of this effort must be
included, especially if the research builds upon ongoing or previously
conducted work by the principal investigator, or other dissertation
committee member/faculty.
Letters of support
• Two letters of support:
– A letter from the faculty committee or the University official directly
responsible for supervising the dissertation research that must
specifically address the potential of the candidate, as well as the
qualifications and experience of the candidate to conduct the study as
proposed, both in terms of content and methodological expertise
gained from coursework. In addition, the letter must:
• include a mentorship description that clearly notes the frequency of meetings
as well as content and methodological support to be provided.
• indicate that a collaborative process was established between the applicant
and advisors in the development and review of this dissertation grant
application.
– A letter from the Candidate which must discuss career goals,
background and interest in health services research, the anticipated
manner in which the proposed dissertation will contribute to career
goals, and the unique relevance of the proposed dissertation to AHRQ.
Scoring Criteria:
• Significance. Does the proposed dissertation
project address an important problem unique
to the mission of the agency? If the aims of
the project are achieved, how will scientific
knowledge, health care delivery, or clinical
practice be advanced? What will be the effect
of this research on the concepts, methods,
technologies, treatments, services,
preventative interventions, or health care
policies that drive this field?
•
•
•
•
•
•
Criterion Scores
Candidate: 1
Research Plan: 2
Mentor(s), Co-Mentor(s), Consultant(s), Collaborator(s): 1
Environment and Institutional Commitment: 1
Overall Impact: This is a well-written proposal on an
interesting and critical area of study to determine methods
to explain effects of payment policies for chemotherapeutic
drugs on prescribing and treatment practices in the
Medicare population. Dr. X will develop innovative
statistical methods to understand how health policy
changes affect treatment and outcomes.
Criteria
• Investigators. Are the PD/PI and mentor(s) appropriately
trained and well suited to the proposed research project? Is
there evidence that an appropriate level of effort will be
devoted by the mentor(s) to ensure the successful
completion of the dissertation project? Is there evidence
that mentor(s) have been adequately prepared to actively
work with the PD/PI and have actively worked with the
PD/PI to date in the development of the proposed
dissertation project? Does a viable mentoring plan and/or
mentor/PD/PI agreement exist? Does the PD/PI
demonstrate potential to have a successful career in health
services research?
•
• 1. Candidate:
• Strengths
• Letters of support/recommendation are quite strong,
indicating that x is an extremely gifted rising star,
efficient, organized, with strong methodological and
analytical skills. Her application indicates that she is an
excellent writer.
• Weaknesses
• None were identified.
Criteria
• Innovation. Is the dissertation project original
and innovative? For example: Does the
project challenge existing paradigms or clinical
practice; address an innovative hypothesis or
critical barrier to progress in the field? Does
the project develop or employ novel concepts,
approaches or methodologies, tools, or
technologies for this area?
Criteria
• Approach. Are the conceptual or clinical
framework, design, methods, and analyses
adequately developed, well-integrated, wellreasoned, and appropriate to the aims of the
project? Does the applicant acknowledge
potential problem areas and consider
alternative tactics?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
3. Research Plan:
Costs of cancer drugs and drug shortages is a timely, policy-relevant issue of large
significance.
High feasibility for the work plan.
Thoughtful conceptual model.
Novel inclusion of drug shortages and average pricing into the models.
Few scholars have employed Bayesian methods to SEER-Medicare data.
Weaknesses
The datasets and variables chosen present a limited frame in which to study the
problem. As such, only part of the thoughtful ecological model is evaluable with
the chosen datasets and measures. The available census-tract data that is linked to
SEER-Medicare is limited. Augmentation with other datasets available from census
and other governmental agencies, would be novel and potentially more fruitful.
Despite being an important population, SEER-Medicare is a limited population to
study the issue given the homogeneity of insurance coverage (the candidate
acknowledges this).
Criteria
• Environment. Does the scientific
environment(s) in which the work will be done
contribute to the probability of success? Does
the proposed research project benefit from
unique features of the scientific
environment(s)? Is there evidence of
institutional support (e.g., computers, data,
and office space)?
• 5. Environment and Institutional Commitment:
• Strengths
• The letter from the department Chair (who also is the
primary mentor) is quite strong and supportive
• Weaknesses
• There is limited documented focus on health policy or
other areas of interest to the candidate in the
environment
• The link to other areas on oncology, particularly
medical oncology, has not been made
Conclusion:
• Don’t be fooled by 6 pages, it can be harder to
write short than long
• You get as many ‘points’ for science as
significance. Pay attention to translation!!!