Research Funding & AHRQ

25 %
75 %
Information about Research Funding & AHRQ
Education

Published on March 16, 2014

Author: INSPIRE_Network

Source: slideshare.net

Description

Dr. Mary Patterson (Akron Children's) describes her experience in Grantsmanship, Funding, and Research planning, particularly with AHRQ and delves in to the structure of the AHRQ Committees that judge and award funding.

How I finally found a research problem I was passionate about and the money to work on it….

 Good idea  Experience and training  Expertise (and/or consultants with expertise)  Institutional support  Finite scope of work  Preliminary data

 Simulation  Patient Safety  Crew resource management Simulation based patient safety curriculum for ED providers

 Grant writing workshop-Stephen Russell  List serves-EMSC, NIH, AHRQ  Automatic updates from PubMed and relevant journals  Endnote library- update this on an ongoing basis

 AHRQ publishes RFA Sept, 2004  AHRQ conference Sept, 2004 ◦ Project officer-listen to advice ◦ Read the RFA carefully  Technical Assistance calls Finding the Right Funding Opportunity

Technical Assistance Conference Call (rev 10/05/04) October 6, 2004

 Project officer for the RFA-Eileen Hogan  Section head for patient safety-Jim Battles ◦ May give you advice to talk to other people---do it ◦ Advice on consultants and what aspects of application to emphasize-DOD, Bob Wears, and references to use.  Talk some more

 AHRQ recommended specific individuals ◦ Recommended Bob Wears  in England for a year ◦ Contacted him anyhow and discussed project ◦ willing to work with me.

 READ RFA-exhaustively- many times  Structure Grant to address all of the key elements ◦ Portfolio ◦ Priority populations ◦ Required elements of RFP  Talk to project officers about specific questions, ideas. This is their job and they are willing to do it. Take advantage of their knowledge.

 Specific Aims  Significance  Innovation  Approach: for each specific aim ◦ Feasibility and Justification of Approach ◦ Review of Relevant Literature ◦ Preliminary work ◦ Design ◦ Expected outcomes ◦ Potential Problems and Alternative Strategies  Timeline  Future directions

 Write and re-write ◦ finish at least one month before deadline if at all possible. ◦ Check NIH website for examples of “good grant writing” also grant writing workshop tips  Multiple reviewers ◦ internal and external to the institution ◦ Revise again and again

 PHS 398-rules change frequently  Specific instructions for each section  Fonts and types specified  Specific federal identifiers and assurances required from the institution ◦ Institutional officer ◦ Specific requirements on electronic submission from the institution  In house grant review ◦ Eventually need IRB approval, but not before grant submission

 Budget ◦ Need individual with business/finance experience ◦ Direct and indirect costs ◦ Modular vs non-modular budget  Sponsored programs

 Meet the deadline  With electronic submission, website often overwhelmed on due date  If at all possible upload a couple of days before due date. ◦ Avoid the rush and time to fix warnings, etc  Agency Administrative review prior to going being assigned to the study section Logistics

 Group of experts-balanced to cover the areas assigned to that study section ◦ Clinical and non-clinical ◦ Statisticians ◦ Bioinformatics  Regular and ad hoc members  Not necessarily expert in your field  Have own personality  Scientific Review Officer and staff

 Section members with conflicts will recuse selves from review of relevant grants- out of room and results of discussion not discussed.  Grants assigned to a primary and two secondary reviewers  Primary reviewer is charged with presenting grant to entire section –is your advocate or not  Secondary reviewers may agree or disagree  All reviewers write critiques and complete the evaluation form

 Section members with conflicts will recuse selves from review of relevant grants- out of room and results of discussion not discussed.  Grants assigned to a primary and two secondary reviewers  Primary reviewer is charged with presenting grant to entire section –is your advocate or not  Secondary reviewers may agree or disagree  All reviewers write critiques and complete the evaluation form

 Published in RFP and online for each agency  Each reviewer provides a rating for each category  Overall priority rating is not an average or reflection of the scores provided in each category

 Review all grants assigned personally  Often read all or part of grants not assigned to them, but for which they have interest or expertise  Most reviewers, not assigned to a particular grant, will be seeing grant for the first time when it is presented.

 Each reviewer assigned 6-8 grants for review  Written reviews are uploaded and viewed by study section members prior to the meeting  Grants whose 3 scores fall below the 50th %tile will be nominated for “streamlining” (formerly triage) as one of the first items of action of the study section.  Any member who wishes to discuss any grant has veto power and the grant will be discussed

 Once streamlining completed, typically approximately 50 grants will be left for discussion over 2 days. Anyone with conflict leaves during discussion of that grant ◦ Grant presented by primary reviewer ◦ Additional comments by secondary reviewers ◦ Open discussion ◦ Revised scores ◦ Each study section member assigns an overall score to the grant

 Good idea  Responsive to RFP  Following the rules  Tell a good story that progresses logically  Conceptual framework  Expertise to do the work (if novice, expert collaborators ) with enough effort to make the work feasible

 Realistic Scope of work  Statistician  Reasonable budget-not greedy but also not so low as to make it unlikely to be able to complete the work ◦ Capital expenses and brick and mortar are not looked upon favorably

 Grant is easy to read and progresses logically ◦ Tells a compelling story ◦ Leave white space and space between paragraphs  Easy to find required elements of grant ◦ Underline, italicize or bold the required elements and identify them as such  Following the instructions-demonstrates attention to detail

 Lack of relevant literature search especially if you did not cite an expert member of the study section  Poor writing, difficult to follow narrative  Missing or difficult to find elements  Absence of conceptual framework  Absence of letters of support or collaboration letters  Sloppy or missing “other required elements” including human subjects, priority populations, resource sharing plans. Should not be an afterthought.

 Make it easy for the reviewers to read and understand your grant; they are not necessarily experts in the field of your proposal  Your goal is to turn the reviewers of your grant into enthusiastic advocates for your proposal  Remember, all section members provide a score and most are going to be looking/hearing about your grant for the first time during the discussion.

 The total process will take about 15-30 minutes.  You want the first words the primary reviewer says to be “I loved this grant”.

 Your score  Summary statement: if asked, ◦ Respond to all comments and questions ◦ Provide “just in time” documentation  IRB approval  Additional budget information  Funding decision and you are on your way

Questions? Also Check out http://www.ahrq.gov/fund/ragendix.htm

Add a comment

Related presentations

Related pages

Funding Announcements | Agency for Healthcare Research ...

Grant announcements from AHRQ for supporting research to improve the quality, effectiveness, accessibility, and cost effectiveness of health care
Read more

Funding Opportunities | Practice-Based Research Networks ...

PBRN Research Funding. Below is a list of funding opportunities for PBRNs interested in conducting research. Select a link for more information.
Read more

Funding & Grants | Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality

Grant announcements from AHRQ for supporting research to improve the quality, effectiveness, accessibility, and cost effectiveness of health care
Read more

AHRQ Funding - Consumers Union Policy & Action

Don't mess with AHRQ funding, Consumer Reports says, noting that the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s research helps make the health care ...
Read more

AHRQ Health IT Funding Opportunities | AHRQ National ...

AHRQ Health IT Funding Announcements. These funding opportunities are designed to fund basic health IT research and fill gaps in the field that will lead ...
Read more

PBRN Funding History | Practice-Based Research Networks ...

What is the history of AHRQ funding for PBRNs? The opportunities listed below represent funding reserved exclusively for PBRNs. In addition, PBRNs ...
Read more

PA-14-291: AHRQ Health Services Research Projects (R01)

NIH Funding Opportunities and Notices in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts: AHRQ Health Services Research Projects (R01) PA-14-291. AHRQ
Read more

AHRQ Announces Health IT Research Funding Opportunities

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality is sponsoring four research projects for better health IT design, implementation, and usability.
Read more

PA-15-147: AHRQ Small Research Grant Program (R03)

NIH Funding Opportunities and Notices in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts: AHRQ Small Research Grant Program (R03) PA-15-147. AHRQ
Read more

AHRQ.gov | Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality (AHRQ)

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's (AHRQ) mission is to improve the quality, safety, efficiency, and effectiveness of health care for all ...
Read more