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, how
Critical areas for improvement
Mock review
Summary statement
How to work with federal officials
Questions and answers
If they can be a speck on the paper of the proposal, we will take them through the process

4. Funding Mechanisms
Linda

5. Rxx GRANTS FOR HEALTH SERVICES DISSERTATION RESEARCH (R36) R01, R03, …
Support students seeking a doctorate
after successful dissertation defense
in areas relevant to health services research
Total direct costs <$30,000
R01, 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 investigators
Focuses on progression to independence
Study and development consistent with his/her needs, and previous research or clinical experience.
The proposed length of the award must be well explained and justified
Support will only be provided for the period deemed necessary to achieve independence

7. The Life of a Proposal
Ming

9. Who Serve on Study Sections?
Disciplines
Anthropology
Biostatistics
Economics
Epidemiology
Health services research
Medicine
Nursing
Organizational Theory
Sociology
Methodological Orientations
Quantitative
Qualitative
Mixed
Stages in Their Own Careers
Senior Scholars
Emergent scientists
Everyone 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.

11. Where is the Review Done
NIH
AHRQ
Let’s go there …

12. The Physical Setting

13. Protection of Human Subjects
Applicant must address:
Risks to human subjects
Adequacy
Summary reviewer choices:
Human subjects NOT involved
Human subjects involved, ACCEPTABLE
Human subjects involved, UNACCEPTABLE
Human subjects involved, exemption claimed

14. Inclusion of Women and Minorities
Gender Code:
First Character = G
1= Both Gender
2= Only Women
3= Only Men
4= Gender Unknown
Third Character:
A= Scientifically acceptable
U= Scientifically unacceptable
Minority Code:
First character = M
Second character:
1=Minority and Nonminority
2= Only Minority
3= Only Nonminority
4= Minority unknown
Third Character:
A= Scientifically acceptable
U= Scientifically unacceptable

15. Inclusion of AHRQ Priority Populations Checklist
Included
Excluded
Not addressed
Children
Elderly
Rural
Inner city
Low income
Disabled
Chronically ill
End of life
This 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 = G
1= Both Gender
2= Only Women
3= Only Men
4= Gender Unknown
Third Character:
A= Scientifically acceptable
U= Scientifically unacceptable
Minority Code:
First character = M
Second character:
1=Minority and Nonminority
2= Only Minority
3= Only Nonminority
4= Minority unknown
Third Character:
A= Scientifically acceptable
U= Scientifically unacceptable

17. Adjectives Used in Review
Outstanding
Excellent
Very Good
Good
Acceptable

18. Priority Score How is the summary priority score calculated?
Group average
Equal weight
What is the fundable range?
Study sections can have different norms
When in doubt, ask the project officer

19. Critical Areas for Improvement for K0x
Will

20. Critical Areas for Improvement for K0x
It Is Not About
5 years of support
75 percent buyout
$$$

21. It Is About
Mentored
Clinical Scientist
Development

22. It Is About (cont’d) It does require mentoring
It is about career development for researchers
Not just about more education
Not just about doing preliminary studies
Don’t confuse K with series of R03’s

23. Disconnected Mentor
Mentor’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-Avoidance
Its 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 vague
Visiting Prof. Jones T times per year. T small.
Lack of specificity
Not clear depth of training
Formal course work preferred
if a good match for needs.
if level appropriate
Avoid lower level MPH courses.

28. Critical Areas for Improvement in Rs
Design problem
Measurement
Choice of variables
Intervention/comparison
Analysis problem
Choice of approach
Technique
Test

29. Critical Areas for Improvement in Rs
Weak justification for study
Background and significance unconvincing
Literature review incomplete
Investigator expertise deficient
Needs consultants or collaborators
Theoretical or conceptual model or framework
Missing, deficient, or erroneous

32. Mock Review Chair: Willard Manning, PhD Primary: Ming Tai-Seale, PhD
Secondary: Willard Manning, PhD
Usually there is a tertiary reviewer
K08 – Mentored Clinical Scientist Development Award

33. Review Guideline Candidate Career development plan Research plan
Mentor/co-mentor
Environment and institutional commitment
Budget
Human subjects
Women/minorities/children
SUMMARY
major strengths and weaknesses
Recommendation for or against funding

34. Summary Statement
Ask Will about the story of the Pink Sheet
Ming

35. How to Read the Pink Sheet
Expect the language to be
Frank, and
Not overly enthusiastic
Be emotionally detached, after the initial…
Talk to an experienced grant-maker
Resubmit unless you see “fatally flawed”
Do NOT resubmit right away
Recruit a “cold reviewer”

36. Take a Vacation …

37. Role of Federal Officials
Linda

38. What Can You Expect From
Project officers
Read your concept paper and draft
Send it in EARLY!
Interpret the fundability of your priority score
Scientific review administrators
Assign reviewers who may have expertise to review your proposal
Francis

39. Questions & Answers Panel

40. Resources Video on Peer Review for Clinical Research
Instructions on how to prepare your application
Our contact information
Linda:
Will:
Ming:
Can’t comment on any current proposal in the review process