and Human Services (HHS)
EXPIRED
Department of Health and Human Services
Participating
Organizations
National
Institutes of Health (NIH), (http://www.nih.gov)
Components of
Participating Organizations
National Institute of Nursing
Research (NINR), (http://www.ninr.nih.gov)
National
Cancer Institute (NCI), (http://www.nci.nih.gov)
Title: Research on Clinical Decision Making in Life-Threatening Illness (R21)
Announcement Type
This
is a reissue of PA-02-118, which was previously released on June 27, 2002.
Update: The following update relating to this announcement has been issued:
Looking Ahead: As part of the Department of Health and Human Services' implementation of e-Government, during FY 2006 the NIH will gradually transition each research grant mechanism to electronic submission through Grants.gov and the use of the SF 424 Research and Related (R&R) forms. Therefore, once the transition is made for a specific grant mechanism, investigators and institutions will be required to submit applications electronically using Grants.gov.. For more information and an initial timeline, see http://era.nih.gov/ElectronicReceipt/. NIH will announce each grant mechanism change in the NIH Guide to Grants and Contracts (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/index.html). Specific funding opportunity announcements will also clearly indicate if Grants.gov submission and the use of the SF424 (R&R) is required. Investigators should consult the NIH Forms and Applications Web site (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/forms.htm) for the most current information when preparing a grant application.
Program Announcement (PA) Number: PA-06-101
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number(s)
93.361, 93.395
Key Dates
Release Date: December 22, 2005
Letter of
Intent Receipt Date: N/A
Application Submission Dates(s): Standard, http://grants.nih.gov/grants/dates.htm
AIDS
Application Submission Date(s), http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/submissionschedule.htm#AIDS
Peer Review Date(s): Standard, http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/submissionschedule.htm
Council
Review Date(s) : Standard, http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/submissionschedule.htm
Earliest
Anticipated Start Date: Standard, http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/submissionschedule.htm
Expiration Date: May 2, 2006
Part I
Overview Information
Part II Full Text of Announcement
Section I. Funding Opportunity
Description
1. Research Objectives
Section II. Award Information
1. Mechanism(s) of Support
2. Funds Available
Section III. Eligibility
Information
1. Eligible Applicants
A. Eligible Institutions
B. Eligible Individuals
2.Cost Sharing or Matching
3. Other - Special Eligibility Criteria
Section IV. Application and
Submission Information
1. Address to Request Application
Information
2. Content and Form of Application
Submission
3. Submission Dates and Times
A. Submission, Review and
Anticipated Start Dates
1. Letter of
Intent
B. Sending an Application
to the NIH
C. Application Processing
4. Intergovernmental Review
5. Funding Restrictions
6. Other Submission Requirements
Section V. Application Review
Information
1. Criteria
2. Review and Selection Process
A. Additional Review
Criteria
B. Additional Review
Considerations
C. Sharing Research Data
D. Sharing Research
Resources
3. Anticipated Announcement and Award
Dates
Section VI. Award Administration
Information
1. Award Notices
2. Administrative and National Policy
Requirements
3. Reporting
Section VII. Agency Contact(s)
1. Scientific/Research Contact(s)
2. Peer Review Contact(s)
3. Financial/ Grants Management
Contact(s)
Section VIII. Other Information
- Required Federal Citations
1. Research Objectives
PURPOSE
The National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR) and the National Cancer Institute (NCI) invites research grant applications on clinical decision-making with regard to life-threatening illness. This initiative updates a previous Program Announcement published in 1994 entitled "Research on Clinical Bioethical Dilemmas," and re-issued in 2002 as Research in Clinical Decision-Making. The focus of the current announcement is the decision-making process with regard to illnesses that almost always lead to death in a fairly short period of time if left untreated, but may be chronic or even cured if dealt with early in the disease process. The underlying disease processes were almost uniformly fatal until very recent advances in biomedical science (e.g. highly active anti-retroviral therapy), or improved screening. An example of a life-threatening illness that may be chronic for many years before development of fatal complications would be HIV infection when treated. An example of a life-threatening illness that may be curable would be early stage breast cancer.
Despite recent advances, the decisions to be made are usually fraught with uncertainty. This program announcement seeks research on how patients (and, where appropriate, patients and families/support systems) cope with uncertainty and arrive at decisions. These decisions may occur at all points along the disease continuum from pre-disease (i.e., prevention among at risk individuals) to treatment to end of life. Examples of such decisions could include participating in an HIV vaccine clinical trial, testing for genetic disorder, choosing a treatment intervention vs. watchful waiting (as in early stage prostate cancer), choosing a treatment intervention among several options, joining a therapeutic clinical trial, or making end-of-life care decisions.
As before, this announcement seeks out research to build on knowledge needed for patients to become increasingly involved in the clinical decision-making process. At the same time, this announcement is meant to stimulate research on decision-making styles that involve not only the individual, but also other participants, such as family, non-familial caregiver networks, health care providers, clergy, or others. Outcomes, however, must be focused on the patient, or where appropriate the patient/caregiver dyad, or patient/support network nexus.
BACKGROUND
Clinical decision-making is a complex process that requires research into how decisions are made from both intrinsic (individual) and social (interactive) perspectives. Decision-making becomes even more complex when the clinical condition at issue is life-threatening. Such decision-making often occurs in the context of multiple options, including but not limited to selecting screening techniques, preventive treatments, treatments of varying risks and benefits, and the choice of inaction. The decisions that health care providers make may be different than those of the patients and family, suggesting the need for study of mutual decision-making process. Some patients at risk for or having life-threatening illness want to be actively involved in clinical decision-making, while others do not. Still other patients may seem to be passive, but are really engaged in an interactive process with family members or others (e.g. clergy). These processes are not well understood by providers, and therefore require additional research.
One factor that may have an impact upon clinical decisions is the ability of the patient to manage uncertainty. Evidence shows that some cancer patients who have received psychoeducational interventions to manage uncertainty patients are better able to make treatment choices than those who do not receive such training (Germino et al., 1998, Mishel et al. 2002, Mishel et al. 2003). Sometimes prevention or treatment intervention activities can lead to further uncertainty. For example, knowledge of a genetic predisposition to disease may allow for preventive measures, or for early intervention. In some instances, though, it may simply mean knowledge of a possible or likely threat to life that has no effective treatment as yet.
One of the many important decisions that a patient at risk for or having a life-threatening illness may make is whether or not to join a clinical trial. Yet, many patients do not understand what is involved in a clinical trial. Some might avoid participation because they believe that they may be offered a dangerous experimental drug vs. no treatment, rather than understanding the requirement that a large-scale trial of efficacy tests the experimental treatment against a standard treatment. Others have an inflated sense of optimism, not understanding that a Phase 1 trial may offer no survival benefit to the cohort in which it is tested (Sankar 2004). Some research demonstrates that when analyzing the situation presented by the opportunity to enroll in a clinical trial, potential subjects consider a variety of contingencies (Mueller 2004). Understanding these contingencies may provide an entry into developing better modes of communication or other strategies to improve the decision-making process in life-threatening illness.
Some clinical trials are meant to test prevention interventions or vaccines. Recent studies of willingness to participate in HIV vaccine prevention trials (McGrath et al. 2001, O Connell et al. 2002; Scott et al. 2001) have detected varied interest depending upon the risk status of the target population. This is an area that could benefit from research either in the US or abroad.
Substitute or proxy decision-making occurs on behalf of people who are incapable of making decisions for themselves, including children (e.g., Hinds 2004), the severely mentally ill, and other groups with cognitive deficits. Persons nearing the end of life can also lack the cognitive capacity to understand the impact of clinical decisions. Health care professionals and caregivers can differ in their decisions from each other, and perhaps from what the patient with a life-threatening illness would prefer if given the opportunity.
At other times, neither health care providers, families nor patients perceive the clinical situation as one involving clear decisions based on a desirable outcome. Some have critiqued the entire construct of choice and individual decision-making in the end-of life setting (Drought and Koenig 2002). One of the most difficult decisions to be made at the end of life is whether or not to discontinue life-sustaining treatment. Despite widespread support of advance care planning, less than twenty percent of patients complete an advance directive. However, even the presence of a living will or advance directive may not avoid painful decisional conflict. This is an area ripe for research at both patient and family levels.
Potential Research Areas:
The goal of this program announcement is to increase scientific knowledge in the area of clinical decision-making among persons faced with life-threatening illness in order to develop an evidence base to help patients, families and significant others in the decision-making process. Listed below are examples of areas of clinical decision-making research that would be responsive to this program announcement. They are not listed in any priority order and are not intended to be exhaustive or restrictive. These examples are only illustrative, and applicants are encouraged to propose other topics consistent with the goals of this program. Ultimately, this research should have an impact upon patient outcomes, and not be targeted directly or solely at health providers or the health system.
1. Mechanism(s) of Support
This funding opportunity will use the R21 award mechanism. As
an applicant, you will be solely responsible for planning, directing, and
executing the proposed project.
This funding opportunity uses just-in-time concepts. It also uses the modular
budget format described in the PHS 398 application instructions (see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/modular/modular.htm).
2. Funds Available
Applications received in response to this program announcement will compete for funds in the general funding pool of the participating NIH ICs. No specific funds have been set aside for this announcement. The number and size of the awards will depend on the number of applications received, their relative scientific merit, and the general availability of funds for investigator-initiated research at the participating ICs.
For the R21 award mechanism the applicant may request a project period of up to 2 years with a combined budget for direct costs of up to $275,000 for the 2-year period. For example, the applicant may request $100,000 in the first year and $175,000 in the second year. The request should be tailored to the needs of the project. Normally, no more than $200,000 may be requested in any single year. (See also http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/r21.htm).
Because the nature and scope of the proposed research will vary from application to application, it is anticipated that the size and duration of each award will also vary. Although the financial plans of the IC(s) provide support for this program, awards pursuant to this funding opportunity are contingent upon the availability of funds and the receipt of a sufficient number of meritorious applications.
Facilities and administrative costs requested by consortium participants are not included in the direct cost limitation, see NOT-OD-05-004.
Section III. Eligibility Information1. Eligible Applicants
1.A. Eligible Institutions
You may submit (an)
application(s) if your organization has any of the following characteristics:
1.B. Eligible Individuals
Any individual with the skills, knowledge, and resources necessary to carry out the proposed research is invited to work with their institution to develop an application for support. Individuals from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups as well as individuals with disabilities are always encouraged to apply for NIH programs.
2. Cost Sharing or Matching
Not required
3. Other-Special Eligibility Criteria
There is no limit to the number
of applications an applicant may submit under this announcement.
1. Address to Request Application Information
The PHS 398 application
instructions are available at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/phs398.html in an interactive format. Applicants must use the currently approved version of
the PHS 398. For further assistance contact GrantsInfo, Telephone (301)
710-0267, Email: [email protected].
Telecommunications for
the hearing impaired: TTY 301-451-5936.
2. Content and Form of Application Submission
Applications must be
prepared using the most current PHS 398 research grant application instructions
and forms. Applications must have a D&B Data Universal Numbering System
(DUNS) number as the universal identifier when applying for Federal grants or
cooperative agreements. The D&B number can be obtained by calling (866)
705-5711 or through the web site at http://www.dnb.com/us/.
The D&B number should be entered on line 11 of the face page of the PHS 398
form. The title and number of this funding opportunity must be typed on line
2 of the face page of the application form and the YES box must be checked.
All application instructions outlined in the PHS 398
application kit are to be followed, with the following requirements for R21
applications (see also http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/r21.htm):
1. R21 applications will use the "MODULAR GRANT" and "JUST-IN-TIME" concepts, with direct costs requested in $25,000 modules, up to the total direct costs limit of $275,000 over the 2 years of the R21. No more than $200,000 in direct costs will be allowed in any single year.
2. Although preliminary data are not required for an R21 application, they may be included.
3. Sections a-d of the Research Plan of the R21 application may not exceed 15 pages, including tables and figures.
4. R21 appendix materials should be limited, as is consistent with the exploratory nature of the R21 mechanism, and should not be used to circumvent the page limit for the research plan. Copies of appendix materials will only be provided to the primary reviewers of the application and will not be reproduced for wider distribution. The following materials may be included in the appendix:
Foreign Organizations
Several special provisions apply to applications
submitted by foreign organizations:
3.A. Submission, Review and Anticipated Start Dates
Letter of
Intent Date: N/A
Application Submission
Date(s): http://grants.nih.gov/grants/dates.htm
Peer Review Date: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/submissionschedule.htm
Council
Review Date: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/submissionschedule.htm
Earliest Anticipated Start Date: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/submissionschedule.htm
3.A.1. Letter of Intent
Not
applicable.
3.B. Sending an
Application to the NIH
Applications must be
prepared using the research grant application forms found in the PHS 398
instructions for preparing a research grant application. Submit a signed,
typewritten original of the application, including the checklist, and five
signed photocopies in one package to:
Center for Scientific
Review
National Institutes of Health
6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 1040, MSC 7710
Bethesda, MD 20892-7710 (U.S. Postal Service Express
or regular mail)
Bethesda, MD 20817 (for express/courier service; non-USPS
service)
Personal deliveries of
applications are no longer permitted (see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-03-040.html).
3.C.
Application Processing
Applications must be submitted on or before the
application receipt/submission dates described above (Section IV.3.A.) and at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/dates.htm.
Upon receipt
applications will be evaluated for completeness by CSR. Incomplete applications
will not be reviewed.
The NIH will not accept
any application in response to this funding opportunity that is essentially the
same as one currently pending initial merit review unless the applicant
withdraws the pending application. The NIH will not accept any application that
is essentially the same as one already reviewed. This does not preclude the
submission of a substantial revision of an application already reviewed, but
such application must include an Introduction addressing the previous critique.
Although there is no
immediate acknowledgement of the receipt of an application, applicants are
generally notified of the review and funding assignment within eight (8) weeks.
4. Intergovernmental Review
This
initiative is not subject to intergovernmental
review.
5. Funding Restrictions
All NIH awards are
subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations
described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement. The Grants Policy Statement can
be found at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/policy.htm.
Pre-Award
Costs are allowable. A grantee may, at its own risk and without NIH prior
approval, incur obligations and expenditures to cover costs up to 90 days
before the beginning date of the initial budget period of a new or competing
continuation award if such costs: are necessary to conduct the project, and
would be allowable under the grant, if awarded, without NIH prior approval. If
specific expenditures would otherwise require prior approval, the grantee must
obtain NIH approval before incurring the cost. NIH prior approval is required
for any costs to be incurred more than 90 days before the beginning date of the
initial budget period of a new or competing continuation award.
The incurrence of pre-award costs in anticipation of a
competing or non-competing award imposes no obligation on NIH either to make
the award or to increase the amount of the approved budget if an award is made
for less than the amount anticipated and is inadequate to cover the pre-award
costs incurred. NIH expects the grantee to be fully aware that pre-award costs
result in borrowing against future support and that such borrowing must not
impair the grantee's ability to accomplish the project objectives in the
approved time frame or in any way adversely affect the conduct of the project.
See NIH Grants Policy Statement http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/NIHGPS_Part6.htm.
6. Other Submission Requirements
Specific
Instructions for Modular Grant applications.
Applications requesting up to $250,000 per year in direct costs must be submitted in a modular budget format. The modular budget format simplifies the preparation of the budget in these applications by limiting the level of budgetary detail. Applicants request direct costs in $25,000 modules. Section C of the research grant application instructions for the PHS 398 at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/phs398.html includes step-by-step guidance for preparing modular budgets. Applicants must use the currently approved version of the PHS 398. Additional information on modular budgets is available at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/modular/modular.htm.
Plan for Sharing
Research Data
The precise content of
the data-sharing plan will vary, depending on the data being collected and how
the investigator is planning to share the data. Applicants who are planning to
share data may wish to describe briefly the expected schedule for data sharing,
the format of the final dataset, the documentation to be provided, whether or
not any analytic tools also will be provided, whether or not a data-sharing
agreement will be required and, if so, a brief description of such an agreement
(including the criteria for deciding who can receive the data and whether or
not any conditions will be placed on their use), and the mode of data sharing
(e.g., under their own auspices by mailing a disk or posting data on their
institutional or personal website, through a data archive or enclave).
Investigators choosing to share under their own auspices may wish to enter into
a data-sharing agreement. References to data sharing may also be appropriate in
other sections of the application.
The reasonableness of the data sharing plan or the
rationale for not sharing research data may be assessed by the reviewers.
However, reviewers will not factor the proposed data sharing plan into the
determination of scientific merit or the priority score.
Sharing Research Resources
NIH policy requires that
grant awardee recipients make unique research resources readily available for
research purposes to qualified individuals within the scientific community
after publication (NIH Grants Policy Statement http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/index.htm and http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/NIHGPS_Part7.htm#_Toc54600131).
Investigators responding to this funding opportunity should include a plan for
sharing research resources addressing how unique research resources will be
shared or explain why sharing is not possible.
The adequacy of the resources sharing plan and any
related data sharing plans will be considered by Program staff of the funding
organization when making recommendations about funding applications. The
effectiveness of the resource sharing will be evaluated as part of the
administrative review of each non-competing Grant Progress Report (PHS 2590, http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/2590/2590.htm).
See Section VI.3. Reporting.
1. Criteria
Only the review criteria
described below will be considered in the review process.
2. Review and Selection Process
Applications submitted
for this funding opportunity will be assigned to the ICs on the basis of
established PHS referral guidelines.
Appropriate scientific review groups convened in
accordance with the standard NIH peer review procedures (http://www.csr.nih.gov/refrev.htm)
will evaluate applications for scientific and technical merit.
As part of the initial
merit review, all applications will:
The following will be considered in making funding decisions:
The
goals of NIH supported research are to advance our understanding of biological
systems, to improve the control of disease, and to enhance health. In their
written critiques, reviewers will be asked to comment on each of the following
criteria in order to judge the likelihood that the proposed research will have
a substantial impact on the pursuit of these goals. Each of these criteria will
be addressed and considered in assigning the overall score, weighting them as
appropriate for each application. Note that an application does not need to be
strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact
and thus deserve a high priority score. For example, an investigator may
propose to carry out important work that by its nature is not innovative but is
essential to move a field forward.
Significance: Does this study address an
important problem? If the aims of the application are achieved, how will
scientific knowledge or clinical practice be advanced? What will be the effect
of these studies on the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services,
or preventative interventions that drive this field?
Approach: Are the conceptual or clinical framework, design, methods, and analyses adequately developed, well integrated, well reasoned, and appropriate to the aims of the project? Does the applicant acknowledge potential problem areas and consider alternative tactics?
Innovation: Is the 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, methodologies, tools, or
technologies for this area?
Investigators: Are the investigators appropriately
trained and well suited to carry out this work? Is the work proposed
appropriate to the experience level of the principal investigator and other
researchers? Does the investigative team bring complementary and integrated
expertise to the project (if applicable)?
Environment: Does the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Do the proposed studies benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, or subject populations, or employ useful collaborative arrangements? Is there evidence of institutional support?
2.A. Additional Review
Criteria:
In addition to the above
criteria, the following items will continue to be considered in the
determination of scientific merit and the priority score:
Protection
of Human Subjects from Research Risk: The involvement of human subjects and protections from
research risk relating to their participation in the proposed research will be
assessed (see the Research Plan, Section E on Human Subjects in the PHS Form
398).
Inclusion
of Women, Minorities and Children in Research: The adequacy of plans to
include subjects from both genders, all racial and ethnic groups (and
subgroups), and children as appropriate for the scientific goals of the research
will be assessed. Plans for the recruitment and retention of subjects will also
be evaluated (see the Research Plan, Section E on Human Subjects in the PHS
Form 398).
Care and
Use of Vertebrate Animals in Research: If vertebrate animals are to
be used in the project, the five items described under Section F of the PHS
Form 398 research grant application instructions will be assessed.
Biohazards: If materials or procedures
are proposed that are potentially hazardous to research personnel and/or the environment,
determine if the proposed protection is adequate.
2.B. Additional Review
Considerations
Budget: The reasonableness of the
proposed budget and the requested period of support in relation to the proposed
research. The priority score should not be affected by the evaluation of the
budget.
2.C. Sharing Research Data
Data Sharing Plan: The reasonableness of the
data sharing plan or the rationale for not sharing research data may be
assessed by the reviewers. However, reviewers will not factor the proposed data
sharing plan into the determination of scientific merit or the priority score.
The funding organization will be responsible for monitoring the data sharing
policy. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/data_sharing.
2.D. Sharing Research
Resources
NIH policy requires that
grant awardee recipients make unique research resources readily available for
research purposes to qualified individuals within the scientific community
after publication (See the NIH Grants Policy Statement http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps/part_ii_5.htm#availofrr and http://www.ott.nih.gov/policy/rt_guide_final.html).
Investigators responding to this funding opportunity should include a sharing
research resources plan addressing how unique research resources will be shared
or explain why sharing is not possible.
Program staff will be
responsible for the administrative review of the plan for sharing research
resources.
The adequacy of the
resources sharing plan will be considered by Program staff of the funding
organization when making recommendations about funding applications. Program
staff may negotiate modifications of the data and resource sharing plans with
the awardee before recommending funding of an application. The final version of
the data and resource sharing plans negotiated by both will become a condition
of the award of the grant. The effectiveness of the resource sharing will be
evaluated as part of the administrative review of each non-competing Grant
Progress Report (PHS 2590). See Section VI.3. Reporting.
3. Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates
Not Applicable
1. Award Notices
If the application is
under consideration for funding, NIH will request "just-in-time"
information from the applicant. For details, applicants may refer to the NIH Grants Policy Statement Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart A: General (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/NIHGPS_part4.htm).
A formal notification in the form of a Notice of Award
(NoA) will be provided to the applicant organization. The NoA signed by the
grants management officer is the authorizing document. Once all administrative
and programmatic issues have been resolved, the NoA will be generated via email
notification from the awarding component to the grantee business official
(designated in item 14 on the Application Face Page). If a grantee is not email
enabled, a hard copy of the NoA will be mailed to the business official.
Selection of an application for award is not an
authorization to begin performance. Any costs incurred before receipt of the NoA
are at the recipient's risk. These costs may be reimbursed only to the extent
considered allowable pre-award costs. See Also Section
IV.5. Funding Restrictions.
2. Administrative and National
Policy Requirements
All NIH grant and
cooperative agreement awards include the NIH Grants Policy Statement as part of
the NoA. For these terms of award, see the NIH Grants Policy Statement Part II:
Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart A: General (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/NIHGPS_Part4.htm)
and Part II Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart B: Terms and
Conditions for Specific Types of Grants, Grantees, and Activities (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/NIHGPS_part9.htm).
3. Reporting
Awardees will be
required to submit the PHS Non-Competing Grant Progress Report, Form 2590
annually (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/2590/2590.htm)
and financial statements as required in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
We
encourage your inquiries concerning this funding opportunity and welcome the
opportunity to answer questions from potential applicants. Inquiries may fall
into three areas: scientific/research, peer review, and financial or grants
management issues:
1. Scientific/Research
Contacts:
Martha L.
Hare, Ph.D., R.N.
Office of Extramural Programs
National Institute of Nursing Research
6701 Democracy Blvd, Room 710, MSC 4870
Bethesda, MD 20892-4870
Telephone: (301) 451-3874
FAX: (301) 480-8260
Email: [email protected]
Wendy
Nelson, PhD
Basic
and Biobehavioral Research Branch
National
Cancer Institute
6120
Executive Blvd., Room 4064
Bethesda, MD 20892
Telephone:
(301) 435-4590
Fax:
(301) 435-7547
Email: [email protected]
2. Peer
Review Contacts
Not
Applicable
3.
Financial or Grants Management Contacts
Mr. Brian
Albertini
Office of Grants and Contracts Management
National Institute of Nursing Research
6701 Democracy Blvd, Room 710, MSC 4870
Bethesda, MD 20892-4870
Telephone: (301) 594-6869
FAX:
(301) 451-5651
Email: [email protected]
Required Federal Citations
Use of Animals in
Research:
Recipients of PHS
support for activities involving live, vertebrate animals must comply with PHS
Policy on Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/references/PHSPolicyLabAnimals.pdf)
as mandated by the Health Research Extension Act of 1985 (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/references/hrea1985.htm),
and the USDA Animal Welfare Regulations (http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/legislat/usdaleg1.htm)
as applicable.
Human Subjects
Protection:
Federal regulations
(45CFR46) require that applications and proposals involving human subjects must
be evaluated with reference to the risks to the subjects, the adequacy of
protection against these risks, the potential benefits of the research to the
subjects and others, and the importance of the knowledge gained or to be gained
(http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.htm).
Data and Safety
Monitoring Plan:
Data and safety
monitoring is required for all types of clinical trials, including physiologic
toxicity and dose-finding studies (phase I); efficacy studies (Phase II);
efficacy, effectiveness and comparative trials (Phase III). Monitoring should
be commensurate with risk. The establishment of data and safety monitoring
boards (DSMBs) is required for multi-site clinical trials involving
interventions that entail potential risks to the participants (NIH Policy for
Data and Safety Monitoring, NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts, http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not98-084.html).
Access to Research
Data through the Freedom of Information Act:
The Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) Circular A-110 has been revised to provide access to research
data through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) under some circumstances.
Data that are (1) first produced in a project that is supported in whole or in
part with Federal funds and (2) cited publicly and officially by a Federal
agency in support of an action that has the force and effect of law (i.e., a
regulation) may be accessed through FOIA. It is important for applicants to
understand the basic scope of this amendment. NIH has provided guidance at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/a110/a110_guidance_dec1999.htm.
Applicants may wish to place data collected under this funding opportunity in a
public archive, which can provide protections for the data and manage the
distribution for an indefinite period of time. If so, the application should
include a description of the archiving plan in the study design and include
information about this in the budget justification section of the application.
In addition, applicants should think about how to structure informed consent
statements and other human subjects procedures given the potential for wider
use of data collected under this award.
Sharing of Model
Organisms:
NIH is committed to
support efforts that encourage sharing of important research resources
including the sharing of model organisms for biomedical research (see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/model_organism/index.htm).
At the same time the NIH recognizes the rights of grantees and contractors to
elect and retain title to subject inventions developed with Federal funding
pursuant to the Bayh Dole Act (see the NIH Grants Policy Statement http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/nihgps_2003/index.htm).
All investigators submitting an NIH application or contract proposal, beginning
with the October 1, 2004 receipt date, are expected to include in the
application/proposal a description of a specific plan for sharing and
distributing unique model organism research resources generated using NIH
funding or state why such sharing is restricted or not possible. This will
permit other researchers to benefit from the resources developed with public
funding. The inclusion of a model organism sharing plan is not subject to a
cost threshold in any year and is expected to be included in all applications
where the development of model organisms is anticipated.
Inclusion of Women
And Minorities in Clinical Research:
It is the policy of the
NIH that women and members of minority groups and their sub-populations must be
included in all NIH-supported clinical research projects unless a clear and
compelling justification is provided indicating that inclusion is inappropriate
with respect to the health of the subjects or the purpose of the research. This
policy results from the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 (Section 492B of Public
Law 103-43). All investigators proposing clinical research should read the
"NIH Guidelines for Inclusion of Women and Minorities as Subjects in
Clinical Research (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-02-001.html);
a complete copy of the updated Guidelines is available at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/women_min/guidelines_amended_10_2001.htm.
The amended policy incorporates: the use of an NIH definition of clinical
research; updated racial and ethnic categories in compliance with the new OMB
standards; clarification of language governing NIH-defined Phase III clinical
trials consistent with the new PHS Form 398; and updated roles and
responsibilities of NIH staff and the extramural community. The policy
continues to require for all NIH-defined Phase III clinical trials that: a) all
applications or proposals and/or protocols must provide a description of plans
to conduct analyses, as appropriate, to address differences by sex/gender and/or
racial/ethnic groups, including subgroups if applicable; and b) investigators
must report annual accrual and progress in conducting analyses, as appropriate,
by sex/gender and/or racial/ethnic group differences.
Inclusion of Children
as Participants in Clinical Research:
The NIH maintains a
policy that children (i.e., individuals under the age of 21) must be included
in all clinical research, conducted or supported by the NIH, unless there are
scientific and ethical reasons not to include them.
All investigators proposing research involving human
subjects should read the "NIH Policy and Guidelines" on the inclusion
of children as participants in research involving human subjects (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/children/children.htm).
Required Education on
the Protection of Human Subject Participants:
NIH policy requires
education on the protection of human subject participants for all investigators
submitting NIH applications for research involving human subjects and
individuals designated as key personnel. The policy is available at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-00-039.html.
Human Embryonic Stem
Cells (hESC):
Criteria for federal
funding of research on hESCs can be found at http://stemcells.nih.gov/index.asp and at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-02-005.html.
Only research using hESC lines that are registered in the NIH Human Embryonic
Stem Cell Registry will be eligible for Federal funding (http://escr.nih.gov). It is the responsibility
of the applicant to provide in the project description and elsewhere in the
application as appropriate, the official NIH identifier(s) for the hESC
line(s)to be used in the proposed research. Applications that do not provide
this information will be returned without review.
NIH Public Access
Policy:
NIH-funded investigators
are requested to submit to the NIH manuscript submission (NIHMS) system (http://www.nihms.nih.gov) at PubMed Central
(PMC) an electronic version of the author's final manuscript upon acceptance
for publication, resulting from research supported in whole or in part with
direct costs from NIH. The author's final manuscript is defined as the final
version accepted for journal publication, and includes all modifications from
the publishing peer review process.
NIH is requesting that
authors submit manuscripts resulting from 1) currently funded NIH research
projects or 2) previously supported NIH research projects if they are accepted
for publication on or after May 2, 2005. The NIH Public Access Policy applies
to all research grant and career development award mechanisms, cooperative
agreements, contracts, Institutional and Individual Ruth L. Kirschstein
National Research Service Awards, as well as NIH intramural research studies.
The Policy applies to peer-reviewed, original research publications that have
been supported in whole or in part with direct costs from NIH, but it does not apply
to book chapters, editorials, reviews, or conference proceedings. Publications
resulting from non-NIH-supported research projects should not be submitted.
For more information
about the Policy or the submission process please visit the NIH Public Access
Policy Web site at http://publicaccess.nih.gov/ and
view the Policy or other Resources and Tools including the Authors' Manual (http://publicaccess.nih.gov/publicaccess_manual.htm).
Standards
for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information:
The Department of Health
and Human Services (DHHS) issued final modification to the "Standards for Privacy
of Individually Identifiable Health Information", the "Privacy
Rule", on August 14, 2002 . The Privacy Rule is a federal regulation under
the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996 that
governs the protection of individually identifiable health information, and is
administered and enforced by the DHHS Office for Civil Rights (OCR).
Decisions about applicability and implementation of
the Privacy Rule reside with the researcher and his/her institution. The OCR
website (http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/)
provides information on the Privacy Rule, including a complete Regulation Text
and a set of decision tools on "Am I a covered entity?" Information
on the impact of the HIPAA Privacy Rule on NIH processes involving the review,
funding, and progress monitoring of grants, cooperative agreements, and
research contracts can be found at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-03-025.html.
URLs in NIH Grant
Applications or Appendices:
All applications and
proposals for NIH funding must be self-contained within specified page
limitations. Unless otherwise specified in an NIH solicitation, Internet addresses
(URLs) should not be used to provide information necessary to the review
because reviewers are under no obligation to view the Internet sites.
Furthermore, we caution reviewers that their anonymity may be compromised when
they directly access an Internet site.
Healthy People 2010:
The Public Health
Service (PHS) is committed to achieving the health promotion and disease
prevention objectives of "Healthy People 2010," a PHS-led national
activity for setting priority areas. This PA is related to one or more of the
priority areas. Potential applicants may obtain a copy of "Healthy People
2010" at http://www.health.gov/healthypeople.
Authority and
Regulations:
The
NIH Grants Policy Statement can be found at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/policy.htm.
The PHS strongly
encourages all grant recipients to provide a smoke-free workplace and
discourage the use of all tobacco products. In addition, Public Law 103-227,
the Pro-Children Act of 1994, prohibits smoking in certain facilities (or in
some cases, any portion of a facility) in which regular or routine education,
library, day care, health care, or early childhood development services are
provided to children. This is consistent with the PHS mission to protect and
advance the physical and mental health of the American people.
Loan Repayment
Programs:
NIH encourages
applications for educational loan repayment from qualified health professionals
who have made a commitment to pursue a research career involving clinical,
pediatric, contraception, infertility, and health disparities related areas.
The LRP is an important component of NIH's efforts to recruit and retain the
next generation of researchers by providing the means for developing a research
career unfettered by the burden of student loan debt. Note that an NIH grant is
not required for eligibility and concurrent career award and LRP applications
are encouraged. The periods of career award and LRP award may overlap providing
the LRP recipient with the required commitment of time and effort, as LRP
awardees must commit at least 50% of their time (at least 20 hours per week
based on a 40 hour week) for two years to the research. For further
information, please see: http://www.lrp.nih.gov.
Weekly TOC for this Announcement
NIH Funding Opportunities and Notices
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) |
|
|||
|
NIH... Turning Discovery Into Health® |
||||||