National Institutes of Health (NIH)
National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH)
R01 Research Project Grant
See Notices of Special Interest associated with this funding opportunity
See Section III. 3. Additional Information on Eligibility.
This Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) encourages applications for investigator-initiated fully remotely delivered and conducted clinical trials to assess the efficacy or effectiveness of complementary and integrative health interventions in NCCIH- designated areas of high research priority. Applications submitted under this NOFO are expected to propose a remotely delivered and conducted fully powered clinical trial with no in-person contact between research staff and study participants and may utilize mHealth tools or technologies. Applicants must provide justification for the remotely delivered approach and provide preliminary data on the feasibility and safety of the approach, along with evidence that the intervention has promise of clinical benefit.
Applicants are encouraged to contact the appropriate NCCIH Scientific/Research contact for the area of science for which they are planning to develop an application prior to submitting to this NOFO.
This NOFO requires a Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives (PEDP), which will be assessed as part of the scientific and technical peer review evaluation. Applications that fail to include a PEDP will be considered incomplete and will be withdrawn.
Applicants are strongly encouraged to read the NOFO instructions carefully and view the available PEDP guidance material.
30 days prior to application due date.
Application Due Dates | Review and Award Cycles | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
New | Renewal / Resubmission / Revision (as allowed) | AIDS - New/Renewal/Resubmission/Revision, as allowed | Scientific Merit Review | Advisory Council Review | Earliest Start Date |
February 20, 2024 | February 20, 2024 | March 11, 2024 | July 2024 | October 2024 | December 2024 |
June 20, 2024 | June 20, 2024 | July 15, 2024 | November 2024 | January 2025 | April 2025 |
October 21, 2024 | October 21, 2024 | November 13, 2024 | March 2025 | May 2025 | July 2025 |
February 20, 2025 | February 20, 2025 | March 10, 2025 | July 2025 | October 2025 | December 2025 |
June 20, 2025 | June 20, 2025 | July 15, 2025 | November 2025 | January 2026 | April 2026 |
October 20, 2025 | October 20, 2025 | November 18, 2025 | March 2026 | May 2026 | July 2026 |
February 20, 2026 | February 20, 2026 | March 17, 2026 | July 2026 | October 2026 | December 2026 |
June 22, 2026 | June 22, 2026 | July 14, 2026 | November 2026 | January 2027 | April 2027 |
October 20, 2026 | October 20, 2026 | November 17, 2026 | March 2027 | May 2027 | July 2027 |
All applications are due by 5:00 PM local time of applicant organization.
Applicants are encouraged to apply early to allow adequate time to make any corrections to errors found in the application during the submission process by the due date.
Not Applicable
It is critical that applicants follow the instructions in the Research (R) Instructions in the How to Apply - Application Guide, except where instructed to do otherwise (in this NOFO or in a Notice from NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts).
Conformance to all requirements (both in the Application Guide and the NOFO) is required and strictly enforced. Applicants must read and follow all application instructions in the Application Guide as well as any program-specific instructions noted in Section IV. When the program-specific instructions deviate from those in the Application Guide, follow the program-specific instructions.
Applications that do not comply with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review.
There are several options available to submit your application through Grants.gov to NIH and Department of Health and Human Services partners. You must use one of these submission options to access the application forms for this opportunity.
Background:
The National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) is committed to rigorous investigation of promising complementary and integrative health interventions with physical and/or psychological inputs (often called mind and body approaches), and nutritional approaches, including natural products. For the purposes of this notice of funding opportunity (NOFO), nutritional approaches include botanicals, probiotics, and products marketed as dietary supplements; mind and body approaches include meditation approaches (e.g., mindfulness), hypnosis or guided imagery, meditative movement approaches (e.g., yoga, tai chi, qi gong), body-based approaches (e.g., progressive muscle relaxation, acupressure), music or art-based therapy; or a combination of these approaches (e.g., mindfulness-based stress reduction). These approaches are often widely used by the public, and they are increasingly recognized to provide a complementary approach to symptom management (e.g., chronic pain, mild depression, anxiety). These approaches can be used by individuals to help prevent, treat, or self-manage various conditions, and they can be complementary to conventional health care.
Overview of NCCIH Mind and Body Clinical Trials Research Funding Opportunities:
NCCIH has designed a framework for research to describe the broad spectrum of complementary and integrative health research it supports (https://www.nccih.nih.gov/grants/nccih-research-framework). NCCIH supports investigators working on the continuum of the research framework, from basic science and feasibility research through high-impact clinical trials as well as research on dissemination and implementation (https://www.nccih.nih.gov/grants/funding/clinicaltrials). We encourage investigators to examine the full suite of notices of funding opportunities (NOFOs) to determine which one best aligns with the proposed stage of intervention development and testing.
NCCIH has an oversight process to provide stewardship and maintain excellence, integrity, and rigor in our supported clinical studies (https://www.nccih.nih.gov/grants/toolbox). Investigators are encouraged to review the NCCIH Clinical Terms of Award for Human Subjects Research (https://www.nccih.nih.gov/research/nccih-clinical-terms-of-award-for-human-subjects-research) to learn more about NCCIH's requirements.
Prior to submitting an application, NCCIH strongly encourages consultation with the NCCIH Scientific/Research contacts relevant to the area of science for which they are planning to develop an application. Early contact provides an opportunity for NCCIH staff to discuss the scope and goals, and to provide information and guidance.
Overview of Remotely Delivered Interventions:
Increasingly, researchers are incorporating mobile health (mHealth) technologies to remotely deliver interventions, including complementary and integrative health interventions. These remotely delivered interventions may utilize phone delivery, app-based approaches, video delivery, web-based platforms, wearable devices, and/or new technologies. The rapid expansion of mHealth technologies makes it possible to digitally transmit participant data from remote areas to centrally based researchers and interventionists, deliver feedback, and capture all interactions in a database. Additionally, these mHealth technologies have the potential to improve and increase access to complementary and integrative health approaches to address existing health disparities and promote health equity.
Many commercially available mHealth complementary and integrative health approaches already exist. However, rigorously designed research is needed to test the usefulness and safety of remotely delivered complementary and integrative interventions for given conditions/disorders and/or for health promotion. For clinical trials to address this need, they must be well-designed and appropriately powered to test clinically relevant hypotheses. To that end, before proposing an efficacy or effectiveness clinical trial, it is necessary to conduct early-phase clinical trials to collect the multiple types of preliminary feasibility data needed to rigorously design a definitive clinical trial. Applications submitted under this NOFO would be appropriate when there is a clear and compelling rationale, a rigorous empirical basis, strong feasibility and safety data, and scientific premise to conduct a fully powered remotely delivered efficacy, effectiveness, or pragmatic clinical trial.
Research Objectives of Remotely Delivered mHealth Complementary and Integrative Health Interventions (R01):
This NOFO supports remotely delivered clinical trials (e.g., efficacy, effectiveness or pragmatic trials) to study the effects of complementary and integrative health interventions in NCCIH-designated areas of high research priority. Proposed clinical trials may utilize a design anywhere along the continuum between explanatory and pragmatic. For this NOFO, pragmatic trials are considered those that test an intervention under the usual conditions in which it will be applied in the ‘real world' while explanatory trials do so under more idealized circumstances. For example, pragmatic trials may employ interventions that would not require research staff to interact directly with participants, such as clinician decision support tools embedded in the electronic health record, system changes within the health care system, or when complementary interventions are implemented and delivered within the health care setting. The trial design should be appropriate for the study question.
Study Design Considerations:
For this NOFO, the proposed trial must study an intervention that can be delivered in a fully remote manner, and all data collected remotely (i.e., no in-person contact between research staff and study participants). The application should propose to recruit a representative sample for the population and condition of interest, and to conduct all study activities, including recruitment, intervention delivery, and data collection, remotely. The proposed remotely delivered clinical trial should utilize methods that allow for the participation of geographically diverse participants (e.g., not limited to a single city or location). Applications to this NOFO should be based on a strong rationale for the need of a fully remotely delivered design as opposed to a multi-site in-person clinical trial. Trials supported under this NOFO are expected to contribute to research topics relevant to the mission of NCCIH and be designed with a minimum of 90-percent power to test the primary hypothesis. The choice of study design (e.g., standard efficacy, effectiveness, and/or pragmatic randomized control trial) should be justified scientifically. In all cases, there should be strong rationale for the proposed comparator condition(s) (e.g., time and attention control, usual care, standard of care, sham condition, and/or active comparator(s)) based on the research question you plan to address. Due to lack of rigor and potential expectancy effects, NCCIH will not support studies proposing a waitlist comparator condition.
Group-Based Interventions:
In some cases, investigators who wish to evaluate the effect of an intervention on a health-related biomedical or behavioral outcome may propose a study in which (1) groups or clusters are assigned to study arms and individual observations are analyzed to evaluate the effect of the intervention, or (2) participants are assigned individually to study arms but receive at least some of their intervention in a real or virtual group or through a shared facilitator. Investigators should provide a strong rationale for the choice among trial design options. The selection of study design should be guided by decisions about how best to deliver the intervention and by concerns regarding contamination and logistics. Applicants should show that their methods are appropriate given their plans for assignment of participants and delivery of interventions. Additional information is available at https://researchmethodsresources.nih.gov/.
In traditional randomized clinical trials (RCTs), individual participants are randomized to receive an intervention that is delivered individually (e.g., a specific natural product, individually delivered hypnosis, massage). When an intervention can be delivered in a group, there are several methods of randomizing participants. The first option is an individually randomized group treatment trial (IRGT, where individual participants are randomized to one of the interventions, but the intervention is delivered in small groups (e.g., Mindfulness based Stress Reduction or tai chi classes). The second option is a group-randomized trial (GRT), also called a cluster randomized trial (cRCT), where groups of participants are randomized to study conditions, often defined by their workplace, school, primary care provider, or community. In cRCTs, the intervention provided to the randomized groups can be delivered individually, in small groups, or the entire randomized group.
The study biostatistician will need to consider how the chosen study design led to the proposed data analyses and sample size estimations. The justification should include discussion of the positive intraclass correlation expected in data obtained from participants in the same groups or clusters (IRGT, GRT, or cRCT). In general, these types of studies need to consider how the data analyses and sample size addressed the extra variation in the data and degrees of freedom available to estimate that extra variation. Failure to account for this variable in sample size calculations can result in underpowered studies.
In addition to scientific relevance and excellence, these clinical trials are expected to be conducted with a high degree of efficiency, with streamlined administrative procedures wherever possible. These trials are expected to achieve the Phase III trial requirements of NIH (see https://grants.nih.gov/policy/clinical-trials/glossary-ct.htm and https://grants.nih.gov/policy/inclusion/women-and-minorities.htm).
For applications that propose the use of a dietary supplement, drug, or device as part of the intervention, the applicants must contact the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prior to applying to determine whether an Investigational New Drug (IND) or an Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) application is necessary for the proposed clinical research. This NOFO will not support trials of natural products that are regulated by the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) as a controlled substance.
For applications that propose the use of an app or clinical decision support software, applicants must consult with their institutional review board (IRB) to determine whether the approach may qualify as a medical device. If so, applicants must contact the FDA prior to applying to determine whether an IDE application is necessary for the proposed clinical research (https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/software-medical-device-samd/your-clinical-decision-support-software-it-medical-device).
Mechanistic Measures
There are often questions about whether efficacy, effectiveness, or pragmatic trials should include any mechanistic aims to evaluate how interventions work. Mechanistic outcomes could be included in trials submitted to this NOFO, if a strong rationale is provided such as the need to assess whether the effect of the intervention is mediated via the measured mechanism. The inclusion of mechanistic outcomes should not introduce significant burden for participants or utilize a significant portion of the budget. NCCIH has other funding mechanisms to support basic, mechanistic and translational research (NOT-AT-21-006).
Preliminary Data Requirement
Preliminary Data About the Intervention:
This NOFO is appropriate when there is a clear and compelling rationale, a rigorous empirical basis, and a scientific premise to conduct a remotely delivered efficacy, effectiveness, or pragmatic clinical trial. The following preliminary data from previous human studies (from published literature or the teams previous research) on a similar intervention and in a similar patient population and age group as proposed in the current application are required:
Preliminary Data about the Team:
In addition, all of the following preliminary data demonstrating the teams collective experience conducting clinical trials are required:
Natural Products Preliminary Data:
In addition, for applications utilizing a natural product, the following preliminary data from human studies (published and citable data from the peer-reviewed literature) on the same product and specific formulation as proposed in the current application are required:
For the purposes of this NOFO, it is preferred that there be an established, measurable, reproducible, well-characterized target engagement measure for a given natural product in human subjects. However, NCCIH acknowledges that for some conditions, it may be impossible or impractical to directly measure the target engagement on a natural product. In these circumstances the study should be justified by: (1) a clear rationale for why studying target engagement in human participants is impossible or impractical; (2) potentially proposing other objective, reproducible measures, that may be proxy to, or indicative of target engagement of the natural product; and (3) strong compelling preliminary data to warrant further study of a natural product in clinical studies. In other cases, a fundamental understanding of a given natural products biologic target, or mechanism of action has been clearly established (e.g., compounds affinity for a specific receptor is well established). In these situations, investigators are also encouraged to contact NCCIH Scientific/Research staff to determine whether this NOFO is the appropriate funding opportunity for the proposed clinical trial.
Timeline
Investigators should design a realistic timeline for the startup and completion of the clinical trial and provide contingency plans to proactively confront potential delays or disturbances to the planned trial.
NCCIH Priorities for Clinical Trials of Mind and Body Interventions
NCCIH has identified targeted areas of investigation to align with the NCCIH Strategic Plan (https://www.nccih.nih.gov/about/strategic-plans-and-reports). For this funding opportunity, applications will be considered high programmatic priority if they address one of following criteria related to the intervention of study:
NCCIH Priorities for Clinical Trials of Natural Products
NCCIH has identified targeted areas of high program priority for clinical trials on natural products. Focus is on management of conditions for which natural products are used by the public and where there is evidence of postulated mechanism of action. For this NOFO, NCCIH considers the following topic areas to have high program priority:
When evidence justifies, NCCIH encourages applications to conduct studies in a way that assesses the impact of integrating interventions into relevant settings (e.g., health care systems, schools, Federally Qualified Health Centers, military or veteran health care delivery organizations, community organizations, justice systems, or homeless shelters).
All NIH-funded research must adhere to the Code of Federal Regulations, which outlines specific requirements to enhance protections for pregnant women, human fetuses, and neonates; children; and prisoners (https://grants.nih.gov/policy/humansubjects/policies-and-regulations/vulnerable-populations.htm). It is the policy of NIH that individuals of all ages, including children (i.e., individuals under the age of 18) and older adults, must be included in all human subjects research, conducted or supported by NIH, unless there are scientific or ethical reasons not to include them (https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-18-116.html).
Applications proposing research topics not identified above as high programmatic priority can be submitted but are likely to be considered of lesser or low programmatic priority, which will significantly influence programmatic relevance and reduce the likelihood of funding. Applications proposing research studies using an intervention and patient population that are the same as or very similar to those used in studies already in progress, conducted, or published by other groups are likely to be lower programmatic priority.
1NIH-designated health disparity populations include individuals from racial and ethnic minority groups (African Americans/Blacks, Hispanics/Latinos, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Other Pacific Islanders), sexual and gender minority groups, socioeconomically disadvantaged populations, and under-served rural populations.
Clinical Trials Not Responsive to this NOFO:
The following types of clinical trials are not responsive to this NOFO and applications proposing such activities will be deemed non-responsive and not reviewed:
Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives (PEDP)
This NOFO requires a Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives (PEDP) as described in NOT-MH-21-310, submitted as Other Project Information as an attachment (see Section IV).
Applicants are strongly encouraged to read the NOFO instructions carefully and view the available PEDP guidance material. The PEDP will be assessed as part of the scientific and technical peer review evaluation, as well as considered among programmatic matters with respect to funding decisions.
See Section VIII. Other Information for award authorities and regulations.
Investigators proposing NIH-defined clinical trials may refer to the Research Methods Resources website for information about developing statistical methods and study designs.
Grant: A financial assistance mechanism providing money, property, or both to an eligible entity to carry out an approved project or activity.
The OER Glossary and the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide provide details on these application types. Only those application types listed here are allowed for this NOFO.
Required: Only accepting applications that propose clinical trial(s).
The number of awards is contingent upon NIH appropriations and the submission of a sufficient number of meritorious applications.
Application budgets are not limited but need to reflect the actual needs of the proposed project.
The scope of the proposed project should determine the project period. The maximum project period is 5 years.
NIH grants policies as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement will apply to the applications submitted and awards made from this NOFO.
1. Eligible Applicants
Higher Education Institutions
The following types of Higher Education Institutions are always encouraged to apply for NIH support as Public or Private Institutions of Higher Education:
Nonprofits Other Than Institutions of Higher Education
For-Profit Organizations
Local Governments
Federal Governments
Other
Non-domestic (non-U.S.) Entities (Foreign Organizations) are not eligible to apply.
Non-domestic (non-U.S.) components of U.S. Organizations are not eligible to apply.
Foreign components, as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement, are allowed.
Applicant Organizations
Applicant organizations must complete and maintain the following registrations as described in the SF 424 (R&R) Application Guide to be eligible to apply for or receive an award. All registrations must be completed prior to the application being submitted. Registration can take 6 weeks or more, so applicants should begin the registration process as soon as possible. Failure to complete registrations in advance of a due date is not a valid reason for a late submission, please reference NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 2.3.9.2 Electronically Submitted Applications for additional information
Program Directors/Principal Investigators (PD(s)/PI(s))
All PD(s)/PI(s) must have an eRA Commons account. PD(s)/PI(s) should work with their organizational officials to either create a new account or to affiliate their existing account with the applicant organization in eRA Commons. If the PD/PI is also the organizational Signing Official, they must have two distinct eRA Commons accounts, one for each role. Obtaining an eRA Commons account can take up to 2 weeks.
Any individual(s) with the skills, knowledge, and resources necessary to carry out the proposed research as the Program Director(s)/Principal Investigator(s) (PD(s)/PI(s)) is invited to work with their organization to develop an application for support. Individuals from diverse backgrounds, including underrepresented racial and ethnic groups, individuals with disabilities, and women are always encouraged to apply for NIH support. See, Reminder: Notice of NIH's Encouragement of Applications Supporting Individuals from Underrepresented Ethnic and Racial Groups as well as Individuals with Disabilities, NOT-OD-22-019.
For institutions/organizations proposing multiple PDs/PIs, visit the Multiple Program Director/Principal Investigator Policy and submission details in the Senior/Key Person Profile (Expanded) Component of the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
2. Cost Sharing
This NOFO does not require cost sharing as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 1.2 Definition of Terms.
3. Additional Information on Eligibility
Number of Applications
Applicant organizations may submit more than one application, provided that each application is scientifically distinct.
The NIH will not accept duplicate or highly overlapping applications under review at the same time, per NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 2.3.7.4 Submission of Resubmission Application. This means that the NIH will not accept:
Applications with Foreign components are encouraged to read NCCIH International Health Research page. Foreign components can include foreign collaborators or consultants, but should not include foreign sites outside of the U.S. or Canada, according to NCCIHs policy.
1. Requesting an Application Package
The application forms package specific to this opportunity must be accessed through ASSIST, Grants.gov Workspace or an institutional system-to-system solution. Links to apply using ASSIST or Grants.gov Workspace are available in Part 1 of this NOFO. See your administrative office for instructions if you plan to use an institutional system-to-system solution.
2. Content and Form of Application Submission
It is critical that applicants follow the instructions in the Research (R) Instructions in the How to Apply - Application Guide except where instructed in this notice of funding opportunity to do otherwise. Conformance to the requirements in the Application Guide is required and strictly enforced. Applications that are out of compliance with these instructions may be delayed or not accepted for review.
Page Limitations
All page limitations described in the How to Apply – Application Guide and the Table of Page Limits must be followed.
The following section supplements the instructions found in the How to Apply – Application Guide and should be used for preparing an application to this NOFO.
SF424(R&R) Cover
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
SF424(R&R) Project/Performance Site Locations
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
SF424(R&R) Other Project Information
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
Other Attachments:
Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives
Examples of items that advance inclusivity in research and may be part of the PEDP can include, but are not limited to:
For further information on the Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives (PEDP), please see https://braininitiative.nih.gov/about/plan-enhancing-diverse-perspectives-pedp
SF424(R&R) Senior/Key Person Profile
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
The Principal Director(PD)/ Principal Investigator (PI) (or Multi-PDs/PIs) of the clinical trial must be experienced in the conduct of remotely delivered clinical trials and have expertise in the content area of the trial. We strongly encourage that all clinical trials include a biostatistician and the application should reflect their roles and responsibilities in the design and implementation of the study protocol. Applicants are encouraged to provide strong evidence of the study team's qualifications and ability to conduct the proposed research and previous investigative experience in related clinical trials.
R&R or Modular Budget
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
The budget for the first year of the grant should reflect the implementation timeline.
Include budget support for enrolling diverse and non-English speaking participants. Costs may include, but are not limited to recruitment and retention costs, translation services and/or interpreters, and costs for using validated measures in multiple languages.
If parts of the costs of the trial are to be provided by sources other than NIH, these contributions must be presented in detail in the budget justification. Include budget support for the publication and dissemination of findings.
The applicationshould include in their budget all costs associated with preparation of materials for DSMB meetings and travel for key personnel to all in person DSMB meetings. This includes the costs for preparing reports for open and closed portions of DSMB meetings. Budgets should include costs for unmasked biostatistician(s) for generating the randomization scheme and preparing unmasked DSMB reports in addition to the studys masked biostatistician who will conduct study analyses at the end of the trial and prepare open reports for the DSMB. An independent DSMB will be established to monitor data and oversee participant safety in the clinical trial. NCCIH and the Investigator team will determine if the DSMB will be appointed and established by NCCIH or by the Investigator team, in accordance with NIH and NCCIH policies. Applicants should provide areas of expertise of DSMB members, but not propose DSMB members in the application, or even inquire about the interest of possible DSMB members, because anyone so contacted would not be eligible to serve as a member of the peer reviewer committee that will evaluate the applications for scientific merit.
PEDP implementation costs
R&R Subaward Budget
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
PHS 398 Cover Page Supplement
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
PHS 398 Research Plan
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed, with the following additional instructions:
Research Strategy
The Research Strategy should be organized in a manner that will facilitate peer review. The body of the application must present an overview of the state of the science, current status and relevance of the trial, a discussion of the specific protocol, and the approach to data collection and analysis.
The following criteria must be addressed:
Significance: The significance of the proposed clinical trial and importance of the question must be clearly stated. It is particularly important that there be a discussion of how the trial will test the proposed hypotheses and why there is clinical equipoise. The application should make clear the need for and timeliness of the study, with emphasis on how the results will address an evidence gap and therefore advance our knowledge of theory and practice in this area. A discussion of the costs and benefits of the study should be included for evaluation of the trial's significance.
Innovation: Explain how the application challenges and seeks to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms. Describe plans to include mechanisms for leveraging novel collaboration and/or study oversight strategies.
Approach: The research approach section should include a description of the supporting data, clinical trial experience, the experimental approach, and a milestone plan. The application should provide justification for a remotely delivered design.
Supporting Data: The studies that led to the proposed clinical trial should be presented. Data from pilot studies conducted by the team or published in the literature that show the need for and the feasibility of the trial should also be presented. Additional supporting data from other research should be included so that the approach chosen is clearly justified and adequately framed. Applications must include the following preliminary data from human studies (preferably published in the literature) using a similar intervention in a similar patient population to the one proposed in the current study:
Preliminary Data about the Team:
In addition, all of the following preliminary data demonstrating the teams collective experience conducting clinical trials are required:
Natural Products Preliminary Data:
In addition, for applications utilizing a natural product, the following preliminary data from human studies on the same product and specific formulation as proposed in the current application are required:
NCCIH acknowledges that for some conditions, it may be impossible or impractical to directly measure the impact of a natural product on a biological signature. In these circumstances, the study should be justified by: (1) a clear rationale for why studying a biological signature in human participants is impossible or impractical; (2) potentially proposing other objective, reproducible measures, that may be proxy to, or indicative of a biological or behavioral effect for the natural product; and (3) strong compelling preliminary data to warrant further study of a natural product in clinical studies. In these situations, investigators are also encouraged to contact NCCIH Scientific/Research staff to determine whether this NOFO is the appropriate funding opportunity for the proposed clinical trial.
Conceptualization and planning must have progressed to a stage sufficient to allow for an overall assessment of the likelihood of the success of the trial.
Experimental Approach: The proposed experimental approach should include an appropriate design and the rationale for the particular design chosen (e.g., pragmatic, explanatory, cluster-randomized). The experimental approach description should include:
For applications that propose the use of an app or clinical decision support software, applicants must consult with their Institutional Review Board to determine whether the approach may qualify as a medical device. If so, or if in doubt, applicants must contact the FDA prior to applying to determine whether an IDE application is necessary for the proposed clinical research (https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/software-medical-device-samd/your-clinical-decision-support-software-it-medical-device).
Letters of Support
Letters of support from clinicians, clinical department chairs, and/or health care systems whose support is necessary to the successful conduct of the trial should be provided (if applicable). Applicants are also encouraged to include documentation of the commitment of any subcontractors and consultants. Letters of commitment must be co-signed by the business official of the collaborating center. In addition, if utilizing a natural product, a letter of support should document that sufficient supply of the natural product will be available for testing at the time of award, including expiration date; the supplier will meet CMC specifications; and the supplier will provide the data necessary for the investigator to adhere to NIH and FDA policies. Documentation should include a letter of agreement from the 3rd party supplying the natural product.
If parts of the costs of the trial are to be provided by sources other than NCCIH, provide Letter(s) of Support signed by an authorized representative.
For renewal applications, a summary of progress made during the initial funding period must be included.
Resource Sharing Plan: Individuals are required to comply with the instructions for the Resource Sharing Plans as provided in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
The following modifications also apply:
Other Plan(s): Note: Effective for due dates on or after January 25, 2023, the Data Management and Sharing Plan will be attached in the Other Plan(s) attachment in FORMS-H application forms packages.
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed, with the following additional instructions:
Appendix: Only limited Appendix materials are allowed. Follow all instructions for the Appendix as described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information
When involving human subjects research, clinical research, and/or NIH-defined clinical trials (and when applicable, clinical trials research experience) follow all instructions for the PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information form in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide, with the following additional instructions:
If you answered Yes to the question Are Human Subjects Involved? on the R&R Other Project Information form, you must include at least one human subjects study record using the Study Record: PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information form or Delayed Onset Study record.
Study Record: PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
Section 2 - Study Population Characteristics
2.4 Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Children
Describe strategies for outreach to minorities and women.
2.5 Recruitment and Retention Plan
Describe the following: 1) the planned remote recruitment methods, including use of contact lists, databases or other pre-screening resources, advertisements, outreach, media / social media and referral networks or groups; 2) if there are known participant or study-related barriers to accrual or participation (based on literature or prior experience), please list these barriers and describe plans to address them to optimize success; 3) contingency plans for participant accrual if enrollment significantly lags behind accrual benchmarks; 4) participant retention and adherence strategies; and 5) possible competition from other trials for study participants; Investigators are encouraged to review the NCCIH Study Accrual and Retention Plan (https://nccih.nih.gov/grants/policies/SARP).
Applicants must provide strong evidence of the availability of appropriate institutional resources and suitable patient populations. Documentation of the availability of eligible participants must be provided. The application must provide relevant information that addresses the feasibility of recruiting a representative sample of eligible participants nationwide utilizing remote methods.
2.7 Study Timeline
Milestone Plan: The milestone plan should describe the key milestones that need to be met throughout the lifecycle of the clinical trial to ensure its success, the processes that will be used to reach the milestones, and a timetable identifying when each of these key milestones will be met.
All applicants must use the following definition of a milestone in their application: a scheduled event in the project timeline that signifies the completion of a major project stage or activity. Milestones must be relevant, achievable, and measurable. The research plan should include anticipated challenges to meeting milestones and propose potential mitigation or corrective actions strategies. Milestones should address overall recruitment and retention goals.
Milestones of particular interest that should be described in the application may include, but are not limited to, the following:
During the award phase, achievement of each milestone will need to be communicated to the NCCIH Program Officer listed on the Notice of Award. Award continuation, even during the period recommended for support, is conditional upon satisfactory progress. If, at any time, recruitment, as defined in the NCCIH Study Accrual and Retention Plan Policy, falls significantly below projections, or core milestones mutually agreed upon by the PD/PI and NCCIH, are not met, NCCIH may consider ending support and negotiating an orderly phase-out of the award. NCCIH retains, as an option, periodic external peer review of progress. NCCIH staff will closely monitor progress at all trial stages, including milestones, accrual, and safety.
Section 3 - Protection and Monitoring Plans
3.3 Data and Safety Monitoring Plan
In addition to the NIH application requirements for data and safety monitoring for clinical trials, NCCIH requires independent monitoring for research involving human subjects. Applicants should refer to NIHs policy on data and safety monitoring (http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-00-038.html), as well as the NCCIH Guidelines for Data and Safety Monitoring (http://nccih.nih.gov/grants/policies/data-safety-monitoring). An independent DSMB will be established to monitor data and oversee participant safety in the clinical trial. NCCIH will determine if the DSMB will be appointed and established by NCCIH or by the Investigator team, in accordance with NIH and NCCIH policies. The initial DSMB or Protocol Review Committee meeting will review the awardees protocol and potentially recommend modifications. The DSMB should approve the protocol prior to submitting it to the single IRB. Subsequently, the DSMB will monitor and review study recruitment and retention as well as other study information including adverse events, unanticipated problems, demographic trends, data quality, outcome data, and overall awardee performance. The DSMB has the responsibility to review interim data and final data, and recommend whether the protocol should be modified, and, at each meeting, whether the study should be continued or should be terminated early. Thus, the DSMBs ethical responsibilities to the participants as well as to the integrity of the study are of paramount importance to NCCIH. The DSMB will meet in person or by phone at least once a year, generating a recommendation for study continuance, alteration or stopping. Applicants should not propose DSMB members in the application, or even inquire about the interest of possible DSMB members, because anyone so contacted would not be eligible to serve as a member of the peer reviewer committee that will evaluate the applications for scientific merit.
Section 4 - Protocol Synopsis
4.3 Statistical Design and Power
Applicants must describe the Statistical Analysis Plan (SAP). If the SAP is not a part of the DCC application, both the CCC and the DCC applications will be deemed incomplete and will not proceed to peer review. The SAP should correspond to major aims of the study, and include plans for randomization, final statistical analyses; and methods for handling missing data.The power calculations must be linked to the study endpoints and to the hypothesis(es) being tested. The power calculation description should be detailed enough to allow replication of the analysis by an independent statistician. NCCIH requires a minimum of 90% power for the primary outcome. Multiplicity adjustment should be made if there are multiple primary outcomes. The effect size used in power calculations should be clinically meaningful.
Plans for interim analyses should be described in detail and include plans to assess futility based on the inability of successfully completing the trial, due to poor enrollment or poor adherence to the intervention; conditions for early stopping due to such futility or early achievement of primary clinical outcomes; plans to assess safety; and while not common, any plans to reassess or recalculate power, or modify sample size (e.g., confirm expected event rate during the trial or confirm expected Intra-class Correlation (ICC) for cluster-randomized trials). If the application is not proposing interim analyses, the application should justify why they are not planned. For phase III clinical trials, the SAP must address plans for the analysis of intervention effect differences required by the policy unless there is clear evidence that such differences are unlikely to be seen (https://grants.nih.gov/policy/inclusion/women-and-minorities.htm). Studies with adaptive designs should include a pre-specified adaptation plan that specifies design type, adaptable element(s), clear decision rules and pre-specified statistical analysis boundaries.
4.5. Will the study use an FDA-Regulated intervention?
If the proposed clinical trial will use a device, natural product (such as botanical, herbal, dietary supplement, probiotic, vitamin, or mineral), or drug, this attachment should describe correspondence from the FDA indicating whether the proposed study will require an IND/IDE. Investigators should describe the process that will be used for attaining all necessary FDA or other applicable regulatory agency approvals necessary to the conduct of the trial and associated timeline. For trials using an FDA-regulated product that requires an IND/IDE application, the grant application must include evidence regarding the outcome of a pre-IND meeting, or other evidence of communication with FDA. If the protocol is conducted under a non-U.S. regulatory agency, the applicant should submit a plan for attaining those regulatory approvals. If the protocol is exempt from an IND/IDE, a copy of the exemption letter from the FDA should be provided as part of the PDF file attachment. The FDA has provided guidance indicating that when substances that are Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) are used in a clinical trial to evaluate the product's ability to diagnose, cure, mitigate, treat, or prevent disease it may require an IND under part 312 (https://www.fda.gov/media/79386/download). If an IND is required by the FDA for the trial, the IND must be submitted to the FDA with no clinical-hold imposed by the FDA prior to application being funded.
Section 5 - Other Clinical Trial-related Attachments
5.1 Other Clinical Trial-related Attachments
The following attachment must be included as a part of the application. Attachments permit expansion of certain elements that cannot be appropriately described in the Research Strategy. All attachments listed below must be provided or the application will not be peer reviewed.
Clinical Trial Experience
Applicants must provide a detailed table listing the characteristics of trials that demonstrate the experience of the study Key Personnel in trial coordination in the last 5 years. The table must be provided as an attachment called "Clinical Trial Experience.pdf" and must not exceed 3 pages. If applicants propose more than one clinical trial study and are submitting more than one study records, they must use unique file names for each study record (e.g. Clinical Trial Experience for Study Record 1.pdf, Clinical Trial Experience for Study Record 2.pdf, etc) to avoid errors uploading attachments.
The table columns should include:
Delayed Onset Study
Note: Delayed onset does NOT apply to a study that can be described but will not start immediately (i.e., delayed start). All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
Do not enter a delayed onset study.
PHS Assignment Request Form
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
3. Unique Entity Identifier and System for Award Management (SAM)
See Part 1. Section III.1 for information regarding the requirement for obtaining a unique entity identifier and for completing and maintaining active registrations in System for Award Management (SAM), NATO Commercial and Government Entity (NCAGE) Code (if applicable), eRA Commons, and Grants.gov
4. Submission Dates and Times
Part I. Overview Information contains information about Key Dates and times. Applicants are encouraged to submit applications before the due date to ensure they have time to make any application corrections that might be necessary for successful submission. When a submission date falls on a weekend or Federal holiday, the application deadline is automatically extended to the next business day.
Organizations must submit applications to Grants.gov (the online portal to find and apply for grants across all Federal agencies). Applicants must then complete the submission process by tracking the status of the application in the eRA Commons, NIHs electronic system for grants administration. NIH and Grants.gov systems check the application against many of the application instructions upon submission. Errors must be corrected and a changed/corrected application must be submitted to Grants.gov on or before the application due date and time. If a Changed/Corrected application is submitted after the deadline, the application will be considered late. Applications that miss the due date and time are subjected to the NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 2.3.9.2 Electronically Submitted Applications.
Applicants are responsible for viewing their application before the due date in the eRA Commons to ensure accurate and successful submission.
Information on the submission process and a definition of on-time submission are provided in the How to Apply – Application Guide.
5. Intergovernmental Review (E.O. 12372)
This initiative is not subject to intergovernmental review.
6. Funding Restrictions
All NIH awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Pre-award costs are allowable only as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 7.9.1 Selected Items of Cost.
Specific to this NOFO:
7. Other Submission Requirements and Information
Applications must be submitted electronically following the instructions described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide. Paper applications will not be accepted.
Applicants must complete all required registrations before the application due date. Section III. Eligibility Information contains information about registration.
For assistance with your electronic application or for more information on the electronic submission process, visit How to Apply – Application Guide. If you encounter a system issue beyond your control that threatens your ability to complete the submission process on-time, you must follow the Dealing with System Issues guidance. For assistance with application submission, contact the Application Submission Contacts in Section VII.
Important reminders:
All PD(s)/PI(s) must include their eRA Commons ID in the Credential field of the Senior/Key Person Profile form. Failure to register in the Commons and to include a valid PD/PI Commons ID in the credential field will prevent the successful submission of an electronic application to NIH. See Section III of this NOFO for information on registration requirements.
The applicant organization must ensure that the unique entity identifier provided on the application is the same identifier used in the organizations profile in the eRA Commons and for the System for Award Management. Additional information may be found in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
See more tips for avoiding common errors.
Upon receipt, applications will be evaluated for completeness and compliance with application instructions by the Center for Scientific Review and responsiveness by components of participating organizations, NIH. Applications that are incomplete, non-compliant and/or nonresponsive will not be reviewed.
In order to expedite review, applicants are requested to notify the NCCIH Referral Office by email at [email protected] when the application has been submitted. Please include the NOFO number and title, PD/PI name, and title of the application.
Applicants requesting $500,000 or more in direct costs in any year (excluding consortium F&A) must contact a Scientific/ Research Contact at least 6 weeks before submitting the application and follow the Policy on the Acceptance for Review of Unsolicited Applications that Request $500,000 or More in Direct Costs as described in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
Post Submission Materials
Applicants are required to follow the instructions for post-submission materials, as described in the policy
Any instructions provided here are in addition to the instructions in the policy.
All post-submission materials must be received by the Scientific Review Officer (SRO) no later than 30 calendar days prior to the peer review meeting. In addition to the NIH policy allowed post-submission materials in NOT-OD-19-083, the follow post-submission materials are allowed:
Applications must include annual milestones. Applications that fail to include annual milestones will be considered incomplete and will be withdrawn. Applications must include a PEDP submitted as Other Project Information as an attachment. Applications that fail to include a PEDP will be considered incomplete and will be withdrawn before review. Applications must include a clinical trial experience table. Applications that fail to include a clinical trial experience table will be considered incomplete and withdrawn.
1. Criteria
Only the review criteria described below will be considered in the review process. Applications submitted to the NIH in support of the NIH mission are evaluated for scientific and technical merit through the NIH peer review system.
A proposed Clinical Trial application may include study design, methods, and intervention that are not by themselves innovative but address important questions or unmet needs. Additionally, the results of the clinical trial may indicate that further clinical development of the intervention is unwarranted or lead to new avenues of scientific investigation.
Reviewers will provide an overall impact score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved, in consideration of the following review criteria and additional review criteria (as applicable for the project proposed).
Reviewers will consider each of the review criteria below in the determination of scientific merit and give a separate score for each. An application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact. For example, a project that by its nature is not innovative may be essential to advance a field.
Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field? Is the prior research that serves as the key support for the proposed project rigorous? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative interventions that drive this field?
Are the scientific rationale and need for a clinical trial to test the proposed hypothesis or intervention well supported by preliminary data, clinical and/or preclinical studies, or information in the literature or knowledge of biological mechanisms? For trials focusing on clinical or public health endpoints, is this clinical trial necessary for testing the safety, efficacy or effectiveness of an intervention that could lead to a change in clinical practice, community behaviors or health care policy? For trials focusing on mechanistic, behavioral, physiological, biochemical, or other biomedical endpoints, is this trial needed to advance scientific understanding?
Specific to this NOFO: Is there adequate justification for a remotely delivered design? For pragmatic studies that integrate an intervention into an organization, how strong is the evidence of efficacy or effectiveness for the intervention? For studies that propose to improve adherence to established guidelines, how strong is the evidence for the guidelines that are being used?
To what extent do the efforts described in the Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives further the significance of the project?
Are the PD(s)/PI(s), collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? If Early Stage Investigators or those in the early stages of independent careers, do they have appropriate experience and training? If established, have they demonstrated an ongoing record of accomplishments that have advanced their field(s)? If the project is collaborative or multi-PD/PI, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise; are their leadership approach, governance and organizational structure appropriate for the project?
With regard to the proposed leadership for the project, do the PD/PI(s) and key personnel have the expertise, experience, and ability to organize, manage and implement the proposed clinical trial and meet milestones and timelines? Do they have appropriate expertise in study coordination, data management and statistics? For a multicenter trial, is the organizational structure appropriate and does the application identify a core of potential center investigators and staffing for a coordinating center?
Specific to this NOFO:
Does the investigative team have a track record of completing and publishing the results of clinical trials?
Based on the clinical experience attachment, has the investigative team successfully recruited a similar study population in previous clinical trials utilizing remote methods? Does the team meet the preliminary data requirements of experience delivering a similar intervention using remote methods with fidelity in previous clinical trials?
In addition, for studies proposing pragmatic trials within organizations (e.g., schools, health care systems, community organizations): Do teams include appropriate collaborators from the participating organizations? Do the PD(s)/PI(s) and Key Personnel have the necessary expertise in design and implementation of large-scale clinical studies within organizations? For example, do they have expertise in using electronic health records or other relevant records for recruitment and outcomes assessment? Do the PD(s)/PI(s) have a track record of successful remote recruitment and retention in prior studies, investigative collaborations or partnerships with (within) organizations in conducting clinical studies?
To what extent will the efforts described in the Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives strengthen and enhance the expertise required for the project?
Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions? Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense? Is a refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed?
Does the design/research plan include innovative elements, as appropriate, that enhance its sensitivity, potential for information or potential to advance scientific knowledge or clinical practice?
Specific to this NOFO:
Does the application include mechanisms for leveraging novel collaboration and/or study oversight strategies? Does the proposed research have the potential to advance the field even if the proposed study design, methods, and intervention are not innovative?
To what extent will the efforts described in the Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives meaningfully contribute to innovation?
Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project? Have the investigators included plans to address weaknesses in the rigor of prior research that serves as the key support for the proposed project? Have the investigators presented strategies to ensure a robust and unbiased approach, as appropriate for the work proposed? Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success presented? If the project is in the early stages of development, will the strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be managed? Have the investigators presented adequate plans to address relevant biological variables, such as sex, for studies in vertebrate animals or human subjects?
If the project involves human subjects and/or NIH-defined clinical research, are the plans to address 1) the protection of human subjects from research risks, and 2) inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals on the basis of sex/gender, race, and ethnicity, as well as the inclusion or exclusion of individuals of all ages (including children and older adults), justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed?
Does the application adequately address the following, if applicable
Study Design
Is the study design justified and appropriate to address primary and secondary outcome variable(s)/endpoints that will be clear, informative and relevant to the hypothesis being tested? Is the scientific rationale/premise of the study based on previously well-designed preclinical and/or clinical research? Given the methods used to assign participants and deliver interventions, is the study design adequately powered to answer the research question(s), test the proposed hypothesis/hypotheses, and provide interpretable results? Is the trial appropriately designed to conduct the research efficiently? Are the study populations (size, gender, age, demographic group), proposed intervention arms/dose, and duration of the trial, appropriate and well justified?
Are potential ethical issues adequately addressed? Is the process for obtaining informed consent or assent appropriate? Is the eligible population available? Are the plans for recruitment outreach, enrollment, retention, handling dropouts, missed visits, and losses to follow-up appropriate to ensure robust data collection? Are the planned recruitment timelines feasible and is the plan to monitor accrual adequate? Has the need for randomization (or not), masking (if appropriate), controls, and inclusion/exclusion criteria been addressed? Are differences addressed, if applicable, in the intervention effect due to sex/gender and race/ethnicity?
Are the plans to standardize, assure quality of, and monitor adherence to, the trial protocol and data collection or distribution guidelines appropriate? Is there a plan to obtain required study agent(s)? Does the application propose to use existing available resources, as applicable?
Data Management and Statistical Analysis
Are planned analyses and statistical approach appropriate for the proposed study design and methods used to assign participants and deliver interventions? Are the procedures for data management and quality control of data adequate at clinical site(s) or at center laboratories, as applicable? Have the methods for standardization of procedures for data management to assess the effect of the intervention and quality control been addressed? Is there a plan to complete data analysis within the proposed period of the award?
Specific to this NOFO:
How strong is the evidence for equipoise? How well does the Clinical Protocol Synopsis describe the necessary elements of the clinical trial and how likely is it that the protocol can be implemented for a fully remotely delivered design (e.g., (1) enroll the proposed numbers, (2) deliver the intervention and comparator conditions, and (3) collect and transmit data in an accurate and timely fashion, all with remote methods)? Is the complementary and integrative health intervention appropriately characterized? Are there adequate plans to recruit and retain a generalizable sample of participants utilizing remote methods? Does the application address appropriate regulatory requirements (e.g., IND, IDE, DEA)? Are there appropriate plans to protect data security?
Does the application describe the required training and/or licensure/credentialing of individuals providing the intervention across proposed geographic areas?
If the clinical trial is Phase III, does the application include all relevant data to assess whether the trial should include adequate numbers of subgroups of participants to allow for separate and adequately powered analyses?
Are the timeline and milestones associated with the Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives well-developed and feasible?
Will the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional support, equipment and other physical resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed? Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, or collaborative arrangements?
If proposed, are the administrative, data coordinating, enrollment and laboratory/testing centers, appropriate for the trial proposed?
Does the application adequately address the capability and ability to conduct the trial at the proposed site(s) or centers? Are the plans to add or drop enrollment centers, as needed, appropriate?
If international site(s) is/are proposed, does the application adequately address the complexity of executing the clinical trial?
If multi-sites/centers, is there evidence of the ability of the individual site or center to: (1) enroll the proposed numbers; (2) adhere to the protocol; (3) collect and transmit data in an accurate and timely fashion; and, (4) operate within the proposed organizational structure?
Specific to this NOFO:
Is there strong evidence that the environment has the resources necessary to conduct a remotely delivered intervention with remote recruitment, intervention delivery and data collection in a safe, secure, and timely fashion?
For studies proposing pragmatic trials within organizations: Does the application provide sufficient rationale for the organizations selected for the project? Is commitment from the organizations to the project evident? Has/have the organizations successfully conducted clinical studies, such that there are sufficient infrastructure and expertise (e.g., clinical investigators, informaticists) to implement the proposed pragmatic trial within all proposed organizations?
To what extent will features of the environment described in the Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives (e.g., collaborative arrangements, geographic diversity, institutional support) contribute to the success of the project?
As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will evaluate the following additional items while determining scientific and technical merit, and in providing an overall impact score, but will not give separate scores for these items.
Is the study timeline described in detail, taking into account start-up activities, the anticipated rate of enrollment, and planned follow-up assessment? Is the projected timeline feasible and well justified? Does the project incorporate efficiencies and utilize existing resources (e.g., CTSAs, practice-based research networks, electronic medical records, administrative database, or patient registries) to increase the efficiency of participant enrollment and data collection, as appropriate?
Are potential challenges and corresponding solutions discussed (e.g., strategies that can be implemented in the event of enrollment shortfalls)?
For research that involves human subjects but does not involve one of the categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate the justification for involvement of human subjects and the proposed protections from research risk relating to their participation according to the following five review criteria: 1) risk to subjects, 2) adequacy of protection against risks, 3) potential benefits to the subjects and others, 4) importance of the knowledge to be gained, and 5) data and safety monitoring for clinical trials.
For research that involves human subjects and meets the criteria for one or more of the categories of research that are exempt under 45 CFR Part 46, the committee will evaluate: 1) the justification for the exemption, 2) human subjects involvement and characteristics, and 3) sources of materials. For additional information on review of the Human Subjects section, please refer to the Guidelines for the Review of Human Subjects.
When the proposed project involves human subjects and/or NIH-defined clinical research, the committee will evaluate the proposed plans for the inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals on the basis of sex/gender, race, and ethnicity, as well as the inclusion (or exclusion) of individuals of all ages (including children and older adults) to determine if it is justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed. For additional information on review of the Inclusion section, please refer to the Guidelines for the Review of Inclusion in Clinical Research.
The committee will will evaluate the involvement of live vertebrate animals as part of the scientific assessment according to the following three points: (1) a complete description of all proposed procedures including the species, strains, ages, sex, and total numbers of animals to be used; (2) justifications that the species is appropriate for the proposed research and why the research goals cannot be accomplished using an alternative non-animal model; and (3) interventions including analgesia, anesthesia, sedation, palliative care, and humane endpoints that will be used to limit any unavoidable discomfort, distress, pain and injury in the conduct of scientifically valuable research. Methods of euthanasia and justification for selected methods, if NOT consistent with the AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals, is also required but is found in a separate section of the application. For additional information on review of the Vertebrate Animals Section, please refer to the Worksheet for Review of the Vertebrate Animals Section.
Reviewers will assess whether materials or procedures proposed are potentially hazardous to research personnel and/or the environment, and if needed, determine whether adequate protection is proposed.
For Resubmissions, the committee will evaluate the application as now presented, taking into consideration the responses to comments from the previous scientific review group and changes made to the project.
For Renewals, the committee will consider the progress made in the last funding period.
For Revisions, the committee will consider the appropriateness of the proposed expansion of the scope of the project. If the Revision application relates to a specific line of investigation presented in the original application that was not recommended for approval by the committee, then the committee will consider whether the responses to comments from the previous scientific review group are adequate and whether substantial changes are clearly evident.
Is the proposed Data and Safety Monitoring Plan appropriate for the proposed clinical trial? Are any safety concerns related to the remote-delivery methods adequately addressed? Are there appropriate safeguards in place to minimize risk?
How strongly do the milestones address the specific aims of each phase? Are the listed milestones appropriate for the goals of the project? To what extent are the milestones relevant, measurable, achievable, result-focused, and timebound? Does the application address contingency plans in the event the milestones are not achieved?
As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will consider each of the following items, but will not give scores for these items, and should not consider them in providing an overall impact score.
Reviewers will assess whether the project presents special opportunities for furthering research programs through the use of unusual talent, resources, populations, or environmental conditions that exist in other countries and either are not readily available in the United States or augment existing U.S. resources.
Not Applicable
Reviewers will assess the information provided in this section of the application, including 1) the Select Agent(s) to be used in the proposed research, 2) the registration status of all entities where Select Agent(s) will be used, 3) the procedures that will be used to monitor possession use and transfer of Select Agent(s), and 4) plans for appropriate biosafety, biocontainment, and security of the Select Agent(s).
Reviewers will comment on whether the Resource Sharing Plan(s) (e.g., Sharing Model Organisms) or the rationale for not sharing the resources, is reasonable.
For projects involving key biological and/or chemical resources, reviewers will comment on the brief plans proposed for identifying and ensuring the validity of those resources.
Reviewers will consider whether the budget and the requested period of support are fully justified and reasonable in relation to the proposed research.
2. Review and Selection Process
Applications will be evaluated for scientific and technical merit by (an) appropriate Scientific Review Group(s) convened by NCCIH, in accordance with NIH peer review policy and procedures, using the stated review criteria. Assignment to a Scientific Review Group will be shown in the eRA Commons.
As part of the scientific peer review, all applications will receive a written critique.
Applications may undergo a selection process in which only those applications deemed to have the highest scientific and technical merit (generally the top half of applications under review) will be discussed and assigned an overall impact score.
Applications will be assigned on the basis of established PHS referral guidelines to the appropriate NIH Institute or Center. Applications will compete for available funds with all other recommended applications submitted in response to this NOFO. Following initial peer review, recommended applications will receive a second level of review by the appropriate national Advisory Council or Board. The following will be considered in making funding decisions:
3. Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates
After the peer review of the application is completed, the PD/PI will be able to access his or her Summary Statement (written critique) via the eRA Commons. Refer to Part 1 for dates for peer review, advisory council review, and earliest start date.
Information regarding the disposition of applications is available in the NIH Grants Policy Statement Section 2.4.4 Disposition of Applications.
1. Award Notices
If the application is under consideration for funding, NIH will request "just-in-time" information from the applicant as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
A formal notification in the form of a Notice of Award (NoA) will be provided to the applicant organization for successful applications. The NoA signed by the grants management officer is the authorizing document and will be sent via email to the recipient's business official.
Recipients must comply with any funding restrictions described in Section IV.6. Funding Restrictions. 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.
Any application awarded in response to this NOFO will be subject to terms and conditions found on the Award Conditions and Information for NIH Grants website. This includes any recent legislation and policy applicable to awards that is highlighted on this website.
Individual awards are based on the application submitted to, and as approved by, the NIH and are subject to the IC-specific terms and conditions identified in the NoA.
ClinicalTrials.gov: If an award provides for one or more clinical trials. By law (Title VIII, Section 801 of Public Law 110-85), the "responsible party" must register and submit results information for certain applicable clinical trials on the ClinicalTrials.gov Protocol Registration and Results System Information Website (https://register.clinicaltrials.gov). NIH expects registration and results reporting of all trials whether required under the law or not. For more information, see https://grants.nih.gov/policy/clinical-trials/reporting/index.htm
Institutional Review Board or Independent Ethics Committee Approval: Recipient institutions must ensure that all protocols are reviewed by their IRB or IEC. To help ensure the safety of participants enrolled in NIH-funded studies, the recipient must provide NIH copies of documents related to all major changes in the status of ongoing protocols.
Data and Safety Monitoring Requirements: The NIH policy for data and safety monitoring requires oversight and monitoring of all NIH-conducted or -supported human biomedical and behavioral intervention studies (clinical trials) to ensure the safety of participants and the validity and integrity of the data. Further information concerning these requirements is found at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/hs/data_safety.htm and in the application instructions (SF424 (R&R) and PHS 398).
Investigational New Drug or Investigational Device Exemption Requirements: Consistent with federal regulations, clinical research projects involving the use of investigational therapeutics, vaccines, or other medical interventions (including licensed products and devices for a purpose other than that for which they were licensed) in humans under a research protocol must be performed under a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) investigational new drug (IND) or investigational device exemption (IDE).
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: Generaland Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart B: Terms and Conditions for Specific Types of Grants, Recipients, and Activities, including of note, but not limited to:
If a recipient is successful and receives a Notice of Award, in accepting the award, the recipient agrees that any activities under the award are subject to all provisions currently in effect or implemented during the period of the award, other Department regulations and policies in effect at the time of the award, and applicable statutory provisions.
If a recipient receives an award, the recipient must follow all applicable nondiscrimination laws. The recipient agrees to this when registering in SAM.gov. The recipient must also submit an Assurance of Compliance (HHS-690). To learn more, see the HHS Office for Civil Rights website.
HHS recognizes that NIH research projects are often limited in scope for many reasons that are nondiscriminatory, such as the principal investigators scientific interest, funding limitations, recruitment requirements, and other considerations. Thus, criteria in research protocols that target or exclude certain populations are warranted where nondiscriminatory justifications establish that such criteria are appropriate with respect to the health or safety of the subjects, the scientific study design, or the purpose of the research. For additional guidance regarding how the provisions apply to NIH grant programs, please contact the Scientific/Research Contact that is identified in Section VII under Agency Contacts of this NOFO.
In accordance with the statutory provisions contained in Section 872 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2009 (Public Law 110-417), NIH awards will be subject to the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) requirements. FAPIIS requires Federal award making officials to review and consider information about an applicant in the designated integrity and performance system (currently FAPIIS) prior to making an award. An applicant, at its option, may review information in the designated integrity and performance systems accessible through FAPIIS and comment on any information about itself that a Federal agency previously entered and is currently in FAPIIS. The Federal awarding agency will consider any comments by the applicant, in addition to other information in FAPIIS, in making a judgement about the applicants integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards when completing the review of risk posed by applicants as described in 2 CFR Part 200.206 Federal awarding agency review of risk posed by applicants. This provision will apply to all NIH grants and cooperative agreements except fellowships.
Not Applicable
3. Data Management and Sharing
Consistent with the 2023 NIH Policy for Data Management and Sharing, when data management and sharing is applicable to the award, recipients will be required to adhere to the Data Management and Sharing requirements as outlined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement. Upon the approval of a Data Management and Sharing Plan, it is required for recipients to implement the plan as described.
4. Reporting
When multiple years are involved, recipients will be required to submit the Research Performance Progress Report (RPPR) annually and financial statements as required in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Awardees will provide updates at least annually on implementation of the PEDP.
A final RPPR, invention statement, and the expenditure data portion of the Federal Financial Report are required for closeout of an award, as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement. NIH NOFOs outline intended research goals and objectives. Post award, NIH will review and measure performance based on the details and outcomes that are shared within the RPPR, as described at 2 CFR Part 200.301.
The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 as amended (FFATA), includes a requirement for recipients of Federal grants to report information about first-tier subawards and executive compensation under Federal assistance awards issued in FY2011 or later. All recipients of applicable NIH grants and cooperative agreements are required to report to the Federal Subaward Reporting System (FSRS) available at www.fsrs.gov on all subawards over the threshold. See the NIH Grants Policy Statement for additional information on this reporting requirement.
In accordance with the regulatory requirements provided at 2 CFR Part 200.113 and Appendix XII to 2 CFR Part 200, recipients that have currently active Federal grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from all Federal awarding agencies with a cumulative total value greater than $10,000,000 for any period of time during the period of performance of a Federal award, must report and maintain the currency of information reported in the System for Award Management (SAM) about civil, criminal, and administrative proceedings in connection with the award or performance of a Federal award that reached final disposition within the most recent five-year period. The recipient must also make semiannual disclosures regarding such proceedings. Proceedings information will be made publicly available in the designated integrity and performance system (currently FAPIIS). This is a statutory requirement under section 872 of Public Law 110-417, as amended (41 U.S.C. 2313). As required by section 3010 of Public Law 111-212, all information posted in the designated integrity and performance system on or after April 15, 2011, except past performance reviews required for Federal procurement contracts, will be publicly available. Full reporting requirements and procedures are found in Appendix XII to 2 CFR Part 200 – Award Term and Condition for Recipient Integrity and Performance Matters.
We encourage inquiries concerning this funding opportunity and welcome the opportunity to answer questions from potential applicants.
eRA Service Desk (Questions regarding ASSIST, eRA Commons, application errors and warnings, documenting system problems that threaten submission by the due date, and post-submission issues)
Finding Help Online: https://www.era.nih.gov/need-help (preferred method of contact)
Telephone: 301-402-7469 or 866-504-9552 (Toll Free)
General Grants Information (Questions regarding application instructions, application processes, and NIH grant resources)
Email: [email protected] (preferred method of contact)
Telephone: 301-480-7075
Grants.gov Customer Support (Questions regarding Grants.gov registration and Workspace)
Contact Center Telephone: 800-518-4726
Email: [email protected]
Beda Jean-Francois, Ph.D.
National Center for Complementary & Integrative Health (NCCIH)
Phone: 202-313-2144
Email: [email protected]
Jessica McKlveen, PhD
National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH)
Telephone: 301-594-8018
Email: [email protected]
Debbie Chen
National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH)
Phone: 301-594-3788
Email: [email protected]
Recently issued trans-NIH policy notices may affect your application submission. A full list of policy notices published by NIH is provided in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts. All awards are subject to the terms and conditions, cost principles, and other considerations described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
Awards are made under the authorization of Sections 301 and 405 of the Public Health Service Act as amended (42 USC 241 and 284) and under Federal Regulations 42 CFR Part 52 and 2 CFR Part 200.