National Institutes of Health (NIH)
National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
R01 Research Project Grant
See Notices of Special Interest associated with this funding opportunity
NIMH solicits clinical trial applications through a series of Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOAs) that cover the intervention development pipeline, from first-inhuman, early testing of new interventions, confirmatory efficacy trials, through to effectiveness trials. The purpose of this FOA is to support confirmatory efficacy testing of non-pharmacological therapeutic and preventive interventions for mental disorders in adults and children through an experimental therapeutics approach. Under this FOA, trials must be designed so that results, whether positive or negative, will provide information of high scientific utility and will support "go/no-go" decisions about further development, effectiveness testing, or dissemination of the intervention. Interventions to be studied include, but are not limited to behavioral, cognitive, interpersonal, and device-based (both invasive/surgically implanted as well as noninvasive/transcranial) approaches, or a combination thereof. Interventions appropriate for efficacy testing must be based on a compelling scientific rationale, previous demonstration that the intervention engages and alters the hypothesized mechanism of action, a preliminary efficacy signal, and must address an unmet therapeutic need. Support will be provided for a trial of the intervention's efficacy that includes measurement of the hypothesized mechanism of action and the relationship between change in the mechanism and change in functional or clinical effects. Ultimately, this FOA is intended to support a sufficiently-powered efficacy trial to determine the intervention's potential for significant clinical benefit. Applicants pursuing other stages of the clinical trial pipeline should consider one of the companion FOAs listed above.
30 days prior to the application due date
|Application Due Dates||Review and Award Cycles|
|New||Renewal / Resubmission / Revision (as allowed)||AIDS||Scientific Merit Review||Advisory Council Review||Earliest Start Date|
|June 15, 2021||June 15, 2021||Not Applicable||October 2021||January 2022||March 2022|
|October 15, 2021||October 15, 2021||Not Applicable||February 2022||May 2022||July 2022|
|February 15, 2022||February 15, 2022||Not Applicable||June 2022||October 2022||December 2022|
|June 15, 2022||June 15, 2022||Not Applicable||October 2022||January 2023||March 2023|
|October 14, 2022||October 14, 2022||Not Applicable||February 2023||May 2023||July 2023|
|February 15, 2023||February 15, 2023||Not Applicable||June 2023||October 2023||December 2023|
|June 15, 2023||June 15, 2023||Not Applicable||October 2023||January 2024||March 2024|
|October 17, 2023||October 17, 2023||Not Applicable||February 2024||May 2024||July 2024|
|February 15, 2024||February 15, 2024||Not Applicable||June 2024||October 2024||December 2024|
All applications are due by 5:00 PM local time of applicant organization. All types of non-AIDS applications allowed for this funding opportunity announcement are due on the listed date(s).
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.
It is critical that applicants follow the instructions in the Research (R) Instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide, except where instructed to do otherwise (in this FOA or in a Notice from NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts).
Conformance to all requirements (both in the Application Guide and the FOA) 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.
The purpose of this Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) is to support confirmatory efficacy testing of non-pharmacological therapeutic and preventive interventions for mental disorders in adults and children that address unmet therapeutic needs, and are consistent with the NIMH emphasis on the experimental therapeutics approach. In this approach, clinical trials should be designed to increase knowledge of the relationship between underlying disease processes and the targets/mechanisms of action through which any intervention produces therapeutic change.
Therefore, interventions appropriate for confirmatory efficacy testing must be based on a compelling scientific rationale, previous demonstration that the intervention engages and alters the hypothesized mechanism of action, and a preliminary efficacy signal (for further information, see the NIMH webpage on Clinical Trials). The proposed trial must include plans to replicate these target engagement and validation findings in a fully powered, confirmatory efficacy study that is likely to show superiority of the intervention over an appropriately justified comparison condition.
Interventions appropriate to this FOA may include in-person or technology-assisted psychosocial intervention approaches, device-based approaches (both invasive and non-invasive), or combinations of these approaches as monotherapies or as augmentations to standard interventions. While this FOA will support efficacy testing of novel technology-assisted intervention approaches, it is not intended to support the translation of existing treatments into technology-based applications (e.g., mHealth). FDA-indicated drugs may be included as part of a combination treatment when the intent is to test the efficacy of the other (novel) non-pharmacological treatment component or the novel combination. However, applications to establish the efficacy of pharmacological interventions will be considered not responsive to this FOA.
NIMH Priorities for Confirmatory Efficacy Trials
Traditionally, efficacy testing of interventions for mental disorders involves administering an intervention to subjects selected on the basis of heterogeneous clinical indications and measuring outcomes focused on symptom reduction. Such trials, whether positive or not with respect to symptom change, deliver little information about the mechanism of action of the intervention or the underlying cause of the disorder and therefore provide little guidance for further intervention development or refinement. As a result, NIMH has shifted to an experimental therapeutic paradigm in which interventions are evaluated in stages (see "An Experimental Therapeutic Approach to Psychosocial Interventions"). Prior to confirmatory efficacy testing, a preliminary stage in this progressive pipeline is to demonstrate that the intervention exerts some measurable effect on a hypothesized "target" or mechanism of action, and that measurable changes in the target are related to changes in clinical outcomes.
Targets might include, but are not limited to, potentially modifiable specific psychological, or behavioral, or interpersonal processes (e.g., cognitive-affective processes such as attention bias, cognitive control, stress regulation) or neurobiological processes or entities (e.g. brain circuits). Circuit-based targets can include networks of brain regions defined anatomically as well as temporal dynamics of network function defined physiologically as neural oscillatory patterns. The intended target(s)/mechanism(s) and clinical endpoints will vary with the type of intervention. In the case of preventive interventions, the proximal target might involve a risk factor that has been associated with the etiology or onset of a mental health (MH) disorder. Accordingly, the intervention's efficacy might be evaluated in terms of whether or not the intervention, mediated by changes in the target, resulted in decreased onset of the MH disorder/condition (i.e., the clinical endpoint). Alternative conceptualizations might propose proximal targets/mechanisms that are intervening variables purported to be instrumental in reducing the risk state itself (i.e., with the clinical endpoint defined in terms of a reduction of risk). More than one target/mechanism may be proposed if each target/mechanism is supported by an empirical rationale, there are testable hypotheses proposed for each, and there are valid and reliable measures of change available for each.
In the assessment of target engagement, NIMH encourages the use of measures that are as direct and objective as is feasible in the clinical research setting. NIMH encourages hypotheses and measures of potential mechanisms across biological, cognitive, psychological, and/or behavioral domains of analysis that might account for change in the target and symptom expression. The type of measures will depend on the conceptual model, the nature of the targeted construct, and the availability of valid, reliable measures of change in the target/mechanism. Measures might include self-reports, lab-based neurocognitive tasks or other behavioral measures, psychophysiological measures, neuroimaging or other brain-based measures, sensor-based or other observational measures of interpersonal processes or contextual/environmental factors, or valid proxy measures as alternatives. Specifically encouraged are empirically validated measures of the construct that extend beyond self-reports and other subjective measures, where possible, and inclusion of measures that span more than one level of assessment if possible and appropriate.
NIMH is interested in pivotal studies to enable device-based studies to receive FDA approval. Interventions should be compared against established interventions in superiority or non-inferiority studies, based on the clinical context. It is advised that groups should utilize a project manager with industry experience in managing clinical trials to oversee their pivotal study. It is expected that Contract Research Organizations (CROs) or Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) conduct device trials.
This FOA supports confirmatory efficacy trials of interventions for which preliminary evidence of target engagement has already been demonstrated and there is a signal suggesting clinical efficacy. The earlier stages of intervention development, which include optimization of intervention delivery parameters, preliminary tests of target engagement, and target validation, are not appropriate for this FOA and are supported by NIMH through companion FOAs (NIMH Clinical Trials FOA page). Interventions appropriate for confirmatory efficacy testing under this FOA are those for which preliminary evidence already exists. NIMH will consider the following critical pre-requisite criteria for a confirmatory efficacy trial:
NIMH is particularly interested in the development of therapeutic and preventive interventions that focus on operationally defined, empirically-supported functional domains or symptom(s) of mental disorders as opposed to broad diagnostic categories in which not all subjects may share the same underlying disease process. For example, NIMH Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) constructs may inform mechanism-based hypotheses and the selection of interventions, outcome measures, and clinical subjects (see https://www.nimh.nih.gov/research/research-funded-by-nimh/rdoc/index.shtml for more details). Intervention targets related to RDoC constructs are of interest for this FOA, but other, non-RDoC constructs may be suitable as well, especially if they maximize the probability that subjects share the same mechanism of disorder.
In order to address the lack of uptake of research-based therapies and the alarming fall-off in effect sizes from efficacy to effectiveness studies, NIMH encourages studies that incorporate a deployment-focused approach. Deployment focused research considers the perspective of key stakeholders (e.g., service users, providers, administrators, payers) and the characteristics of the settings (e.g., resources, including workforce capacity; existing clinical workflows) where optimized mental health interventions and services are intended to be implemented. This attention to end-user perspectives and characteristics of intended clinical and/or community practice settings is intended to ensure that the resultant interventions and service delivery strategies are feasible and scalable, and to ensure that the research results will have utility for end-users.
Effective prevention and treatment of mental illness have the potential to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with intentional injury (i.e., suicide attempts and deaths, see: www.suicide-research-agenda.org). Lack of attention to the assessment of these outcomes has limited our understanding regarding the degree to which effective mental health interventions might offer prophylaxis. Accordingly, where feasible and appropriate, applicants are strongly encouraged to incorporate assessment of suicidal behavior in clinical trials in response to this FOA using strategies that can facilitate integration and sharing of data (e.g., see NOT-MH-15-009 and https://www.phenxtoolkit.org/ for example constructs and corresponding assessment strategies).
For applications that plan to test the efficacy of devices that require federal regulatory approval processes, NIH expects FDA guidance meetings to be performed prior to submission of the application, so that information from the guidance meeting is incorporated into the protocol design.
Applications Not Responsive to this FOA
Studies that are not responsive to this FOA and will not be reviewed include the following:
Applicants are encouraged to leverage existing resources and infrastructure such as those provided by institutions with Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) and/or other existing consortia/networks to promote efficient cross-disciplinary collaborations. Applicants are also expected to use common data collection instruments (see: NOT-MH-20-067).
Potential applicants are strongly encouraged to contact Scientific/Research contacts as far in advance as possible to discuss the potential clinical practice/public health impact of the proposed pilot investigation, as well as concordance with current NIMH priorities.
Information about the mission, Strategic Plan, and research interests of the NIMH can be found on the NIMH website. Applicants are also strongly encouraged to review the information on Support for Clinical Trials at NIMH and the NIMH webpage on clinical research.
Scale and Scope of Studies Covered Under this Announcement
This FOA supports confirmatory efficacy trials of non-pharmacological therapeutic and preventive interventions that are powered to provide a definitive answer regarding the study intervention's efficacy.
PD(s)/PI(s)s submitting applications consistent with the experimental therapeutic approach but whose application does not fall within the scope of this FOA are encouraged to contact Scientific/Research staff or view the NIMH Clinical Trial web page and Frequently Asked Questions section: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/funding/clinical-trials-for-researchers/index.shtml.
Applicants interested in initial intervention development and pilot testing of novel non-pharmacological interventions are directed to, PAR-21-135 "Development of Psychosocial Therapeutic and Preventive Interventions for Mental Disorders (R61/R33)" and PAR-21-134 "Development of Psychosocial Therapeutic and Preventive Interventions for Mental Disorders (R33)" for psychosocial interventions and to PAR-21-137 ,"Early Stage Testing of Pharmacologic or Device-based Interventions for the Treatment of Mental Disorders (R61/R33)" and PAR-21-136 Early Stage Testing of Pharmacologic or Device-based Interventions for the Treatment of Mental Disorders (R33)" for device-based intervention development and pilot testing.
Applicants with data collection plans that involve multiple respondent groups (e.g., clients/patients, therapists/providers, supervisors, administrators) should address provisions for human subjects protections and consenting procedures for all participant groups, accordingly.
The NIMH has published updated policies and guidance for investigators regarding human research protection and clinical research data and safety monitoring (NOT-MH-19-027, Oversight and Monitoring of Clinical Research Funded by the NIH). The application's Protection of Human Subjects section and data and safety monitoring plans should reflect the policies and guidance in this notice. Plans for the protection of research subjects and data and safety monitoring will be NIMH for consistency with NIMH and NIH policies and federal regulation
See Section VIII. Other Information for award authorities and regulations.
Grant: A support 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 FOA.
Required: Only accepting applications that propose clinical trial(s).
NIMH intends to commit a total of $27 million for FY 2022 to fund this FOA and the companion FOAs listed in Part 1. Overview Information .
The maximum project period is 5 years; however, applicants are strongly encouraged to consider efficiencies and projects of shorter duration, as feasible.
NIH grants policies as described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement will apply to the applications submitted and awards made from this FOA.
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
Non-domestic (non-U.S.) Entities (Foreign Institutions) are eligible to apply.
Non-domestic (non-U.S.) components of U.S. Organizations are eligible to apply.
Foreign components, as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement, are allowed.
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. The NIH Policy on Late Submission of Grant Applications states that failure to complete registrations in advance of a due date is not a valid reason for a late submission.
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 his/her organization 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 support.
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.
This FOA does not require cost sharing as defined in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
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. This means that the NIH will not accept:
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 FOA. See your administrative office for instructions if you plan to use an institutional system-to-system solution.
Letter of Intent
Although a letter of intent is not required, is not binding, and does not enter into the review of a subsequent application, the information that it contains allows IC staff to estimate the potential review workload and plan the review.
By the date listed in Part 1. Overview Information, prospective applicants are asked to submit a letter of intent that includes the following information:
The letter of intent should be sent to:
All page limitations described in the SF424 Application Guide and the Table of Page Limits must be followed.
The following section supplements the instructions found in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide and should be used for preparing an application to this FOA.
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
Facilities and Other Resources: Staffing, governance, and organizational structure should be appropriate for conducting the study as proposed and within specified timelines. Expertise to be contributed by any individuals not listed in key personnel should be described.
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
As appropriate, Senior/Key Personnel should demonstrate their expertise and track record in clinical trials including: recent recruitment and retention rates of trial subjects; methodological and statistical expertise (e.g., handling repeated measures designs, missing data; assessing effect size; and measurement of intervention change mechanisms). Also include recent collaborative clinical research efforts among members of the proposed team, if any.
R&R or Modular Budget
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed, with the following additional instructions:
Research Strategy: Applicants must include the following information as part of the Research Strategy. Applications should not duplicate information provided in the Other Attachment included on the PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trial Information form, but can refer to it as needed in order to provide context.
Applications must address the transportability/scalability of the proposed intervention and should detail how the treatment manual, therapist training procedures, and fidelity assessment and enhancement methods could be adapted and refined to be applicable to clinical practice. The application should justify the potential impact of the intervention compared to existing approaches and should address the degree to which the proposed intervention could potentially be brought to scale in an effectiveness study or be disseminated into practice.
Significance: In this section of the Research Strategy, the application should:
Innovation: In this section of the Research Strategy, the application should:
Approach: In this section of the Research Strategy, the application should:
Letters of Support: For applications proposing use of an FDA-regulated device, letters of support from an industry partner for the device should be documented as well as plans for a collaborative research agreement (CRA) 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:
All applications, regardless of the amount of direct costs requested for any one year, should address a Data Sharing Plan
To advance the goal of advancing research through widespread data sharing among researchers, investigators funded under this FOA are expected to share those data via the National Data Archive (NDA; see NOT-MH-19-033). Established by the NIH, NDA is a secure informatics platform for scientific collaboration and data-sharing that enables the effective communication of detailed research data, tools, and supporting documentation. NDA links data across research projects through its Global Unique Identifier (GUID) and Data Dictionary technology. Investigators funded under this FOA are expected to use these technologies to submit data to NDA.
To accomplish this objective, it will be important to formulate a) an enrollment strategy that will obtain the information necessary to generate a GUID for each participant, and b) a budget strategy that will cover the costs of data submission. The NDA web site provides two tools to help investigators develop appropriate strategies: 1) the NDA Data Submission Cost Model which offers a customizable Excel worksheet that includes tasks and hours for the Program Director/Principal Investigator and Data Manager to budget for data sharing; and 2) plain language text to be considered in your informed consent available from the NDA's Data Contribution page. Investigators are expected to certify the quality of all data generated by grants funded under this FOA prior to submission to NDA and review their data for accuracy after submission. Submission of descriptive/raw data is expected semi-annually (every January 15 and July 15); submission of all other data is expected at the time of publication, or prior to the end of the grant, whichever occurs first (see NDA Sharing Regimen for more information); Investigators are expected to share results, positive and negative, specific to the cohorts and outcome measures studied. The NDA Data Sharing Plan is available for review on the NDA website. NDA staff will work with investigators to help them submit data types not yet defined in the NDA Data Dictionary.
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
2.5 Recruitment and Retention Plan
Applications must provide a clear description of:
1. Recruitment and Referral sources, including detailed descriptions of the census/rate of new cases and anticipated yield of eligible participants from each source;
2. Procedures that will be used to monitor enrollment and track/retain participants for follow-up assessments;
3. Strategies that will be used to ensure a diverse, representative sample;
4. Potential recruitment/enrollment challenges and strategies that can be implemented in the event of enrollment shortfalls (e.g., additional outreach procedures, alternate/back-up referral sources);
5. Evidence to support the feasibility of enrollment, including descriptions of prior experiences and yield from research efforts employing similar referral sources and/or strategies.
2.7 Study Timeline
Study Timeline: Applications must provide a timeline for reaching important study benchmarks such as: (1) finalizing the study procedures and training participating clinical site staff; (2) finalizing the intervention manual and assessment protocols, including fidelity measures/procedures, where applicable; (3) enrollment benchmarks; (4) completing all subject assessments and data collection activities, including data quality checks; (5) analyzing and interpreting results; and (6) preparing de-identified data and relevant documentation to facilitate data sharing, as appropriate.
Section 3 - Protection And Monitoring Plans
3.5 Overall structure of Study Team
Applicants must provide a detailed description of their study team, including details on program management structure and oversight. For device-based studies, a program manager should be included in the team structure. Information including what contract research organization (CRO) or CTSA will be used. If a CRO or a CTSA is not proposed, the applicant should provide justification for why the study team has required expertise (e.g., GCP trials, regulatory expertise, and project management) to successfully conduct the trial in a reasonable and time-efficient manner, and to collect registration quality data.
Section 4 - Protocol Synopsis
4.5 Will the study use an FDA-regulated intervention?
(Required for all device-based studies)
Applications that propose a device-based study that lacks this attachment will be considered incomplete and will not be reviewed.
For studies of devices, a regulatory strategy must be clearly documented. This should discuss the FDA pathway (PMA, 510(k), de novo) that the device will be submitted for. Information regarding the coverage/coding/reimbursement plan should be included. CMS coverage for clinical and/or device costs of IDE-approved studies should be sought, and documentation provided to demonstrate outreach.
The regulatory strategy for device approval/clearance must be outlined, as described below, and interactions with the FDA documenting the study as a pivotal study should be incorporated. Likewise, the coverage/coding/reimbursement plan for the device must be described. For studies of devices, at the time of the application's submission, there must be open Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) in place, or a documented FDA-submitted application/request for an IDE for a pivotal device study [feedback on the pivotal nature of the study is required]. The grant application must describe the status of any such pending regulatory submissions. If an FDA IDE application/request has not yet been submitted by the time of the grant application submission due date, the grant application should describe the plan and schedule for submitting the request for and obtaining the IDE. All major study design considerations in the IDE must be addressed and approved prior to the start of the clinical trial. CMS and private payers should be invited to pre-submission meetings via the parallel path review (FDA/CMS) and an invitation to private payers should be extended. An expedited access pathway should be sought, or if not possible, documentation that the study is ineligible. Registration in an appropriate trial registry should be completed prior to trial onset.
All necessary agreements for use of the device in the study, including clinical research agreements (CRAs) and licensing agreements, must be executed prior to grant award. There must be documentation of sufficient devices and matching placebo/sham stimulation devices available for testing at the time of award. Documentation should be provided from the 3rd party supplying the device. A description should be included in the attachment showing activities with 3rd parties, such as: 1) execution of necessary agreements, 2) availability of devices, and 3) permission to reference an open IDE (as applicable).
Device-based trials must use the NIH and FDA clinical trial protocol as detailed in https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-17-064.html.
Section 5 - Other Clinical Trial-Related Attachments
5.1 Other Clinical Trial-related Attachments:
Applicants must upload the attachments for Intervention Manual/Materials as a separate file, as applicable. Applicants should combine these into one file and must use the "Intervention Manual/Materials" to name this other attachments file. As appropriate, this may include screenshots of mobile interventions, technological specifications, training manuals or treatment algorithms.
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.
All instructions in the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide must be followed.
Foreign (non-U.S.) institutions must follow policies described in the NIH Grants Policy Statement, and procedures for foreign institutions described throughout the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
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.
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, NIH’s 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 Policy on Late Application Submission.
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 SF424 (R&R) Application Guide.
This initiative is not subject to intergovernmental review.
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.
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.
All PD(s)/PI(s) must include their eRA Commons ID in the Credential field of the Senior/Key Person Profile Component of the SF424(R&R) Application Package. 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 FOA for information on registration requirements.
The applicant organization must ensure that the DUNS number it provides on the application is the same number used in the organization’s 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 NIMH. Applications that are incomplete, non-compliant and/or nonresponsive will not be reviewed.
Applicants Requesting $500,000 or more for direct costs (less consortium F&A) in any year
Applicants requesting $500,000 or more in direct costs in any year (excluding consortium F&A) do not need to contact a Scientific/Research Contact to 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.
NIMH encourages the use of common data elements (CDEs) in basic, clinical, and applied research, patient registries, and other human subject research to facilitate broader and more effective use of data and advance research across studies (see NOT-MH-20-067, "Notice Announcing the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Expectations for Collection of Common Data Elements").
Awardees supported by NIMH are generally encouraged to reuse existing demographic, clinical, or phenotypic measures rather than invent new ones. Applicants are encouraged to first consult the PhenX Toolkit website for measures that might be appropriate for their research. Investigators seeking measures related to the social determinants of health are encouraged to consider the PhenX Toolkit Social Determinants of Health Collection (SDOH). The SDOH collection consists of 19 protocols comprised of one Core and two Specialty collections. The use of the SDOH collection is especially useful for study designs that assess how individual and structural SDOH influence health and contribute to health disparities.
Use of Common Data Elements in NIH-funded Research
Many NIH ICs encourage the use of common data elements (CDEs) in basic, clinical, and applied research, patient registries, and other human subject research to facilitate broader and more effective use of data and advance research across studies. CDEs are data elements that have been identified and defined for use in multiple data sets across different studies. Use of CDEs can facilitate data sharing and standardization to improve data quality and enable data integration from multiple studies and sources, including electronic health records. NIH ICs have identified CDEs for many clinical domains (e.g., neurological disease), types of studies (e.g. genome-wide association studies (GWAS)), types of outcomes (e.g., patient-reported outcomes), and patient registries (e.g., the Global Rare Diseases Patient Registry and Data Repository). NIH has established a “Common Data Element (CDE) Resource Portal" (http://cde.nih.gov/) to assist investigators in identifying NIH-supported CDEs when developing protocols, case report forms, and other instruments for data collection. The Portal provides guidance about and access to NIH-supported CDE initiatives and other tools and resources for the appropriate use of CDEs and data standards in NIH-funded research. Investigators are encouraged to consult the Portal and describe in their applications any use they will make of NIH-supported CDEs in their projects.
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.
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?
Could the intervention fill an important unmet therapeutic need for those living with a mental disorder and substantially reduce the burden of serious mental disorders? Will the study advance the knowledge of the pathophysiologic and/or psychopathologic mechanisms relevant to the functional domain, symptoms, or diagnosis of interest? Will the project advance knowledge of intervention or disease mechanisms, whether the result is positive or negative?
How well does the application provide a robust and reproducible body of evidence to support the study hypothesis and rationale? Is there a rationale for the effect size threshold that would be clinically meaningful?
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?
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?
How well does the application provide evidence that the researchers can function as a team? Does the research team have demonstrated clinical trials expertise and a track record in successfully conducting clinical trials (e.g., subject recruitment and retention rates, reporting in clinicaltrials.gov, publications, etc.) of similar structure and complexity? Does the investigative team have sufficient methodological and statistical expertise in the study and measurement of intervention change mechanisms (e.g., handling repeated measures designs, missing data, effect size)? Does the investigative team include sufficient expertise in the measurement methods proposed? Are the staffing, governance, and organizational structure appropriate for conducting the study as proposed and within specified timelines? Is there a description of the expertise needed by any potential consultants?
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?
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 application introduce a well-specified target and/or approach to engaging established targets (i.e., mechanisms of disorders or mechanisms of change); alternatively, does the approach involve translating an established finding in a novel way?
If the proposed project concerns an adaptation or extension of an intervention with established efficacy, will the study focus on novel targets and will the design be able to provide an empirically supported basis for: (a) identifying prognostic indicators (subgroups) that predict differential benefit from target engagement (e.g., in comparison to the existing, un-adapted intervention), and/or (b) further paring the intervention down to its essential elements based on clear evidence of target engagement?
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?
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?
How well does the application describe the empirical foundation for the intervention dosage and delivery parameters? For psychosocial interventions, these parameters may include duration, frequency and number of sessions. For computer-administered interventions, parameters may include the stimulus characteristics, number of trials, difficulty level and intervals between trials. For neuromodulatory interventions, these parameters include all aspects of the administered electric field or alternative form of energy, including the spatial distribution (including specification of the electric field distribution in the brain as quantified via realistic head modeling), the temporal characteristics (including all aspects of pulse shape, pulse directionality, frequency, inter-train interval, burst paradigms, etc.), and the contextual aspects of when and how the dose is administered (e.g., time-locking to underlying neural oscillations, brain state at time of administration, engagement in on-line or off-line cognitive/behavioral therapies, concomitant pharmacological intervention, etc.).
How well does the application describe a compelling scientific rationale for the approach chosen? The approach should describe hypotheses that are scientifically grounded and theory-driven, about the mechanisms involved in triggering or maintaining the disorder and the mediators or mechanisms of the intervention's effect. Evaluate the application's description of how the approach will ensure that the underlying hypothesized target mechanisms will be tested.
Does the application provide the scientific rationale for the measures used to assess the link between the hypothesized target and functional or clinical effect. Information on measurement validity and reliability should be included in the application. Evaluate the suitability for the measurement schedules to detect relevant changes in the target.
Is the methodology for (a) replicating and extending the initial target engagement findings, and (b) evaluating associations between target engagement and subsequent clinical or functional change (target validation) sound?
Are the methods for operationalizing, monitoring, and quantifying the delivery of the intervention appropriate?
Does the application address the intervention's potential scalability (i.e., compatibility with typically available resources, reimbursement practices)? Does the application address how the treatment manual, therapist training procedures, device operator training, and protocols for monitoring and enhancing fidelity could be adapted for use in community practice if the intervention is found to be efficacious?
Does the application include reliable measures of outcome that capture changes in the disorder, functional domain, or symptom(s) within the context of the trial?
Is the approach feasible in terms of realistically having in place everything necessary to carry out data acquisition and analysis in a timely manner? Will sufficient and appropriate data be collected to inform a "go/no-go" decision about further intervention development or moving the intervention to an effectiveness trial?
How well does the application explain how the delivery of the intervention will be operationalized, monitored, and quantified, including any modifications to existing treatment manuals and fidelity measures? For neuromodulatory interventions, does the application include information on device operator performance and accuracy in site identification and dosage individualization?
How well does the application describe design features that will be incorporated to help ensure that the approach can be feasibly implemented in practice, that it is scalable, and that it is robust against implementation drift (e.g., using technology as scaffolding or expert consultation via existing resources/ other sustainable means to support delivery)?
Does the application include plans to involve collaborations and/or input from community practice partners/providers, consumers, and relevant policy makers in a manner that informs the research (e.g., to help ensure the interventions/service delivery approaches are acceptable, feasible, and scalable) and helps to ensure the results will have utility?
How well does the application address the intervention's potential scalability (e.g., compatibility with typically available resources, reimbursement practices)? Evaluate the suitability of the treatment manual, therapist training procedures and protocols for monitoring and enhancing fidelity for adaptation for use in community practice if the intervention is found to be efficacious. Is there a plan to develop surrogate endpoints that would be feasible to use in everyday clinical settings?
Does the application describe the clinical trial methodology, including: a) how the replication and extension of preliminary target engagement findings will be conducted and b) how the trial will evaluate associations between target engagement and subsequent clinical or functional change? Is there a clear description of how sufficient data will be collected to inform a "go/no-go" decision about the therapeutic target for further clinical development or effectiveness testing? Is the selection of the control condition well justified and how likely is it to address the research question? To what extent does the application effectively justify the inclusion/exclusion criteria and demonstrate that the inclusion/exclusion criteria are based appropriately on a measurable disruption in the mechanism under study?
Does the application clearly describe the necessary elements to carry out data acquisition and analysis in a timely manner?
Where feasible and appropriate, did the applicants include assessment of suicidal behavior? If so, did the applicant provide a strong rationale for the selection of suicide-related constructs and corresponding assessment instruments (e.g., measures of ideation, attempts), the time periods assessed (e.g., lifetime history, current), and the assessment schedule for administration (e.g., baseline, during intervention, post-intervention, follow up), taking into account the nature of the target population, participant burden, etc. If appropriate, did the the application should also address provisions for clinical management when suicidal behavior is reported. In situations where it is not appropriate or feasible to include assessment of suicide outcomes due to the nature of the intervention did the application provide an appropriate justification for excluding these assessments?
Does the application adequately address the following, if applicable
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?
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?
Does the environment support timely subject recruitment and completion?
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?
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)?
Protections for Human Subjects
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.
Inclusion of Women, Minorities, and Individuals Across the Lifespan
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.
Generally Not Applicable. Reviewers should bring any concerns to the attention of the Scientific Review Officer.
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 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.
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.
Applications from Foreign Organizations
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.
Select Agent Research
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).
Resource Sharing Plans
Reviewers will comment on whether the following Resource Sharing Plans, or the rationale for not sharing the following types of resources, are reasonable: (1) Data Sharing Plan; (2) Sharing Model Organisms; and (3) Genomic Data Sharing Plan (GDS).
Authentication of Key Biological and/or Chemical Resources:
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.
Budget and Period of Support
Reviewers will consider whether the budget and the requested period of support are fully justified and reasonable in relation to the proposed research.
Applications will be evaluated for scientific and technical merit by (an) appropriate Scientific Review Group(s) convened by the NIMH, 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 . 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:
Information regarding the disposition of applications is available in the NIH Grants Policy Statement.
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.
Awardees must comply with any funding restrictions described in Section IV.5. 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 FOA 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.
The NIMH has published policies and guidance for investigators regarding human research protection, data and safety monitoring, Independent Safety Monitors and Data and Safety Monitoring Boards, reportable events, and participant recruitment monitoring (NOT-MH-19-027). The application’s PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information should reflect the manner in which these policies will be implemented for each study record. These plans will be reviewed by the NIMH for consistency with NIMH and NIH policies and federal regulations. The NIMH will expect clinical trials to be conducted in accordance with these policies including, but not limited to: timely registration to ClinicalTrials.gov, submission of review determinations from the clinical trial’s data and safety monitoring entity (at least annually), timely submission of reportable events as prescribed, and establishment of recruitment milestones and progress reporting
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 awardee 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).
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 and Part II: Terms and Conditions of NIH Grant Awards, Subpart B: Terms and Conditions for Specific Types of Grants, Recipients, and Activities. More information is provided at Award Conditions and Information for NIH Grants.
Recipients of federal financial assistance (FFA) from HHS must administer their programs in compliance with federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, age and, in some circumstances, religion, conscience, and sex. This includes ensuring programs are accessible to persons with limited English proficiency. The HHS Office for Civil Rights provides guidance on complying with civil rights laws enforced by HHS. Please see https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/for-providers/provider-obligations/index.html and http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/understanding/section1557/index.html.
HHS recognizes that research projects are often limited in scope for many reasons that are nondiscriminatory, such as the principal investigator’s 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 FOA.
Please contact the HHS Office for Civil Rights for more information about obligations and prohibitions under federal civil rights laws at https://www.hhs.gov/ocr/about-us/contact-us/index.html or call 1-800-368-1019 or TDD 1-800-537-7697.
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 applicant’s integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards when completing the review of risk posed by applicants as described in 45 CFR Part 75.205 “Federal awarding agency review of risk posed by applicants.” This provision will apply to all NIH grants and cooperative agreements except fellowships.
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.
The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Transparency Act), includes a requirement for awardees of Federal grants to report information about first-tier subawards and executive compensation under Federal assistance awards issued in FY2011 or later. All awardees 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 $25,000. See the NIH Grants Policy Statement for additional information on this reporting requirement.
In accordance with the regulatory requirements provided at 45 CFR 75.113 and Appendix XII to 45 CFR Part 75, 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 45 CFR Part 75 – Award Term and Conditions 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: http://grants.nih.gov/support/ (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: GrantsInfo@nih.gov (preferred method of contact)
Grants.gov Customer Support (Questions regarding Grants.gov registration and Workspace)
Contact Center Telephone: 800-518-4726
Adam Haim, Ph.D.
National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
Nick Gaiano, Ph.D.
National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
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 45 CFR Part 75.
Note: For help accessing PDF, RTF, MS Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Audio or Video files, see Help Downloading Files.