and Human Services (HHS)
EXPIRED
INFORMAL CAREGIVING RESEARCH FOR CHRONIC CONDITIONS Release Date: November 7, 2001 RFA: RFA-NR-02-001 National Institute of Nursing Research (http://www.ninr.nih.gov) National Institute on Aging (http://www.nia.nih.gov) Letter of Intent Receipt Date: January 31, 2002 Application Receipt Date: February 26, 2002 THIS RFA USES "MODULAR GRANT" AND "JUST-IN-TIME" CONCEPTS. MODULAR INSTRUCTIONS MUST BE USED FOR RESEARCH GRANT APPLICATIONS REQUESTING LESS THAN $250,000 PER YEAR IN ALL YEARS. MODULAR BUDGET INSTRUCTIONS ARE PROVIDED IN SECTION C OF THE PHS 398 (REVISION 5/2001) AVAILABLE AT http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/phs398.html. PURPOSE The National Institute of Nursing Research and the National Institute on Aging invite applications for research grants to advance the science in informal caregiving in the home for care recipients with chronic illness, disability, or functional impairment requiring partial or full dependency on others. This RFA targets studies of informal caregiving interventions to improve caregiver health and quality of life, caregiving processes, and caregiving effectiveness and health outcomes. A key aspect of this RFA is to encourage research to advance science-based knowledge of informal caregiving, with attention to the caregiver. Clinical research areas appropriate to this RFA include interventions: to improve the quality of informal caregiving at all levels and throughout the caregiving trajectory, to prevent or manage caregiver physical and mental health problems related to caregiving, to reduce the burden of caregiving, and on the effectiveness of advances in caregiving processes, including new technologies. HEALTHY PEOPLE 2010 The Public Health Service (PHS) is committed to achieving the health promotion and disease prevention objectives of "Healthy People 2010," a PHS- led national activity for setting priority areas. This Request for Applications (RFA), Informal Caregiving in Non-Institutional Settings, is related to one or more of the priority areas. Potential applicants may obtain a copy of "Healthy People 2010" at http://www.health.gov/healthypeople/. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS Applications may be submitted by domestic and foreign, for-profit and non- profit organizations, public and private, such as universities, colleges, hospitals, laboratories, units of State and local governments, and eligible agencies of the Federal government. Racial/ethnic minority individuals, women, and persons with disabilities are encouraged to apply as Principal Investigators. MECHANISM OF SUPPORT This RFA will use the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Research Project Grant (R01) award mechanism. Responsibility for the planning, direction, and execution of the proposed project will be solely that of the applicant. The total project period for an application submitted in response to this RFA may not exceed five (5) years. This RFA is a one-time solicitation. Future unsolicited competing continuation applications will compete with all investigator-initiated applications and be reviewed according to the customary peer review procedures. The anticipated award date is September 30, 2002. Specific application instructions have been modified to reflect "MODULAR GRANT" and "JUST-IN-TIME" streamlining efforts that have been adopted by the NIH. Complete and detailed instructions and information on Modular Grant applications have been incorporated into the PHS 398 (rev. 5/2001). Additional information on Modular Grants can be found at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/modular/modular.htm FUNDS AVAILABLE The NINR and NIA intend to commit approximately $2.3 million in FY 2002 to fund 5 to 6 new and/or competitive continuation grants in response to this RFA. An applicant may request a project period of up to 5 years and a budget for direct costs of up to $340,000 per year. Because the nature and scope of the research proposed may vary, it is anticipated that the size of each award will also vary. Although the financial plans of the NINR and NIA provide support for this program, awards pursuant to this RFA are contingent upon the availability of funds and the receipt of a sufficient number of meritorious applications. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES Background The definition of informal caregivers used by this RFA is adapted from Biegel, Sales, and Schulz (1), and includes those individuals who provide extraordinary, uncompensated care, predominantly in the home setting, involving significant amounts of time and energy for months or years, and requiring the performance of tasks that may be physically, emotionally, socially, or financially demanding. Studies investigating issues related to the parenting of healthy children or studies of caregiving in institutions are not responsive to this RFA. The number of informal caregivers in the U.S. tripled from 1988 to 1996, according to a National Alliance for Caregiving/American Association of Retired Persons (NAC/AARP) study(2) of informal caregivers for care recipients aged 50 or older. In 1996, the U.S. had over 22 million households with English-speaking informal caregivers. The intensity of caregiving ranged from a few hours per week to constant care. The mean age of caregivers was 46 with 22% under 35 years and 36% 50+ years old. About 73% of informal caregivers were female. The prevalence of informal caregiving was higher among Asian and Black households (31.7% and 29.4%) than among Hispanic (26.8%) or White households (24%). The median household income of caregivers in 1996 was $35,000. About two-thirds of caregivers worked either full-time or part-time, about 20% were not employed, and 16% were retired. Almost 70% of caregivers cared for more than one person, while 23% cared for two people and 8% cared for three or more people. Estimates of the number of caregivers under the age of 21 are not well documented. The main illness or problems experienced by care recipients in the 1996 study were identified, by groupings, as "aging" (15.5%), mobility problems (10.4%), dementia (9.7%), and 43.2% with various chronic diseases including heart, cancer, stroke, arthritis, diabetes, and pulmonary disease. Problems with smaller percentages were noted for mental or emotional illness and neurological problems. Wagner (3) compared 1988 and 1996 informal caregiving survey data and predicted, on the basis of the comparison results, that during the next decade informal caregiving will continue to increase, there will be more employed caregivers with an increase in workplace issues, an increase in male caregivers, and an increase in long-distance caregiving. It is estimated that currently 4.1 million adults aged 21 to 64 need personal assistance with one or more personal or instrumental activities of daily living. Approximately 6.8 million adults over the age of 65 have daily personal assistance needs.(4,5) The cost of informal caregiving is significant and is primarily that associated with caregiving of adults and older adult populations. Informal caregiving cost estimates range from $117 to $292 billion a year for adults with a disability or chronic disease, with higher costs occurring in caregiving for Alzheimer"s disease.(6) The health issues arising from informal caregiving are significant and warrant attention. To illustrate, the NAC/AARP study2 reports that 15% of caregivers admit to having physical or emotional health problems directly related to caregiving while other caregivers have one or more pre-existing health problems. More women than men caregivers report emotional stress and impaired physical health. The national informal caregiving surveys cited previously were targeted to older care recipients. With increasing numbers of children surviving birth defects (including genetic, neurodevelopment, and birth trauma conditions), developing chronic diseases, and the continuing numbers of auto and other accidents resulting in traumatic injuries to adolescents and young adults, informal caregiving needs are, and will continue to be, present across the lifespan. The percentage of children ages 5 to 17 with any limitation in activity from chronic conditions is 8%, as reported by the CDC National Center for Health Statistics in 1997. Furthermore, there are 1.5 million children and adolescents who have serous health conditions that impair daily functioning. (5,6) Chronic diseases that are severe require extraordinary caregiving. One example is the growing number of health outcomes of very low birth weight infants. Low birth weight infants have higher rates of mental retardation, cerebral palsy, blindness, deafness, and psychomotor problems than do normal weight infants.(7) Many of these health problems require a lifetime of committed informal caregiving by parents and family members and may have a deleterious impact on family dynamics, quality of life, and financial status. Informal Caregiving Recipient Populations Examples of care recipient populations and caregiving problems are briefly discussed. It is not possible, in this context, to specify all possible caregiving situations or care recipient groups. The following examples illustrate the breadth and depth of informal caregiving problems experienced by caregivers. Chronic Illnesses. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that nearly three quarters of adults age 65 years and older have one or more chronic illnesses, and nearly half report two or more. Many chronic diseases are debilitating and may have a deleterious affect on self-care functions, requiring informal caregiving from family or friends. The moderate to severe forms of stroke, for example, often require sudden intense and frequent caregiving interventions, with caregiving needs changing over time. A review (8) on caregiving for stroke patients found several caregiver well- being issues including depression, concern for future care, and caregiver burden. Burden was related, in various studies, to level of patient disability, and psychological distress. Caregiver depression was related to the relationship with the patient (spouse), more concern for future care, fewer social contacts, more physical symptoms in the caregiver, and stroke patient symptoms. Caregiver fatigue and sleep difficulties were found to be significantly greater for spousal caregivers of individuals with Alzheimer"s Disease, Parkinson"s disease, or cancer when compared with a control group of little or no caregiving requirements.(9) In a longitudinal cohort study (10) of almost 400 older spousal caregivers, caregivers who experienced mental or emotional strain related to caregiving had mortality risks 63% higher than non-caregiving controls. The findings suggest that having caregiver strain is an independent risk factor for mortality among older spousal caregivers. In addition to having more chronic diseases, many people become frail as they age. This affects their ability to manage their activities of daily living and to care for their health needs. Many frail elderly require assistance from informal caregivers such as family, neighbors, or friends. Alzheimer"s Disease. At least 5 million Americans provide care for someone with Alzheimer"s disease (AD).(11) These informal caregivers are twice as likely to be providing constant care and 38% have been providing care for more than five years. The caregiving required is intense and includes assistance with activities of daily living, incontinence, feeding, and transfer or use of a wheelchair or walker. The majority (73%) of AD caregivers age 65 and over provide the highest levels of care. These caregivers are twice as likely to report physical strain and high levels of emotional stress as a direct result of caregiving responsibilities. They are more likely to report family conflict, to spend less time with other family members, and to give up vacations, hobbies, and other personal activities. A high level of financial strain is present for AD caregivers as well. Technology Dependency. Technological caregiving in the home is becoming more prevalent. Examples of technology use for care recipients of all ages include kidney dialysis, intravenous lines, electronic monitoring, nutritional tube feedings, and ventilators. Care recipients who are technology dependent may need constant vigilance and monitoring. The need for long-term technology re- education, support, and caregiving guidance has not been adequately addressed. Informal technology caregiving success is related to caregiver and care recipient abilities to share responsibilities, to understand tasks, and to coordinate efforts with multiple health professionals. (12) The use of technology in informal caregiving remains a major problem for caregivers and care recipients as technological advances become more common and more sophisticated. This RFA is based on growing scientific opportunities that reflect the increased current and future need for informal caregiving and the lack of research across a range of caregiving populations and of interventions to enhance the quality of caregiving while reducing caregiver burden. These opportunities were summarized at an NINR-sponsored Research In Informal Caregiving: State of the Science Workgroup Meeting in July 2001 at which a group of science experts in informal caregiving, including lay representation, reviewed the current state of the science in the field. A summary of the workgroup meeting and research questions raised can be found under the News and Information link at www.nih.gov/ninr. Research Scope Caregiver and care recipient populations of interest include, but are not limited to, understudied populations such as caregiving for ethnic minorities, children or adolescents, and highly stressed or overwhelmed caregivers. Caregiver and recipient age groups across the lifespan and both genders should be considered. All levels of intensity of informal caregiving are of interest, ranging from moderate effort to constant and vigilant caregiving. Applications focused on caregivers for care recipient populations with chronic illness, disability, or functional impairment will be considered. Diverse populations are encouraged, including urban, inner city, rural, and other understudied groups. Applicants may also consider the feasibility of translation to practice and cost effectiveness for interventions tested. The following research topics are provided as examples that would extend current research. The topics are not listed in any priority order and are not intended to be inclusive or restrictive. All responsive applications, regardless of design or target group, must display awareness of and sensitivity to cultural or race/ethnic issues in appropriate components of the study. Caregiver Health and Quality of Life: o Evaluate interventions that help to maintain or improve the caregiver"s physical and mental health and quality of life across and within different geographic regions, racial/ethnic groups, and by recipient health conditions. o Test interventions to assist caregivers to cope with or problem solve unanticipated demands of caregiving such as time required, loss of social interactions with others, other personal lifestyle sacrifices, insufficient family assistance, financial impact, and work issues. o Assess methods to intervene for caregivers with dysfunctional family dynamics, including aggressive behaviors or abuse. o Investigate the physical and emotional health consequences for both caregiver and care recipient of continuing involvement of an informal family caregiver, beyond simple visiting (e.g., the informal caregiver monitors prevention of pressure ulcers, grooming) following the institutionalization of the individual being cared for. o Examine how caring for patients with different degrees of disability and frailty impact the caregiver. Caregiver Abilities, Problem Solving, and Care Decisions: o Test interventions that improve the quality of caregiving outcomes for the caregiver and care recipient, including caregiver satisfaction, quality of life, physical and mental health, cost effectiveness, and other relevant factors. o Test interventions that improve the caregiving and problem solving abilities of caregivers by considering factors such as symptom management, caregiving procedures/activities, accessing appropriate health care/social services assistance, health care visits, medication management, prevention of complications, preventive care, recipient health crises, troublesome behaviors, and physical and emotional dependency. Include strategies that involve care recipients in care activities and decision making. o Examine interventions at different transitions in the trajectory of caregiving, for example, when the recipient"s condition either improves or worsens, or the recipient is institutionalized or dies. Formal Health Care and Community Resources for Effective Caregiving: o Test interventions or collaboration strategies between caregivers and formal health care systems that improve informal caregiving effectiveness, outcomes, and satisfaction for the caregiver and care recipient. o Evaluate the impact of health care provider strategies and community organizations" (formal and informal) support services on informal caregiver health, quality of life, and caregiving trajectory. o Investigate the role of telehealth or technology in improving informal caregiving and strategies that enable effective caregiving with new or advanced technologies. o Examine the impact of formal home health care (HHC) on the health and well- being of the caregiver under differing models of HHC such as companion care, formal nursing, household chores, etc. and how this varies by specific conditions, such as Alzheimer"s Disease. o Explore the financial impact of informal caregiving of older persons on the family and the effect of privately funded long-term care insurance. References 1. Biegel, D., Sales, E., and Schulz, R. (1991). Family caregiving in chronic illness: Heart disease, cancer, stroke, Alzheimer"s disease, and chronic mental illness. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. 2. National Alliance for Caregiving & American Association of Retired Persons (1997). Family caregiving in the U.S.: Findings from a national survey. Sponsored by the National Alliance for Caregiving, Bethesda MD, and the American Association of Retired Persons, Washington DC. 3. Wagner, DL (1997). Comparative analysis of caregiver data for caregivers to the elderly 1987 and 1997. National Alliance for Caregiving: Bethesda MD. 4. Schulz, R, & Quittner, AL (1998). Caregiving through the life-span: Overview and future directions. Health Psychology, 17(2), 107-111. 5. Quittner, AL, Opipari, LC, Regoli, MJ, Jacobsen, J, & Eigen, H (1992). The impact of caregiving and role strain on family life: Comparisons between mothers of children with CF and matched controls. Rehabilitation Psychology, 37, 289-304. 6. Arno, PS, Levine C, Memmott, MM (1999). The economic value of informal caregiving. Health Affairs, 18(2):182-188. 7 Hack, M, Klein, NK, & Taylor, HG (1995). Long-term developmental outcomes of low birth weight infants. In RE Behrman (Ed.), The Future of Children, 5(1):176-196. Published by the Center for the Future of Children, The David and Lucile Packard Foundation. 8. Han, B, & Haley, WE (1999). Family caregiving for patients with stroke: review and analysis. Stroke, July, 1478-1485. 9. Teel CS, & Press AN (1999). Fatigue among elders in caregiving & non- caregiving roles. West J Nurs Res, Aug,21(4):498-514. 10 Schulz R. & Beach (1999). Caregiving as a risk factor for mortality: The caregiver health effects study. JAMA, 282:2215-2219. 11 Alzheimer"s Association & the National Alliance for Caregiving (1999). Who cares? Families caring for persons with Alzheimer"s disease. A report of the Alzheimer"s Association, Washington DC, and the National Alliance for Caregiving, Bethesda MD. 12 Smith, C. (1996). Quality of life and caregiving in technological home care. In J Fitzpatrick & J Norbeck (Eds.), Annual review of nursing research (Vol. 14, pp. 95-118). New York: Springer Publishing. Upon initiation of the program, one meeting will be organized to encourage the exchange of information among principal investigators who participate in this program. Travel funds for the PI, and possibly one other person, for a two-day meeting in the fourth year, to be held in Bethesda, Maryland, must be included in the application. Applicants must include a statement indicating their willingness to participate in this meeting. INCLUSION OF WOMEN AND MINORITIES IN RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS It is the policy of the NIH that women and members of minority groups and their sub-populations must be included in all NIH-supported biomedical and behavioral research projects involving human subjects, unless a clear and compelling rationale and justification are provided indicating that inclusion is inappropriate with respect to the health of the subjects or the purpose of the research. This policy results from the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993 (Section 492B of Public Law 103-43). All investigators proposing research involving human subjects should read the AMENDED "NIH Policy and Guidelines on the Inclusion of Women and Minorities as Subjects in Clinical Research - Amended, October, 2001," http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/women_min/guidelines_amended_10_2001.htm announced in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts on October 9, 2001: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-02-001.html. The amended policy incorporates: the use of an NIH definition of clinical research, updated racial and ethnic categories, clarification of language governing NIH-defined Phase III clinical trials consistent with the new PHS Form 398, and updated roles and responsibilities of NIH staff and the extramural community with this policy. The amended policy provides additional guidance on the analyses and reporting of analyses of sex/gender, racial/ethnic and relevant subpopulation differences in intervention effects for NIH-defined Phase III clinical trials. INCLUSION OF CHILDREN AS PARTICIPANTS IN RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN SUBJECTS It is the policy of NIH that children (i.e., individuals under the age of 21) must be included in all human subjects research, conducted or supported by the NIH, unless there are scientific and ethical reasons not to include them. This policy applies to all initial (Type 1) applications submitted for receipt dates after October 1, 1998. All investigators proposing research involving human subjects should read the "NIH Policy and Guidelines" on the Inclusion of Children as Participants in Research Involving Human Subjects that was published in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts, March 6, 1998, and is available at the following URL address: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not98-024.html Investigators also may obtain copies of these policies from the program staff listed under INQUIRIES. Program staff may also provide additional relevant information concerning the policy. REQUIRED EDUCATION ON THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECT PARTICIPANTS NIH policy requires education on the protection of human subject participants for all investigators submitting NIH proposals for research involving human subjects. This policy announcement is found in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts Announcement dated June 5, 2000, at the following website: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-00-039.html. URLS IN NIH GRANT APPLICATIONS OR APPENDICES All applications and proposals for NIH funding must be self-contained within specified page limitations. Unless otherwise specified in an NIH solicitation, internet addresses (URLs) should not be used to provide information necessary to the review because reviewers are under no obligation to view the Internet sites. Reviewers are cautioned that their anonymity may be compromised when they directly access an Internet site. PUBLIC ACCESS TO RESEARCH DATA THROUGH THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-110 has been revised to provide public access to research data through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) under some circumstances. Data that are (1) first produced in a project that is supported in whole or in part with Federal funds and (2) cited publicly and officially by a Federal agency in support of an action that has the force and effect of law (i.e., a regulation) may be accessed through FOIA. It is important for applicants to understand the basic scope of this amendment. NIH has provided guidance at: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/a110/a110_guidance_dec1999.htm Applicants may wish to place data collected under this RFA in a public archive, which can provide protections for the data and manage the distribution for an indefinite period of time. If so, the application should include a description of the archiving plan in the study design and include information about this in the budget justification section of the application. In addition, applicants should think about how to structure informed consent statements and other human subjects procedures given the potential for wider use of data collected under this award. LETTER OF INTENT Prospective applicants are asked to submit a letter of intent that includes a descriptive title of the proposed research, the name, address, and telephone number of the Principal Investigator, the identities of other key personnel and participating institutions, and the number and title of the RFA in response to which the application may be submitted. 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. The letter of intent is to be sent Dr. Nell Armstrong at the address below by the letter of intent receipt date listed. APPLICATION PROCEDURES The PHS 398 research grant application instructions and forms (rev. 5/2001) at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/phs398.html must be used in applying for these grants. This version of the PHS 398 is available in an interactive, searchable format. For further assistance contact GrantsInfo, Telephone 301/710-0267, Email: [email protected]. SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS FOR MODULAR GRANT APPLICATIONS The modular grant concept establishes specific modules in which direct costs may be requested as well as a maximum level for requested budgets. Only limited budgetary information is required under this approach. The just-in-time concept allows applicants to submit certain information only when there is a possibility for an award. It is anticipated that these changes will reduce the administrative burden for the applicants, reviewers and NIH staff. The research grant application form PHS 398 (rev. 5/2001) at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/phs398.html is to be used in applying for these grants, with modular budget instructions provided in Section C of the application instructions. The RFA label available in the PHS 398 (rev. 5/2001) application form must be affixed to the bottom of the face page of the application. Type the RFA number on the label. Failure to use this label could result in delayed processing of the application such that it may not reach the review committee in time for review. In addition, the RFA title and number must be typed on line 2 of the face page of the application form and the YES box must be marked. The RFA label is also available at: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/label-bk.pdf. Submit a signed, typewritten original of the application, including the Checklist, and three signed, photocopies, in one package to: CENTER FOR SCIENTIFIC REVIEW NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH 6701 ROCKLEDGE DRIVE, ROOM 1040, MSC 7710 BETHESDA, MD 20892-7710 BETHESDA, MD 20817 (for express/courier service) At the time of submission, two additional copies of the application must be sent to: John Richters, PhD Office of Review National Institute of Nursing Research Building 45, Room Number 3AN12, MSC 6300 Bethesda, MD 20892-6300 Applications must be received by the application receipt date listed in the heading of this RFA. If an application is received after that date, it will be returned to the applicant without review. The Center for Scientific Review (CSR) will not accept any application in response to this RFA that is essentially the same as one currently pending initial review, unless the applicant withdraws the pending application. The CSR will not accept any application that is essentially the same as one already reviewed. This does not preclude the submission of substantial revisions of applications already reviewed, but such applications must include an Introduction addressing the previous critique. REVIEW CONSIDERATIONS Upon receipt, applications will be reviewed for completeness by the CSR and responsiveness by the NINR and NIA. Incomplete and/or non-responsive applications will be returned to the applicant without further consideration. Applications that are complete and responsive to the RFA will be evaluated for scientific and technical merit by an appropriate peer review group convened by the NINR in accordance with the review criteria stated below. As part of the initial merit review, all applications will receive a written critique and undergo a process in which only those applications deemed to have the highest scientific merit, generally the top half of the applications under review, will be discussed, assigned a priority score, and receive a second level review by the National Advisory Council for Nursing Research and the National Advisory Council on Aging. Review Criteria The goals of NIH-supported research are to advance our understanding of biological systems, improve the control of disease, and enhance health. In the written comments reviewers will be asked to discuss the following aspects of the application in order to judge the likelihood that the proposed research will have a substantial impact on the pursuit of these goals. Each of these criteria will be addressed and considered in assigning the overall score, weighting them as appropriate for each application. Note that the application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact and thus deserve a high priority score. For example, an investigator may propose to carry out important work that by its nature is not innovative but is essential to move a field forward. (1) Significance: Does this study address an important problem? If the aims of the application are achieved, how will scientific knowledge be advanced? What will be the effect of these studies on the concepts or methods that drive this field? (2) Approach: Are the conceptual framework, design, methods, and analyses adequately developed, well integrated, and appropriate to the aims of the project? Does the applicant acknowledge potential problem areas and consider alternative tactics? (3) Innovation: Does the project employ novel concepts, approaches or method? Are the aims original and innovative? Does the project challenge existing paradigms or develop new methodologies or technologies? (4) Investigator: Is the investigator appropriately trained and well suited to carry out this work? Is the work proposed appropriate to the experience level of the principal investigator and other researchers (if any)? (5) Environment: Does the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Do the proposed experiments take advantage of unique features of the scientific environment or employ useful collaborative arrangements? Is there evidence of institutional support? In addition to the above criteria, in accordance with NIH policy, all applications will also be reviewed with respect to the following: o The adequacy of plans to include both genders, minorities and their subgroups, and children as appropriate for the scientific goals of the research. Plans for the recruitment and retention of subjects will also be evaluated. o The reasonableness of the proposed budget and duration in relation to the proposed research. o The adequacy of the proposed protection for humans, animals or the environment, to the extent they may be adversely affected by the project proposed in the application. (o The adequacy of the proposed plan to share data, if appropriate.) Schedule Letter of Intent Receipt Date: January 31, 2002 Application Receipt Date: February 26, 2002 Peer Review Date: May/June 2002 Council Review: September 2002 Earliest Anticipated Start Date: September 30, 2002 AWARD CRITERIA Award criteria that will be used to make award decisions include: o scientific merit (as determined by peer review) o availability of funds o programmatic priorities. INQUIRIES Inquiries concerning this RFA are encouraged. The opportunity to clarify any issues or answer questions from potential applicants is welcome. Direct inquiries regarding programmatic issues to: Nell Armstrong, PhD, RN Office of Extramural Programs National Institute of Nursing Research Building 45, Room Number 3AN12, MSC 6300 Bethesda, MD 20892-6300 Telephone: (301) 594-5973 FAX: (301) 480-8260 Email: [email protected] The National Institute on Aging interests in caregiving involve older persons. Direct inquiries regarding programmatic issues to: Sidney M. Stahl, PhD Chief, Behavioral Medicine National Institute on Aging 7201 Wisconsin Ave., #533 Bethesda, MD 20892-9205 Telephone: (301) 402-4156 FAX: (301) 402-0051 Email: [email protected] Direct inquiries regarding review issues to: John Richters, PhD Office of Review National Institute of Nursing Research Building 45, Room Number 3AN12, MSC 6300 Bethesda, MD 20892-6300 Telephone: (301) 594-5971 FAX: (301) 480-8260 Email: [email protected] Direct inquiries regarding fiscal matters to: Cindy McDermott Office of Grants and Contracts Management National Institute of Nursing Research Building 45, Room Number 3AN12, MSC 6300 Bethesda, MD 20892-6300 Telephone: (301) 594-6869 FAX: (301) 480-8260 Email: [email protected] Grace Poe Grants and Contracts Management Office National Institute on Aging 7201 Wisconsin Ave., #212 Bethesda, MD 20892-9205 Phone: (301) 496-1472 FAX: (301) 402-3672 Email: [email protected] AUTHORITY AND REGULATIONS This program is described in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 93.361 (NINR) and 93.866 (NIA). Awards are made under authorization of Sections 301 and 405 of the Public Health Service Act as amended (42 USC 241 and 284) and administered under NIH grants policies and Federal Regulations 42 CFR 52 and 45 CFR Parts 74 and 92. This program is not subject to the intergovernmental review requirements of Executive Order 12372 or Health Systems Agency review. The PHS strongly encourages all grant recipients to provide a smoke-free workplace and promote the non-use of all tobacco products. In addition, Public Law 103-227, the Pro-Children Act of 1994, prohibits smoking in certain facilities (or in some cases, any portion of a facility) in which regular or routine education, library, day care, health care, or early childhood development services are provided to children. This is consistent with the PHS mission to protect and advance the physical and mental health of the American people.
Weekly TOC for this Announcement
NIH Funding Opportunities and Notices
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) |
|
|||
|
NIH... Turning Discovery Into Health® |
||||||