AHRQ Career Development Programs: Opportunities, Tips, and Mock Review

Transcription

1 AHRQ Career Development Programs: Opportunities, Tips, and Mock Review AAMC Webinar, February 13, 2014 Moderator: Karen Rudzinski, Ph.D. Director, Division of Research Education, OEREP, AHRQ

2 AHRQ Mentored Career Development Grants Review of the AHRQ s Career Development Opportunities Grant Process and Tips A Mock Review of an Existing Mentored-Clinical Career Development Grant Question and Answer Session

3 Review of the AHRQ s Career Development Opportunities

4 Training Program Goal Continue to foster the growth, dissemination, and translation of Health Services Research Fostering the next generation of researchers who actively engage in workforce and knowledge production

5 Career Development Opportunities at AHRQ Mentored Clinical Scientist Developmental Awards Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Programs Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Mentored Research Scientist Development Award Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Mentored Clinical Investigator Award AHRQ Mentored Career Enhancement Award in Patient Centered Outcomes Research (PCOR) for Mid-Career and Senior Investigators (K18)

6 Mentored Clinical Scientist Awards (K08) Audience U.S. citizens, non-citizen nationals, or permanent residents and hold a clinical doctoral degree or a Ph.D. in a clinical discipline Level of Effort and Duration minimum of 75% of effort for generally 3 to 5 years Level of Support -- $90,000 annually, plus fringe benefits and research development support up to $25,000

7 K08 Special Emphasis Notices Special Emphasis Areas include: Research on Healthcare Delivery System Affordability, Efficiency, and Quality Research on Health Insurance Coverage, Access and Affordability Career Development (K08) and Dissertation (R36) Grants Focused on Health Information Technology (IT)

8 PCOR Opportunities Focus on combining CER with PCOR: CER -- The conduct and synthesis of research comparing the benefits and harms of different interventions and strategies to prevent, diagnose, treat and monitor health conditions, as well as the delivery of health care in real world settings. PCOR -- The intent is to improve health outcomes by developing and disseminating evidence-based information to patients, clinicians, and other decision-makers, responding to their expressed needs, about which clinical and health system design interventions are most effective for which patients under specific circumstances.

9 PCOR Special Emphasis Notice Patient-Centered Outcomes Research (PCOR) Mentored Career Development Grants focused on Methodologies and Research in Translation, Implementation, and Diffusion of Research into Practice and Policy Health Communication in PCOR Decision Making in PCOR Evidence Dissemination and Implementation

10 PCOR Mentored Research Scientist Awards (K01) Audience U.S. citizens, non-citizen nationals, or permanent residents and hold a clinical doctoral degree or a Ph.D. in a clinical discipline Level of Effort and Duration minimum of 75% of effort for generally 3 to 5 years Level of Support -- $90,000 annually, plus fringe benefits and research development support up to $25,000

11 PCOR Mentored Clinical Scientist Awards (K08) Audience U.S. citizens, non-citizen nationals, or permanent residents and hold a clinical doctoral degree or a Ph.D. in a clinical discipline Level of Effort and Duration minimum of 75% of effort for generally 3 to 5 years Level of Support -- $90,000 annually, plus fringe benefits and research development support up to $25,000

12 K01 and K08 Application Receipt Dates Independent Scientist Awards -- Receipt Deadline Date: February 1, June 1, October 1 Mentored Clinical Scientist Award -- Receipt Deadline Date: February 1, June 1, October 1

13 Mentored Career Enhancement Award in PCOR for Mid-Career and Senior Investigators (K18) Mid- to Senior Career Development in CER methods (e.g., associate to full professor level or equivalent in nonacademic settings) 6 months to 2 years of FTE support, which can be spread across a period of 6 months to 2 years Each award max. is $275,000 Full salary level, within DHHS Grants Policy Guideline levels $50,000 in research enhancement/development support annually (travel, tuition and related costs, statistical support, research-related support, mentors) Application submission date December 18, 2014

14 Grant Process and Tips

15 In Short Your application should be unique to AHRQ and in line with AHRQ mission and priorities AHRQ funding priorities have some stability/variability Internet is funding gateway:

16 NIH AND AHRQ Grant Application Similarities Announcement publication: NIH Guide for Grants and www. Application forms: Form 424 Research and Related (SF 424 R&R) ex.htm Application submission and referral NIH Center for Scientific Review

17 Application Process Applications sent from NIH to AHRQ Assigned to an AHRQ study section Assigned to a specific PO at AHRQ Review typically occurs 4 months after applications received dissertations, three months later Funding decisions occur 1-3 months later Summary Statements issued Resubmission one allowed, unless applying to RFA

18 AHRQ Staff Involved in Grants Process Referral Officer Review Staff Scientific Review Administrator and Grants Management Specialist Team Program Staff Project Officer (PO) Grants Management

19 Phases of an Application & Agency Staff Contacts Preapplication P.O.s, Review/Referral, Grants Management Application Review/Referral, Grants Management Grant award P.O.s, Grants Management Post closeout P.O.s, Grants Management

20 Key Points to Promote Success Talk with an Agency (AHRQ, etc.) program officer(s) Previously funded work can be informative. See AHRQ Grant Database: Current and recently supported training grants can be found at on/index.html

21 Successful Training Grant Applications GOOD IDEA GOOD SCIENCE GOOD MENTORING Adapted from: Gordon, Stephen L. Ingredients of a Successful Grant Application to the National Institutes of Health. J. Orthopaed. Rsch. 7: (1989) (as reprinted in Preparing a Research Grant Application to the National Institutes of Health)

22 Application Preparation Suggestions Follow Instructions Be clear Be organized Watch your language Cover all bases Adapted from Federal Grants & Contracts, Project Opportunities in Research, Training, and Services Grant Workshop by Pam Moore

23 Common Problems in Applications Lack of original idea and/or scientific rationale Diffuse, superficial, or unfocused research plan Questionable methodology or failure to link aims with correct design and analytic methods Lack of generalizability of findings or methods No apparent translatability of research into practice or policy Lack of or inadequate attention to AHRQ s Priority Populations & IRB/Human Subjects

24 Practical Tips Make a rough draft of your application then let it sit so you can distance yourself and review it a bit more dispassionately Does the draft seem coherent? Are transitions logical? Have you checked for grammar, spelling and typographical errors? Is the draft readable? Have an objective person review the draft and final copy; involvement of mentors is critical All of this requires hard work, study, and mental discipline

25 What Steps to Successful Career Development Looks Like Publication Visibility & Dissemination Save Lives and Dollars Change Practices Graduation

26 A Mock Review of an Existing Mentored-Clinical Career Development Grant

27 Mock Review Panelists CAREY, Tim, MD, MPH Professor of Medicine Director, Cecil G Sheps Center for Health Services Research - CB 7590 UNC Chapel Hill Chapel Hill NC (HEOR Study Section Chairperson) COPELAND, Valire, MPH, PHD Associate Dean for Academic Affairs Associate Professor School of Social Work University of Pittsburgh 2228 Cathedral of Learning Pittsburgh, PA (HCRT Study Section Member) HSU, John, MD, MBA, MSCE Associate Professor of Medicine Director Clinical Economics and Policy Analysis Group Mongan Institute for Health Policy Massachusetts General Hospital 50 Staniford Street, 9th Floor Boston, MA (HCRT Study Section Member) WADHWANI, Kishena, PhD, MPH Director, Division of Scientific Review Office of Extramural Research, Education and Priority Populations (OEREP) - (AHRQ) 540 Gaither Road, Room 2032 Rockville, MD (Serve as Scientific Review Officer)

28 Review and Score Procedures Reviewers will consider each of the five review criteria below in the determination of scientific and technical merit, and give a separate score for each ( Candidate Career Development Plan Research Plan Mentor(s), Consultant(s), Collaborator(s) Environment and Institutional Commitment to the Candidate The following additional items in the determination of scientific and technical merit, but will not give separate scores for these items: Protection of Human Subjects from Research Risk Inclusion of Women, Minorities and Children in Research Inclusion of AHRQ Priority Populations Budget and Period of Support Training in the responsible conduct of research Resubmission Applications Reviewers will provide an overall impact/priority score to reflect their overall assessment of the application.

29

30 Project Abstract & Public Health Relevance Statement: PUBLIC HEALTH RELEVANCE: Care coordination is critical for low-income, underserved chronically ill patients to better manage their care, reduce waste and inefficiency, improve clinical outcomes and enhances patients' overall satisfaction with their health care experience; however, our health care system is designed so that care is often inaccessible and fragmented for this patient population. Community health centers (CHCs), which provide primary care to nearly 20 million poor and underserved patients, face significant challenges creating and sustaining robust care coordination. Successful completion of this project will result in the identification of evidence-based best practices that can provide CHCs with strategies of coordination given varying organizational conditions to improve the quality of care for their chronically ill patients. DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): Care coordination is critical to providing high quality, efficient care to chronically ill patients. The current design of our health care system, however, makes it difficult to provide this standard of care, especially for disadvantaged, medically underserved patients seeking care at community health centers. The purpose of this study is to examine how community health centers (CHCs) provide coordinated care for their chronically ill patients and to identify which models of care coordination are most successful and why. We hypothesize that CHCs with more conducive organizational factors will have more robust coordination processes, which will result in more coordinated care and better health outcomes for their chronically ill patient population. To test this hypothesis, we will use a mixed methods approach that combines secondary data analysis with multiple comparative case studies. Our study has three main aims:1) To identify clinical, financial and organizational factors that influence CHCs ability to implement processes and build an infrastructure to support care coordination; 2) To examine the impact of various mechanisms of care coordination on the level of coordination that CHCs' achieve; and 3) To investigate the influence coordinated care in CHCs has on key chronic illness quality measures, including clinical outcomes, patient self-management and overall patient satisfaction. If we achieve our aims, this study will have a significant impact by providing: 1) a systematic examination of CHCs' ability to overcome challenges and link to providers across different health care settings; 2) evidence-based recommendations to help strengthen CHCs at a time of transformation and opportunity; and 3) important information that can improve coordination of care for CHC patients and substantially reduce disparities that frequently occur because of access barriers, mismanagement, and fragmentation. I have training in health policy research and analysis and my short term goals are to expand my skills with targeted training in both quantitative and qualitative methods. To that end I will participate in formal training in advanced statistical modeling and mixed methods. My long-term goal is to use my enhanced skills to improve the standard of care for disadvantaged patients with chronic disease. I would like to use the K01 Career Development Award to become a nationally known expert in the quality and equity of health care and the development of models of health care delivery that support these goals for underserved patients.

31 Specific Issues with Career Development Applications Need for funds not well delineated or demonstrated Adequacy of career development plans Balance between career development plan and proposed research Qualifications of and relationship with mentor(s); demonstration of how mentorship will operate to ensure success Ability to accomplish the proposed training needed and the research within timeframe and budget Ability of the applicant s institutional environment to meet the research needs of the applicant

32 Specific Issues with Career Development Applications Educational plan What are the skill sets that are different from and build on prior doctoral or post-doc training? Research plan Likelihood of the planned research leading to a career as an independent investigator

33 Question and Answer Session

34 For Specific Questions on Career Development Grants Contact: Kay Anderson, Ph.D.