Demystifying the Federal Grant Review Process for NIH Career Development Awards The Ks.

Demystifying the Federal Demystifying the Federal Grant Review Process for Grant Review Process for NIH Career Development NIH Career Development

AwardsAwards

The K’sThe K’s

The PanelThe Panel

Diane Martin, Univ. of WashingtonDiane Martin, Univ. of Washington

Frances Chesley, AHRQFrances Chesley, AHRQ

Lester Gorelic, NIHLester Gorelic, NIH

Willard Manning, University of ChicagoWillard Manning, University of Chicago

OverviewOverview

Writing a successful K proposal for young investigator (D)Writing a successful K proposal for young investigator (D)

Review criteria and reviewer expectations (D)Review criteria and reviewer expectations (D)

Responding to the Pink Sheet (W)Responding to the Pink Sheet (W)

Views from AHRQ & E-Submission (F)Views from AHRQ & E-Submission (F)

Views from NCI, differences across NIH (L)Views from NCI, differences across NIH (L)

Questions and AnswersQuestions and Answers

Focus for PanelFocus for Panel

Assist transition from clinical or research doctoral work Assist transition from clinical or research doctoral work

to become independent researcherto become independent researcher

Varies by clinical versus research doctoral backgroundVaries by clinical versus research doctoral background

Involves skill acquisition and Involves skill acquisition and

research developmentresearch development

Focus (cont’d)Focus (cont’d)

Preparatory to submitting an R01 at end of the grantPreparatory to submitting an R01 at end of the grant

Provides organizing principle for your K’s proposed skill acquisition Provides organizing principle for your K’s proposed skill acquisition and research.and research.

Career Development AwardsCareer Development Awards– Mentored Clinician ScientistMentored Clinician Scientist– Mentored Research ScientistMentored Research Scientist– Independent ScientistIndependent Scientist

More details on range of alternatives available to be discussed by More details on range of alternatives available to be discussed by Drs. Chesley and Gorelic.Drs. Chesley and Gorelic.

Writing a Successful K Writing a Successful K ApplicationApplication

Diane MartinDiane Martin

University of WashingtonUniversity of Washington

Academy Health ARM 08Academy Health ARM 08

Select an Important TopicSelect an Important Topic

Consider important problems in Consider important problems in healthcarehealthcare

Gap in knowledge/researchGap in knowledge/research

Rationale for your projectRationale for your project

Begin by writing 2-3 page synopsis of Begin by writing 2-3 page synopsis of specific aims, significance, and overview specific aims, significance, and overview of methodsof methods

K with LegsK with Legs

Sequence of studies contributing Sequence of studies contributing answers to a topicanswers to a topic

Eventually leading to an RO1Eventually leading to an RO1

Plan 6 Months in AdvancePlan 6 Months in Advance

Consider type of K and length of funding Consider type of K and length of funding Consider appropriate funding branch and study sectionConsider appropriate funding branch and study section Understand funding mechanism (KOx); read K solicitation Understand funding mechanism (KOx); read K solicitation

carefullycarefully Construct application submission calendar, working back Construct application submission calendar, working back

from due datefrom due date Nice if conduct pilot, obtain datasetNice if conduct pilot, obtain dataset

Obtain InformationObtain Information

Innovation and non-duplicationInnovation and non-duplication– NIH Guide for grants and contractsNIH Guide for grants and contracts– CRISP (Computer retrieval of information on Scientific CRISP (Computer retrieval of information on Scientific

Projects)Projects)– HSRProj – AcademyHealth database of HSR projectsHSRProj – AcademyHealth database of HSR projects

Obtain copies of successful Ks, funded by target branchObtain copies of successful Ks, funded by target branch Know study section members’ researchKnow study section members’ research

Discuss with Many PeopleDiscuss with Many People

Faculty at home and in other institutionsFaculty at home and in other institutions Federal officials in target branchFederal officials in target branch Successful K awardeesSuccessful K awardees Two external reviewers for later draftTwo external reviewers for later draft Home institution grants administrators (VIP)Home institution grants administrators (VIP)

– Budget, budget justification, IRB, environmentBudget, budget justification, IRB, environment

– Internal procedures and deadlinesInternal procedures and deadlines

– Add to application submission calendarAdd to application submission calendar

Planning a Mentored KPlanning a Mentored K

Conduct personal SWOT analysisConduct personal SWOT analysis Coherent, integrated applicationCoherent, integrated application Tie career development plan to Tie career development plan to

research planresearch plan Include strong, specific roles for Include strong, specific roles for

mentorsmentors The above lead to increased The above lead to increased

knowledge & skills to be an knowledge & skills to be an independent researcherindependent researcher

Develop a Team: Mentor(s), Develop a Team: Mentor(s), Collaborators, ConsultantsCollaborators, Consultants

Primary mentor is key; should not be Primary mentor is key; should not be someone you have worked with someone you have worked with extensively in the past extensively in the past

Identify expertise of each personIdentify expertise of each person Specify time each will give youSpecify time each will give you Meet as a group to discuss K, review Meet as a group to discuss K, review

draftsdrafts Ask for letters of support earlyAsk for letters of support early

Read K Solicitation Read K Solicitation

Read instructionsRead instructions Follow page limits, font, use of Follow page limits, font, use of

appendices appendices Create K timeline that incorporates career Create K timeline that incorporates career

development plan & research plandevelopment plan & research plan Address each review criterion in your Address each review criterion in your

applicationapplication Make it easy for reviewers to understand; Make it easy for reviewers to understand;

give big picture, then explain detailsgive big picture, then explain details

Review Criteria for KsReview Criteria for Ks

CandidateCandidate Career development planCareer development plan Research planResearch plan (Mentor, co-mentor)(Mentor, co-mentor) Environment and inst’l commitmentEnvironment and inst’l commitment BudgetBudget Human subjects protectionHuman subjects protection Inclusion of women and minority Inclusion of women and minority

subjectssubjects (Inclusion of AHRQ priority pops.)(Inclusion of AHRQ priority pops.)

CandidateCandidate

Describe your background in research, Describe your background in research, formal coursework and experiencesformal coursework and experiences

Persuade the reviewers you have Persuade the reviewers you have potential to be an independent potential to be an independent productive researcher & how K will helpproductive researcher & how K will help

Tell a story, let your passion showTell a story, let your passion show Chance to give big picture, describe Chance to give big picture, describe

integrationintegration

Career Development PlanCareer Development Plan

Applies to various types of KsApplies to various types of Ks Coherent rationale for your planCoherent rationale for your plan Provide details of past experience and Provide details of past experience and

coursework subject matter & levelcoursework subject matter & level Gap and what you need to know to have Gap and what you need to know to have

a successful research project and careera successful research project and career Propose a Propose a specificspecific career development career development

plan explaining depth of training and how plan explaining depth of training and how it will contribute to your researchit will contribute to your research

Research PlanResearch Plan

Discuss how research will build your Discuss how research will build your skills & knowledge, and aid you in skills & knowledge, and aid you in becoming an independent researcherbecoming an independent researcher

The research plan should be well The research plan should be well integrated across all sectionsintegrated across all sections

Use parallel construction throughout Use parallel construction throughout application: aim 1, aim 2, aim 3application: aim 1, aim 2, aim 3

Specific AimsSpecific Aims

Most important part of applicationMost important part of application Narrow the topicNarrow the topic Aims testable, stated clearly, in unambiguous Aims testable, stated clearly, in unambiguous

languagelanguage Aims integrated across hypotheses, methods, Aims integrated across hypotheses, methods,

expected results and interpretation of alternative expected results and interpretation of alternative findingsfindings

BackgroundBackground

Synthesize and integrate the previous research in this Synthesize and integrate the previous research in this areaarea

Briefly summarize major findings, strengths, Briefly summarize major findings, strengths, weaknessesweaknesses

Identify gap your research will fillIdentify gap your research will fill Discuss how your research will build on past strengths Discuss how your research will build on past strengths

and overcome limitationsand overcome limitations Describe the conceptual framework you will useDescribe the conceptual framework you will use

SignificanceSignificance

Why is the problem important??Why is the problem important??

How will your results advance scientific knowledge?How will your results advance scientific knowledge?

How will your study contribute to improved How will your study contribute to improved methods?methods?

How will your results likely be used to change How will your results likely be used to change practice and policy?practice and policy?

MethodsMethods

In my experience, shift over time to In my experience, shift over time to more detailed research planmore detailed research plan

Specify methods for each aimSpecify methods for each aim Research study design and target Research study design and target

population/samplepopulation/sample Quantitative, qualitative, mixed Quantitative, qualitative, mixed

methodsmethods Describe interventions, comparisonsDescribe interventions, comparisons Clearly define measures, choice of Clearly define measures, choice of

variablesvariables

Analysis PlanAnalysis Plan

Move from univariate, to bivariate and Move from univariate, to bivariate and then multivariable analyses (mock tables)then multivariable analyses (mock tables)

Include an analytic model that describes Include an analytic model that describes in words the dependent variable, major in words the dependent variable, major independent variables, confounders, and independent variables, confounders, and interaction termsinteraction terms

A well developed plan includes the A well developed plan includes the statistical techniques to be used, the statistical techniques to be used, the assumptions necessary, and the likely assumptions necessary, and the likely way the results will be interpretedway the results will be interpreted

General Methods General Methods

Are framework, design, methods and Are framework, design, methods and analysis sufficiently developed?analysis sufficiently developed?

Are they integrated and appropriate to Are they integrated and appropriate to project aims?project aims?

Point out any novel concepts and methodsPoint out any novel concepts and methods Discuss generalizability of resultsDiscuss generalizability of results Acknowledge potential problems & Acknowledge potential problems &

weaknesses and consider alternative weaknesses and consider alternative tacticstactics

Writing and EditingWriting and Editing

Clear concise writing: keep related ideas Clear concise writing: keep related ideas together, shorten long sentences, together, shorten long sentences, eliminate redundancyeliminate redundancy

Don’t assume reviewers will know jargon, Don’t assume reviewers will know jargon, methodsmethods

Allow time for administrative parts of appl.Allow time for administrative parts of appl. Allow critique by 2 external reviewersAllow critique by 2 external reviewers Allow time for thorough editingAllow time for thorough editing

Other EssentialsOther Essentials

Environment and institutional Environment and institutional commitmentcommitment

BudgetBudget Human subjects protectionHuman subjects protection Inclusion of women and minority Inclusion of women and minority

subjectssubjects Inclusion of AHRQ priority pops.Inclusion of AHRQ priority pops. Know the study section review processKnow the study section review process

Most Common ProblemsMost Common Problems

Career development plan does not Career development plan does not include sufficient detail, not high levelinclude sufficient detail, not high level

Career development plan is not related Career development plan is not related to research planto research plan

Role and interaction with mentors is not Role and interaction with mentors is not specifiedspecified

Aims are not integrated across the Aims are not integrated across the research planresearch plan

Methods are underdevelopedMethods are underdeveloped

Responding toResponding toStudy Section's Study Section's

ConcernsConcernsin the Pink Sheetsin the Pink Sheets

Willard ManningWillard Manning

Harris School of Public Policy StudiesHarris School of Public Policy Studies

University of Chicago University of Chicago

Responding to Study SectionResponding to Study Section

Expect making a second submission of your Expect making a second submission of your proposal.proposal. Very few proposals funded first time unless Very few proposals funded first time unless

one-shot announcement.one-shot announcement. Prepare for a critical review. Language will be:Prepare for a critical review. Language will be:

– Frank, and Frank, and – Not overly enthusiasticNot overly enthusiastic

Facts about Review and Facts about Review and ReviewersReviewers

Reviewers may not be from same discipline or specialty.Reviewers may not be from same discipline or specialty. Check the section roster, then PubMed/GoogleCheck the section roster, then PubMed/Google Many reviewers will have trouble with jargonMany reviewers will have trouble with jargon

– Your technical terminology may be unintelligible jargon to me unless Your technical terminology may be unintelligible jargon to me unless explainedexplained "Collective efficacy" means what? "Collective efficacy" means what? "Diff-n-diff" means what?"Diff-n-diff" means what?

HSR is multidisciplinary and reviews reflect this! ! !HSR is multidisciplinary and reviews reflect this! ! ! Unless the study section has many from your discipline, you must talk to a Unless the study section has many from your discipline, you must talk to a

wider audiencewider audience

Facts about Review Facts about Review (cont’d)(cont’d)

Remember how reviews are done:Remember how reviews are done:– Reviewers doing the review "cold."Reviewers doing the review "cold."– Reviewers work under pressure of short deadline while Reviewers work under pressure of short deadline while

still teaching, seeing patients, etc. still teaching, seeing patients, etc. – Reviewers do not have benefit of lengthy discussions Reviewers do not have benefit of lengthy discussions

with research team.with research team.– Reviewers do not have time to read the proposal over Reviewers do not have time to read the proposal over

and over again. and over again.

Facts about Review (cont’d)Facts about Review (cont’d)

Basic Reviewing PrinciplesBasic Reviewing Principles Burden of proof of idea and approach is on the Burden of proof of idea and approach is on the

proposer.proposer. If they cannot find what they need easily, they If they cannot find what they need easily, they

often will treat it as missing or inadequately often will treat it as missing or inadequately described.described.

But remember reviewers are: But remember reviewers are:

– Looking for problems.Looking for problems.

– Trying to help, esp. if they see some merit in Trying to help, esp. if they see some merit in proposal.proposal.

Initial Response to “Pink” Sheets Initial Response to “Pink” Sheets Sulking is normal.Sulking is normal.

Do not take it personally. Do not take it personally.

Get advice from agency staff ASAP.Get advice from agency staff ASAP.

GET SENIOR MENTOR/COLLEAGUE’S HELP TO INTERPRET GET SENIOR MENTOR/COLLEAGUE’S HELP TO INTERPRET COMMENTS AND FRAME RESPONSE.COMMENTS AND FRAME RESPONSE.

Reserve a "cold reviewer" to react to draft resubmissionReserve a "cold reviewer" to react to draft resubmission– Preferably with study section or area experiencePreferably with study section or area experience

Plan to resubmit unless "fatally flawed"Plan to resubmit unless "fatally flawed"

Responding to "Pink" Sheets Responding to "Pink" Sheets

Leave plenty of time to Leave plenty of time to

– Overhaul in response to study section and agency staff Overhaul in response to study section and agency staff comments comments

– Solicit reaction to revised submission from cold reviewer, Solicit reaction to revised submission from cold reviewer, preferably with study section or area experiencepreferably with study section or area experience

Respond accordingly to internal “cold” reviewers comments.Respond accordingly to internal “cold” reviewers comments.

Do not rush to resubmit (e.g., by July 1st after receiving pink Do not rush to resubmit (e.g., by July 1st after receiving pink sheets on June 6th).sheets on June 6th).

Revising the Proposal Revising the Proposal

OutrageOutrage is OK for a personal reaction but never in a response! is OK for a personal reaction but never in a response! Take the feedback seriously as indicative of Take the feedback seriously as indicative of

– Gaps in exposition or logic Gaps in exposition or logic Underdeveloped educational plan.Underdeveloped educational plan. Too sketchy on some research aspect.Too sketchy on some research aspect.

– Overly terse in key areas.Overly terse in key areas.– Organizational issues.Organizational issues.

Identify common themes across reviewers.Identify common themes across reviewers. Respond to all concerns in "Response," as well as text. Respond to all concerns in "Response," as well as text. Thank the reviewers for their valuable comments.Thank the reviewers for their valuable comments. Apologize for inadequacy of … Apologize for inadequacy of …

Revising the Proposal Revising the Proposal (cont'd) (cont'd)

Even if you are "right," clean up or expand the exposition to make the Even if you are "right," clean up or expand the exposition to make the logic more transparent.logic more transparent.

Revise the whole proposal if needed.Revise the whole proposal if needed.

Ask co-researchers, mentors / senior colleagues, and a cold reviewer Ask co-researchers, mentors / senior colleagues, and a cold reviewer for reaction.for reaction.

Revise againRevise again

– For substance.For substance.

– For ease of reviewers to evaluate.For ease of reviewers to evaluate.

Common problemsCommon problems

K’s are K’s are notnot aboutabout– 5 years of support5 years of support

– 75 percent buyout75 percent buyout

– $$$$$$

– Those matter to your Dept. Chairman, Those matter to your Dept. Chairman,

but not to AHRQ or NIH.but not to AHRQ or NIH.

It Is About It Is About

MMentoredentored

Clinical or Research ScientistClinical or Research Scientist

DDevelopmentevelopment

It Is About (cont’d)It Is About (cont’d)

It does require real mentoring.It does require real mentoring. It is about career development for researchers:It is about career development for researchers:

– Not just about more education.Not just about more education.

– Not just about doing preliminary studies.Not just about doing preliminary studies.

– Must have both!Must have both! Don’t confuse K’s with series of R03’sDon’t confuse K’s with series of R03’s

Disconnected MentorDisconnected Mentor

Mentor’s letter not closely tied to content of proposal.Mentor’s letter not closely tied to content of proposal. Mentor’s letter written by proposer and it looks like it. Mentor’s letter written by proposer and it looks like it. Mentor approached with proposal with only week left Mentor approached with proposal with only week left

before due date. before due date.

– Little impact on proposal. Little impact on proposal.

– Worse if proposal is naïve. Worse if proposal is naïve.

Distant MentorDistant Mentor

Always very hard to sell. Always very hard to sell.

Study section distrusts supposed level of Study section distrusts supposed level of commitment by mentor.commitment by mentor.

Esp. if plans for linkage, visiting vague. Esp. if plans for linkage, visiting vague.

Who is in charge?Who is in charge?

PI + mentor must be primaryPI + mentor must be primary

Instead, proposal has:Instead, proposal has:

– Too many other mentors Too many other mentors

– No strong primary mentorNo strong primary mentor

– Nobody appears to have oversight responsibility Nobody appears to have oversight responsibility

Career Development Plan WeakCareer Development Plan Weak

Lacked compelling case for a K, instead of series of R03’s, R21’sLacked compelling case for a K, instead of series of R03’s, R21’s Did not explain why additional training and mentored research work necessary for Did not explain why additional training and mentored research work necessary for

successful R01 and subsequent careersuccessful R01 and subsequent career Educational elements too vagueEducational elements too vague

– Visiting Prof. Jones T times per year, where T is smallVisiting Prof. Jones T times per year, where T is small– Will to him/her at annual meetingWill to him/her at annual meeting

Lack of specificity. Needed concrete details on courses and experiences necessary to Lack of specificity. Needed concrete details on courses and experiences necessary to conduct future work.conduct future work.

Not clear depth of training or courses. Needs to be at research training level, preferably at Not clear depth of training or courses. Needs to be at research training level, preferably at PhD or MS level, not MPH level.PhD or MS level, not MPH level.

Formal course work preferred Formal course work preferred – if a good match for needsif a good match for needs– if level appropriateif level appropriate

Demystifying the Federal Grant Demystifying the Federal Grant Process: K Awards at AHRQProcess: K Awards at AHRQ

Francis D. Chesley, Jr., M.D.Francis D. Chesley, Jr., M.D.Director, Office of Extramural Research, Director, Office of Extramural Research,

Education and Priority PopulationsEducation and Priority PopulationsJune 8, 2008June 8, 2008

AHRQ’s MissionAHRQ’s Mission

Improve the quality, safety, Improve the quality, safety, efficiency and effectiveness of efficiency and effectiveness of health care for all Americanshealth care for all Americans

Training OpportunitiesTraining Opportunities

Pre and Postdoctoral TrainingPre and Postdoctoral Training– NRSA Institutional Training Programs (T32)NRSA Institutional Training Programs (T32)– NRSA Predoctoral Fellowships for Underrepresented NRSA Predoctoral Fellowships for Underrepresented

Minority Students (F31)Minority Students (F31)– NRSA Postdoctoral Fellowships (F32)NRSA Postdoctoral Fellowships (F32)– Dissertation Grants (R36)Dissertation Grants (R36)

Career Development AwardsCareer Development Awards – Mentored Clinical Scientist Awards (K08)Mentored Clinical Scientist Awards (K08)– Mentored Research Scientist Development Award Mentored Research Scientist Development Award

(K01)(K01)– Independent Scientist Awards (K02)Independent Scientist Awards (K02)

Mentored Research Scientist Mentored Research Scientist Awards (K01)Awards (K01)

Audience – Audience – research trained doctorates research trained doctorates (e.g., Ph.D., Sc.D., Dr.P.H.) who require (e.g., Ph.D., Sc.D., Dr.P.H.) who require mentoring and have potential to develop mentoring and have potential to develop into independent investigatorsinto independent investigators

Duration -- Duration -- 3 to 5 years, nonrenewable3 to 5 years, nonrenewable

Level of Support Level of Support -- $90,000 annually, -- $90,000 annually, plus fringe benefits and research plus fringe benefits and research development support up to $25,000development support up to $25,000

Mentored Clinical Scientist Mentored Clinical Scientist Awards (K08)Awards (K08)

Audience -- Audience -- clinical doctorates (clinical doctorates (including including those in patient-oriented researchthose in patient-oriented research) who require ) who require mentoring and have potential to develop mentoring and have potential to develop into independent investigatorsinto independent investigators

Duration -- Duration -- 3 to 5 years, nonrenewable3 to 5 years, nonrenewable

Level of Support Level of Support -- $90,000 annually, -- $90,000 annually, plus fringe benefits and research plus fringe benefits and research development support up to $25,000development support up to $25,000

Independent Investigator Independent Investigator Awards (K02)Awards (K02)

Audience -- Audience -- promising new clinical and nonclinical promising new clinical and nonclinical investigators who are out of training 5 years or less, with investigators who are out of training 5 years or less, with demonstrated need of intensive research focusdemonstrated need of intensive research focus

Duration -- Duration -- 3 to 5 years, nonrenewable3 to 5 years, nonrenewable

Level of Support -- Level of Support -- $90,000 annually, plus fringe $90,000 annually, plus fringe benefits, travel, justified educational expensesbenefits, travel, justified educational expenses

2008 Priorities for K Award 2008 Priorities for K Award FundingFunding

Prevention and Healthcare Management of Prevention and Healthcare Management of Complex Patients Complex Patients – http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-

HS-08-004.htmlHS-08-004.html

Comparative Effectiveness Research Comparative Effectiveness Research – http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-

HS-08-003.htmlHS-08-003.html

Diagnostic Errors in Ambulatory Care SettingsDiagnostic Errors in Ambulatory Care Settings– http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-

HS-08-002.htmlHS-08-002.html

Important ConsiderationsImportant Considerations

Research and program priorities matterResearch and program priorities matter Application process must be understoodApplication process must be understood

– Electronic Grant Application has arrived!Electronic Grant Application has arrived! Concept papers are an important optionConcept papers are an important option Peer review is a step away from funding Peer review is a step away from funding Avoid common pitfallsAvoid common pitfalls

– Mentorship!Mentorship!

Applicant ResponsibilitiesApplicant Responsibilities

Know PHS Form 398 Know PHS Form 398 andand 424 R&R 424 R&R Know the Funding Agency and StaffKnow the Funding Agency and Staff Understand Agency BudgetUnderstand Agency Budget Know Agency Research PrioritiesKnow Agency Research Priorities Know the Grant MechanismsKnow the Grant Mechanisms Know the Grant Process and Key ChangesKnow the Grant Process and Key Changes

AHRQ Transitions to Electronic AHRQ Transitions to Electronic Grant Application SubmissionGrant Application Submission

AHRQ transitioning to electronic grant AHRQ transitioning to electronic grant submission through Grants.govsubmission through Grants.gov– Grants.gov - Web portal that serves as the Grants.gov - Web portal that serves as the

single access point for all Federal grant single access point for all Federal grant programs. programs.

– Grants.gov provides the interface for 26 Grants.gov provides the interface for 26 agencies to announce $350 billion in annual agencies to announce $350 billion in annual grant awards and for all grant applicants to find grant awards and for all grant applicants to find and submit applications to those funding and submit applications to those funding announcements. announcements. www.grants.govwww.grants.gov

Transition for K awards in February 2009Transition for K awards in February 2009

Getting StartedGetting Started

One time registrations for Grants.gov (One time registrations for Grants.gov (http://grants.govhttp://grants.gov) and eRA Commons ) and eRA Commons (era.nih.gov/commons)(era.nih.gov/commons) systems must be systems must be completed before application submission. completed before application submission.

For up to date general information on For up to date general information on electronic submission, the SF 424 (R&R), electronic submission, the SF 424 (R&R), and Grants.gov, visit the AHRQ Electronic and Grants.gov, visit the AHRQ Electronic Submission of Grant Applications Web Site: Submission of Grant Applications Web Site: http://www.ahrq.gov/path/egrants.htmhttp://www.ahrq.gov/path/egrants.htm

Contact InformationContact Information

AHRQ WEBSITEAHRQ WEBSITE

www.ahrq.govwww.ahrq.gov

Francis D. Chesley, Jr., M.D.Francis D. Chesley, Jr., M.D.

(301) 427-1521(301) 427-1521

[email protected]@ahrq.hhs.gov

QuestionsQuestions??

LESTER GORELIC SLIDES HERELESTER GORELIC SLIDES HERE

Questions & AnswersQuestions & Answers

PanelPanel

ResourcesResources

Information on different K grant mechanismsInformation on different K grant mechanisms

http://grants.nih.gov/training/careerdevelopmentawards.htmhttp://grants.nih.gov/training/careerdevelopmentawards.htm Instructions on how to prepare your applicationInstructions on how to prepare your application

http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/section_1.htmlhttp://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/section_1.html

Contact information:Contact information:

– Diane: Diane: [email protected]@u.washington.edu

– Francis: Francis: [email protected]@ahrq.hhs.gov

– Les:Les: [email protected]@mail.nih.gov

– Will:Will: [email protected]@uchicago.edu