ÌÇÐÄVlog

AHRQMission

The ÌÇÐÄVlog's (ÌÇÐÄVlog) mission is to produce evidence to make health care safer, higher quality, more accessible, equitable, and affordable, and to work within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and with other partners to make sure that the evidence is understood and used. AHRQpriorities are described.

Grant Application Basics

http://www.ahrq.gov/funding/process/index.html

Submission Options

What Authorities Do We Have To Fund Grants

Funding Authorities
http://www.ahrq.gov/funding/policies/polfedreg/index.html

Where To Find AHRQFunding Announcements, Guidance and Updated Policy Notes

AHRQNotice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) Site
http://www.ahrq.gov/funding/fund-opps/index.html

AHRQSpecial Emphasis Notices Page
http://www.ahrq.gov/funding/priorities-contacts/special-emphasis-notices/index.html

AHRQPolicy Notices
http://www.ahrq.gov/funding/policies/polnotice/index.html

Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) Guidance for R01, R03, R18 applications
http://www.ahrq.gov/funding/policies/nofoguidance/index.html

Funding Priorities
http://www.ahrq.gov/funding/priorities-contacts/index.html

How Are Grant Applications Reviewed

AHRQStudy Sections
http://www.ahrq.gov/funding/process/study-section/index.html

AHRQCriteria for Peer Review

Description of Updated Review Criteria

Enhanced review criteria are generally described below:

Overall Impact.  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 five core review criteria, and additional review criteria (as applicable for the project proposed).

Core Review Criteria.  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.  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.

Significance.  Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field?  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?

Investigator(s).  Are the PD/PI, collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project?  Do the investigators have appropriate experience and training?  If the project is collaborative in nature, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise?  Are the leadership approach, governance, and organizational structure appropriate for the project?

Innovation.  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?

Approach. Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project?  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?

If the project involves clinical research, are the plans for 1) protection of human subjects from research risks, and 2) inclusion of minorities and members of both sexes/genders, as well as the inclusion of children, justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed?

Environment: 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?

Additional Review Criteria.  As applicable for the project proposed, reviewers will consider the following additional items in the determination of scientific and technical merit, but will not give separate scores for these items and should not consider them in providing an overall impact score.

Protections for Human Subjects.  For research that involves human subjects but does not involve one of the six 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, as appropriate, for the proposed research.

For research that involves human subjects and meets the criteria for one or more of the six 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.

Budget and Period Support.  Reviewers will consider whether the budget and the requested period of support are fully justified and reasonable in relation to the proposed research.

Inclusion of Women and Minorities.  Reviewers will evaluate the proposed plans for inclusion of minorities and members of both genders. 

Inclusion of Priority Populations.  Reviewers will evaluate the proposed plans for inclusion of AHRQpriority populations (refer to the for details).

Resubmission Applications.  When reviewing a Resubmission application (formerly called an amended application), 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.

Renewal Applications.  When reviewing a Renewal application (formerly called a competing continuation application), the committee will consider the progress made in the last funding period. Select for .

NIH How to Application Guide

Writing Tips
http://www.ahrq.gov/funding/process/grant-app-basics/apptips.html

A strong application will contain good ideas, address important issues, and generate confidence that the investigator(s) will make a significant impact.

Tips on Writing Your Grant Application

A strong application will contain good ideas, address important issues, and generate confidence that the investigator(s) will make a significant impact.

Do not insist on a hypothesis-driven approach if the project is sound and will move the field forward.

Focus is important, especially for new investigators. Avoid emphasizing minor technical details.

Essentials of a common research plan
http://www.ahrq.gov/funding/process/grant-app-basics/esstplan.html

Common problems cited by peer reviewers
http://www.ahrq.gov/funding/process/grant-app-basics/peerprob.html

• Uncertainty whether research will produce significant information.
• Scientific basis not fully developed.
• No apparent translatability of research into practice or policy.
• Lack of a theoretical framework.
• Overly ambitious research plan; volume of proposed work unrealistic.
• Lack of original ideas.
• Proposed methods not appropriate to answer research questions.
• Research issues are more complex than investigator describes.
• Too little detail in the research plan (leads to reviewers questioning investigators' ability to carry out the research).
• Lack of focus in study hypotheses, aims and/or research plan.
• Lack of generalizability of findings or methods.
• Investigator lacks expertise in methodology.
• Study team lacks expertise in all needed areas.
• Proposed time and effort of study team members insufficient.
• Lack of study controls.
• Lack of adequate preliminary data.
• Insufficient consideration of statistical needs.
• Inadequate attention to protection of human subjects and/or population representation.
• Lack of complete literature review.

How AHRQGrants Are Funded

Funding Award Process
http://www.ahrq.gov/funding/process/award-process/index.html

Examples of Funded Grants and Grantee Profiles

Detailed information on ÌÇÐÄVlog’s grants are available on the National Institutes of Health’s , including grant type, project period, fiscal year, institution, State, principal investigator, RFA/PA, and abstract text. To display the distribution of grants across the United States since 2015, AHRQcreated the Grants by State data visualization that presents the AHRQgrant data included in NIH RePORTER.

Grantee Profiles
http://www.ahrq.gov/funding/grantee-profiles/index.html

Page Limitations

Page Limits for applications

For all Applications

* NOFO instructions always supersede these instructions.

For Applications

* NOFO instructions always supersede these instructions.

For Institutional , International Training (, , ), Institutional Career Development (, ), and Research Education (, ) Applications

* NOFO instructions always supersede these instructions.

For , , , and all other Applications

* NOFO instructions always supersede these instructions.
^1. X01 and X02 NOFOs can be either 6 or 12 pages. Review the NOFO for details.

Important Note:  Always contact your program official cited in PA/RFA cited in the Funding Announcement.