Dissertation awards

1. Dissertation awards

2. R36 • To support dissertation research costs of students in accredited research doctoral programs in the United States (including Puerto Rico and other U.S. territories or possessions). • Supported by multiple NIH agencies as well as AHRQ • Mental Health • Aging • Drug Abuse

3. Details: • Typically due 3 times per year • Direct costs not to exceed $40,000 per year and no more than 17 months • Proposal length not to exceed 6 pages…

4. The candidate • individuals with the skills, knowledge, and resources necessary to carry out the proposed research and career development activities are invited to work with their mentor and sponsoring institution to develop an application for support • Candidates must be U.S. citizens, non-citizen nationals, or permanent residents by the time the award is issued.  • Candidates must be full-time students in good standing, who are enrolled in an accredited research doctoral program in such fields as the social or behavioral sciences, mathematics, engineering, health services research, nursing, social sciences, epidemiology, biostatistics, health policy, and health informatics.  • Candidates with more than part-time employment (defined as greater than twenty hours per week), in addition to the requirements of their current, full-time academic student appointments, are not eligible to apply for this grant mechanism.  • Students must complete all non-dissertation requirements for their doctoral degree by the time of submission of the application (except in cases where a clinical internship is required to follow the dissertation phase).  • Approval of the dissertation proposal by the doctoral committee is required before the grant award is issued. 

5. Research Objectives--generally • Applications for dissertation research grants must be responsive to [AHRQ’s mission],  

6. Mission from AHRQ • The research sponsored and conducted by the Agency develops and presents scientific evidence regarding all aspects of health care in the United States.  It addresses issues of organization, delivery, financing, utilization, patient and provider behavior, outcomes, effectiveness and cost.  It evaluates both clinical services and the system in which these services are provided.  These scientific results improve the evidence base to enable better decisions about health care, including such areas as disease prevention, appropriate use of medical technologies, improving diagnosis and treatment in cost-effective ways, long-term care, and reducing racial and ethnic disparities.  • AHRQ has identified strategic goals as priority research areas.  Applied research applications must address one of these areas.  Applicants are strongly encouraged to focus on topical areas unique to AHRQ, demonstrating how expected results can be used or made available for use to enhance healthcare quality.  Results should be directly relevant to customers, such as providers and practitioners, administrators, payers, consumers, policymakers, and insurers.  The strategic research goals are: • Safety/quality – Reduce the risk of harm from health care services by promoting the delivery of appropriate care that achieves the best quality outcomes • Efficiency – Achieve wider access to effective health care services and reduce health care costs • Effectiveness – Assure that providers and consumers/patients use beneficial and timely health care information to make informed decision choices.

7. Grant Sections: • Introduction (required attachment for resubmission and revision application) is limited to one page. • Specific Aims is limited to 1 page. • Research Strategy, including tables, graphs, figures, diagrams, and charts, is limited to 6 pages. Research Strategy should include the Significance, Innovation, and Approach. • Part of the research strategy must describe any potential outcomes, products and/or impact of the proposed dissertation on policy or practice, as well as dissemination plans, which involve traditional academic as well as nontraditional means of communicating relevant research findings to policymakers or health care delivery personnel.  • A clear description of the unique contribution of this effort must be included, especially if the research builds upon ongoing or previously conducted work by the principal investigator, or other dissertation committee member/faculty.

8. Letters of support • Two letters of support: • A letter from the faculty committee or the University official directly responsible for supervising the dissertation research that must specifically address the potential of the candidate, as well as the qualifications and experience of the candidate to conduct the study as proposed, both in terms of content and methodological expertise gained from coursework.  In addition, the letter must: • include a mentorship description that clearly notes the frequency of meetings as well as content and methodological support to be provided.  • indicate that a collaborative process was established between the applicant and advisors in the development and review of this dissertation grant application. • A letter from the Candidate which must discuss career goals, background and interest in health services research, the anticipated manner in which the proposed dissertation will contribute to career goals, and the unique relevance of the proposed dissertation to AHRQ.

9. Scoring Criteria: • Significance.  Does the proposed dissertation project address an important problem unique to the mission of the agency?  If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, health care delivery, or clinical practice be advanced?  What will be the effect of this research on the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, preventative interventions, or health care policies that drive this field? 

10. Criterion Scores • Candidate: 1 • Research Plan: 2 • Mentor(s), Co-Mentor(s), Consultant(s), Collaborator(s): 1 • Environment and Institutional Commitment: 1 • Overall Impact: This is a well-written proposal on an interesting and critical area of study to determine methods to explain effects of payment policies for chemotherapeutic drugs on prescribing and treatment practices in the Medicare population. Dr. X will develop innovative statistical methods to understand how health policy changes affect treatment and outcomes.

11. Criteria • Investigators. Are the PD/PI and mentor(s) appropriately trained and well suited to the proposed research project? Is there evidence that an appropriate level of effort will be devoted by the mentor(s) to ensure the successful completion of the dissertation project? Is there evidence that mentor(s) have been adequately prepared to actively work with the PD/PI and have actively worked with the PD/PI to date in the development of the proposed dissertation project? Does a viable mentoring plan and/or mentor/PD/PI agreement exist?  Does the PD/PI demonstrate potential to have a successful career in health services research?

12. 1. Candidate: • Strengths • Letters of support/recommendation are quite strong, indicating that x is an extremely gifted rising star, efficient, organized, with strong methodological and analytical skills. Her application indicates that she is an excellent writer. • Weaknesses • None were identified.

13. Criteria • Innovation.  Is the dissertation project original and innovative?  For example: Does the project challenge existing paradigms or clinical practice; address an innovative hypothesis or critical barrier to progress in the field?  Does the project develop or employ novel concepts, approaches or methodologies, tools, or technologies for this area?  

14. Criteria • Approach.  Are the conceptual or clinical framework, design, methods, and analyses adequately developed, well-integrated, well-reasoned, and appropriate to the aims of the project?  Does the applicant acknowledge potential problem areas and consider alternative tactics?   

15. 3. Research Plan: • Costs of cancer drugs and drug shortages is a timely, policy-relevant issue of large significance. • High feasibility for the work plan. • Thoughtful conceptual model. • Novel inclusion of drug shortages and average pricing into the models. • Few scholars have employed Bayesian methods to SEER-Medicare data. • Weaknesses • The datasets and variables chosen present a limited frame in which to study the problem. As such, only part of the thoughtful ecological model is evaluable with the chosen datasets and measures. The available census-tract data that is linked to SEER-Medicare is limited. Augmentation with other datasets available from census and other governmental agencies, would be novel and potentially more fruitful. • Despite being an important population, SEER-Medicare is a limited population to study the issue given the homogeneity of insurance coverage (the candidate acknowledges this).

16. Criteria • Environment.  Does the scientific environment(s) in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success?  Does the proposed research project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment(s)?  Is there evidence of institutional support (e.g., computers, data, and office space)? 

17. 5. Environment and Institutional Commitment: • Strengths • The letter from the department Chair (who also is the primary mentor) is quite strong and supportive • Weaknesses • There is limited documented focus on health policy or other areas of interest to the candidate in the environment • The link to other areas on oncology, particularly medical oncology, has not been made

18. Conclusion: • Don’t be fooled by 6 pages, it can be harder to write short than long • You get as many ‘points’ for science as significance. Pay attention to translation!!!