Communication and Dissemination Research (CDR) Funding Announcement Town Hall Webinar Jean Slutsky, Chief Engagement and Dissemination Officer & CDR Program Director Bridget Gaglio, Senior Program Officer Christopher Gayer, Program Officer William Lawrence, Senior Program Officer February 8, 2016
Presentation Outline CDR Funding Announcement Overview LOI Responsiveness Common LOI pitfalls Discussion, Q + A Submit questions via the chat function in Meeting Bridge. Submitting Questions: Ask a question via phone (an operator will standby to take your questions).
CDR Team Jean Slutsky Bridget Gaglio Chris Gayer Chief Engagement and Senior Program Officer Program Officer Dissemination Officer Bill Lawrence Michelle Henton Sarah Chew Senior Program Officer Program Associate Program Assistant
The Research We Fund Is Guided by Our National Priorities for Research Assessment of Communication and Improving Healthcare Prevention, Diagnosis, Dissemination Research Systems and Treatment Options Accelerating PCOR and Methodological Addressing Disparities Research 4
Funding Announcement Overview Cycle 1 2016 Published February 1, 2016 5
Importance of CDR Producing information is not enough. Clear communication approaches and active dissemination of findings to all audiences, in easy to understand formats, are critical to increasing the awareness, consideration, adoption, and use of research by patients, caregivers, and healthcare providers In other words, information itself is of little use unless: • It reaches those who need it • It is clear and comprehensible
CDR Funding Objective The CDR program seeks to fund comparative effectiveness research (CER) that: directly compares two or more effective health communication and dissemination interventions or strategies that engage patients, caregivers, and providers in the context of real-world clinical-care settings and situations to enable patients and caregivers to make the best possible choices among available options for care and treatment
CDR Funding Priorities Focus on CER in the following three key areas: 1. Communication strategies to promote the use of health and healthcare CER evidence by patients and clinicians 2. Dissemination strategies to promote the use of health and healthcare CER evidence by patients and clinicians 3. Explaining uncertain health and healthcare CER evidence to patients and clinicians
Communication and Dissemination Research Available Funds: Up To $8 Million Total Direct Cost Per Project : $1.5 million Maximum Project Period: 3 years 9
Greater Than Budget/Time Requests • CDR program is the only program to offer this option • Must be submitted at the time of LOI submission • Requesting funding for a project with a budget that exceeds the PFA limits • Requesting funding for a project that exceeds the PFA time limit • Justification is required • Complete the Greater Than Budget/Time template 10
Letter of Intent – Cycle 1 2016 DUE – March 2, 2016 at 5:00 pm ET NOTIFICATION – April 8, 2016 11
Sections of the LOI Template • Principal Investigator Name • Title • Gap Analysis • Communication and Dissemination Issue • Research Question(s) • Specific Aims • Study Design • Description of Comparators • Outcomes • Description of Participants and Study Sites/Setting • Sample Size • Engagement 3 page limit 12
Letter of Intent Responsiveness What does PCORI look for when reviewing LOIs? 13
LOI Administrative Review • Letters of Intent are reviewed based on criteria detailed in each PFA • Additional screening for Comparative Effectiveness Research – Comparative effectiveness research Inclusion of Cost- Effectiveness Analysis – Does not include a formal cost- effectiveness analysis Programmatic Fit – Administrative Guidelines • Only responsive LOIs will be reviewed by program staff 14
LOI Programmatic Review • Importance and relevance of the topics to PCORI priorities, as evidenced by critical gaps identified by clinical guidelines developers and/or recent relevant systematic review. • Clarity and credibility of applicants’ responses to the LOI questions such as well-described comparators, clear research methods (e.g., study design, sample size) • Programmatic fit and balance 15
What CDR looks for when reviewing LOIs • Describe research that compares two or more strategies that each have established efficacy. PCORI expects that the efficacy or effectiveness of each intervention be known . – If the efficacy/evidence base is insufficient, then data needs to be provided to document that the intervention is used widely – The application must provide information about efficacy of the interventions and/or dissemination strategies that will be compared; pilot data may be appropriate – Projects that aim to develop new or novel interventions, which lack evidence of efficacy or effectiveness, will be considered out of scope 16
What CDR looks for when reviewing LOIs • “Usual care” (or no specific intervention) may be an appropriate comparator if this is a realistic choice for patients and other stakeholders, but the clinical characteristics must be specified . – Applications proposing to use usual care as the comparator must justify the choice to use it (e.g., usual care is guidelines-based) and should clearly describe its components that will be used or measured in the research. – A clear description of usual care is necessary to enhance the reproducibility of the research in other settings. 17
What CDR looks for when reviewing LOIs • Describe research that studies the benefits and harms of interventions and strategies delivered in real-world settings. – PCORI is interested in studies that provide practical information that can help patients and other stakeholders make informed decisions about their health care and health outcomes. 18
What CDR looks for when reviewing LOIs • Describe research that is based on outcomes that are meaningful to the patient population, their caregivers, and family members, and that are likely to guide their decisions. – These outcomes must matter to patients, including measures of shared decision making, patient activation, quality of life, symptoms of disease, relevant physiological measurements, and treatment-related symptoms (side effects) 19
Patient-Centeredness vs. Patient Engagement Patient-Centeredness is a component of what PCORI is looking for in research applications. Does the project aim to answer questions or examine outcomes that matter to patients? Research questions and outcomes should reflect what is important to patients and caregivers. Patient engagement is about having patients as partners in, not merely subjects of, research. Active engagement between scientists, patients, and other stakeholders Community, patient, and caregiver involvement already in existence or a well-thought out plan 20
The Engagement Rubric Planning the Study Conducting the Study Disseminating the Study Results PCOR Engagement Principles
PCORI discourages proposals in the following categories and will likely deem them nonresponsive: • Study of the natural history of disease • Instrument development • Fundamental science or study of biological mechanisms • Creation of clinical practice guidelines or care pathways • Payment or policy development • Developing, testing, and validating new decision aids/tools or clinical prognostication tools • Establishing efficacy for a new clinical strategy • Pilot studies intended to inform larger efforts • Comparisons of patient characteristics rather than clinical strategy options • Pharmacodynamics • Coverage recommendations 22
Common LOI Pitfalls • Not following the instructions • Comparators that do not have demonstrated efficacy • Development of a decision aid, mobile app, or other decision support tool • Overlap with projects currently funded by PCORI/ CDR program • Outcomes important to researchers, not to patients or stakeholders 23
Q&A Ask a question via the chat function in Meeting Bridge. Ask a question via phone (an operator will standby to take your questions). If we are unable to address your question during this time, e-mail the Helpdesk at sciencequestions@pcori.org .
Thank You!
Recommend
More recommend
