# Presentation: 498975

## Grant Reviewer PerspectivesCancer Communication and Interactive Media Technology R 25/44 WorkshopApril 2, 2002

- Paula N. O’Neill, Ed.D.
- Professor Dental Public Health Associate Dean, Professional Development
- The University of Texas-Houston Dental Branch

## Overview

- Discussion of Review Criteria
- Significance
- Approach
- Innovation
- Evaluation
- Milestones
- Investigator
- Environment
- Human Subjects
- Budget
- Linking of R25/44
- Pitfalls to Avoid

## Significance

- Important topic and population
- Strong rationale
- Evidence
- Literature--accuracy

## R25 Approach

- Justification
- Research plan
- Milestones (Goals)
- Objectives/aims
- Feasibility measures
- Focus group evaluation
- How will project reduce health disparity?
- How will project alter behavior?
- Obstacles
- Timeframe and associated responsibilities
- Final outcome “paper product”
- Commercial backers

## Approach Phase I

- Collaboration with R25 investigator
- Research plan clearly outlined
- Feasibility Milestones
- Specific aims?
- Feasibility measures?
- Obstacles
- Evaluation Plan
- Examples
- Comparisons with other end-products
- All other relevant parts of application
- Commercialization-backers

## Phase II Approach

- Specific aims
- Research plan
- Methods/Evaluation
- Power calculations, data analyses, validity & reliability
- Technical Merit
- Scientific Merit
- Technical merit
- Potential of research
- Detailed Product Development Plan
- Business Plan – distribution/dissemination

## Evaluation

- Adequacy of approach
- Hypotheses driven
- Linked to aims
- Knowledge acquisition
- Behavioral change
- Validity and reliability of tools used
- Power calculations
- Data analyses described

## Innovation

- Description of project innovation
- Challenge existing approaches
- Development of new approach, paradigm
- Move field forward

## Investigators

- Principal Investigator
- Scope of proposed work
- Qualified/experienced
- Commitment of time
- Team
- Needed expertise
- Consultants/letters of support
- Responsibilities

## Environment

- Facilities described adequately
- Computing technologies described
- Human resource skills/expertise described adequately

## Human Subjects

- Asking for an exemption?
- If yes, justified?
- IRB Review
- Recruitment strategies outlined
- Over-sampling
- Incentives/compensation
- Clearly defines population
- N =
- Confidentiality protected
- Protection from risks
- Inclusion of children (<21)

## Minority Subjects

- Inclusion of both genders
- Expected number in each ethnic group
- Over-sampling
- Table used

## Budget

- Justification
- Subcontractors budgets
- Realistic
- CVs or biographical sketches provided

## Linking of R25/44

- Link work of R25 to Phase I and II of Fasttrack
- Provide overview of content, evaluation plan, focus group subjects, feedback topics, and –
- Outline of work to be conducted in Phase I and II

## Top 10 Pitfalls

- Confusing the reviewers
- Not following Program Announcement directions
- Not citing Literature correctly
- Not submitting biographical sketches or CV’s
- Not submitting letters of support
- Inadequate expertise for scope of work
- Poor methods/evaluation plan
- Not describing data analyses
- Not following Human Subjects guidelines
- No timeline with assigned responsibilities

## Q & A