SUMMARY STATEMENT 

PROGRAM CONTACT: ( Privileged Communication ) Release Date: 02/23/2016 

10:14 AM 

Revised Date: 

Application Number: 1 R21 DC015580-01 

Principal Investigator 

ANDERSON, MELISSA LEE 

Applicant Organization: 

Review Group: HDEP 

Health Disparities and Equity Promotion Study Section 

Meeting Date: 02/04/2016 RFAIPA: PA13-288 

Council: MAY 2016 PCC: HR22 

Requested Start: 07/01/2016 

Project Title: Deaf ACCESS: Adapting Consent through Community Engagement and State-ofthe-art Simulation 

SRG Action: Impact Score:17 Percentile:4 + 

Next Steps: Visit http://grants.nih.gov/grants/next_steps.htm

Human Subjects: 30-Human subjects involved - Certified, no SRG concerns

Animal Subjects: 10-No live vertebrate animals involved for competing appl.

Gender: 1A-Both genders, scientifically acceptable 

Minority: 1A-Minorities and non-minorities, scientifically acceptable 

Children: 3A-No children included, scientifically acceptable 

Clinical Research - not NIH-defined Phase Ill Trial 

Project Direct Costs Estimated 

Year Re uested Total Cost 

1 

2 

TOTAL ------ -----

ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGET NOTE: The budget shown is the requested budget and has not been adjusted 

to reflect any recommendations made by reviewers. If an award is planned, the costs will be calculated by 

Institute grants management staff based on the recommendations outlined below in the COMMITTEE 

BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS section. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 R21 DC015580-01 2 HDEP 

ANDERSON, M 

1R21DC015580-01 Anderson, Melissa 

RESUME AND SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: This application proposes a community-engaged 

approach to adapt informed consent procedures for use among the Deaf population and to develop and 

test a simulation-based intervention to train research assistants how to appropriately recruit and enroll 

Deaf research participants. The proposed study addresses a significant and understudied public health 

issue and if successful, findings will inform culturally sensitive strategies to increase the inclusion and 

engagement of the Deaf community in biomedical research studies. The team of investigators is 

outstanding with a track record of accomplishments and strong partnerships within the Deaf community. 

During the discussion the panel noted several additional strengths of the application; including, a robust 

community-engaged approach, strong letters of support from community sites and the use of novel 

simulation-based training sessions. Overall, there was consensus that the project addresses a timely 

and important issue and findings are likely to have a substantial impact on Deaf health research. 

DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): The U.S. Deaf community – a minority group of 500,000 

people who use American Sign Language – is one of the most understudied populations in biomedical 

research. One reason is the frequent use of research methods that are not accessible to Deaf people 

(for example, random-digit-dial telephone surveys). Another reason is the major difference in points-ofview between researchers and Deaf people. Researchers often aim to “cure” or “fix” hearing loss. Deaf 

people, however, do not view themselves as needing to be “fixed,” but as members of a rich culture 

with shared experience, history, art, and literature. These barriers have contributed to a long history of 

mistreatment of Deaf people in the research world, resulting in their mistrust of researchers and 

reluctance to participate in biomedical research studies. In response to these issues, we will lead Deaf 

ACCESS: Adapting Consent through Community Engagement and State-of-the-art Simulation. 

Collaborating with Deaf community members as part of our research team, we will adapt informed 

consent procedures to make them more Deaf-friendly, and then use medical simulation to train 

research assistants how to appropriately recruit and enroll Deaf research participants. We aim to: (1) 

identify the barriers and facilitators to Deaf people’s engagement in biomedical research, with an 

emphasis on the informed consent process, by holding four Deaf community forums and three focus 

groups at Deaf community cultural institutions; (2) develop a training intervention based on lessons 

learned from Aim 1, in which Deaf community members teach research assistants to deliver culturally 

appropriate informed consent using an American Sign Language interpreter; and (3) test the feasibility 

and acceptance of the intervention during simulation-based training sessions with five hearing research 

assistants who currently conduct informed consent at UMass Medical School (and who have no prior 

experience working with Deaf individuals). These aims are based on our previous pilot research, 

Simulation-based Community-engaged Research Intervention for Informed Consent Protocol Testing 

and Training, which incorporated culturally and linguistically competent methods into the informed 

consent process using the expertise of African-American and Latino community members. We are 

ideally suited to achieve these aims as a diverse research team committed to a community-engaged 

process of multi-directional learning and sharing. Our results will support a larger trial of Deaf ACCESS 

and will produce training products with much potential for distribution and replication. This work will lay 

the foundation for a sustainable program of research that shifts how we approach and engage the Deaf 

community, increasing the number of Deaf people who participate in biomedical research studies and 

encouraging more Deaf people to become actively engaged in the research world. 

PUBLIC HEALTH RELEVANCE: The U.S. Deaf community – a minority group of 500,000 people who 

use American Sign Language – is one of the most understudied groups in biomedical research. One 

reason is the frequent use of research techniques that are not accessible to Deaf people. In response 

to these issues, we will lead Deaf ACCESS: Adapting Consent through Community Engagement and 

State-of-the-art Simulation. Collaborating with Deaf community members as part of our research team, 

we will adapt informed consent procedures to make them more Deaf- friendly, and then use medical 

simulation to train research assistants how to recruit and enroll Deaf research participants. Our long-
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 R21 DC015580-01 3 HDEP 

ANDERSON, M 

term goal is to increase the number of Deaf people who participate in biomedical research studies, and 

encourage more Deaf people to become actively engaged in the research world. 

CRITIQUE 1 

Significance: 1 

Investigator(s): 1 

Innovation: 1 

Approach: 2 

Environment: 1 

Overall Impact: The U.S. Deaf community – a minority group of 500,000 people who use American 

Sign Language – is an understudied populations in biomedical research. Investigators clearly describe 

the legacy of mistrust between Deaf people and researchers. Additional score driving factors include a 

highly accomplished team of investigators with access to the Deaf community, an opportunity to fill both 

a knowledge gap in our understanding of willingness of Deaf people to participate in research and the 

development of new simulation training tools for investigators to engage the Deaf population in 

research. 

1. Significance: 

Strengths 

 Understanding health issues among Deaf people is lacking due to historic mistrust and the lack 

of accessible research methods need to engage this population at the most basic level, 

informed consent and negative stereotypes among traditional researchers toward cultural views 

of deafness. The proposed study uses mixed methods research to address this issue. 

Weaknesses 

 None noted 

2. Investigator(s): 

Strengths 

 PI, Melissa Lee Anderson earned her PhD in Clinical Psychology at Gallaudet University, the 

nation’s premiere historically “Deaf” university. Her publication record and contributions to 

science make the present study a natural next step in her research career trajectory. She is 

joined by other co-investigators who bring research methodology and statistical skills needed to 

conduct the proposed research. This is an impressive group of investigators to conduct 

research with this underserved population. 

Weaknesses 

 None noted. 

3. Innovation: 

Strengths 

 The current study is purported to be the first application of an evidence-based, communityengaged approach to adapt informed consent within the Deaf population. 

 The study is also notable for hiring four Deaf Community Advisors to play a leading role in 

developing and delivering the prototype training intervention. 

 Application of the Truth and Reconciliation Model, an emerging strategy to promote 

engagement between researchers and minority community members 

 Use of simulation-based training sessions with five hearing research assistants who are 

currently engaged in the informed consent process at UMMS. By specifically recruiting hearing 

research assistants who do not have prior experience interacting with the Deaf community 
 

 

1 R21 DC015580-01 4 HDEP 

ANDERSON, M 

investigators hope to reflect the most probable real-word encounter that a Deaf person would 

have enrolling in a biomedical research study. 

Weaknesses 

 None noted. 

4. Approach: 

Strengths 

 CBPR approach. 

 Mixed methods research methods. 

 Use of simulation for training investigators to better engage deaf population as study 

participants. 

Weaknesses 

 None noted. 

5. Environment: 

Strengths 

 University of Massachusetts Medical School is well equipped to conduct the proposed research. 

Weaknesses 

 None noted. 

Protections for Human Subjects: 

Acceptable Risks and/or Adequate Protections 

 No concerns identified. 

Data and Safety Monitoring Plan (Applicable for Clinical Trials Only): 

Not Applicable (No Clinical Trials) 

Inclusion of Women, Minorities and Children: 

 Sex/Gender: Distribution justified scientifically 

 Race/Ethnicity: Distribution justified scientifically 

 Inclusion/Exclusion of Children under 21: Excluding ages < 21 justified scientifically 

 No concerns identified. 

Vertebrate Animals: 

Not Applicable (No Vertebrate Animals) 

Biohazards: 

Not Applicable (No Biohazards) 

Budget and Period of Support: 

Recommend as Requested 

 No concerns identified. 

CRITIQUE 2 

Significance: 1 

Investigator(s): 1 

Innovation: 1 

Approach: 2 

Environment: 1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 R21 DC015580-01 5 HDEP 

ANDERSON, M 

Overall Impact: This proposal generates great enthusiasm. The significance is compelling—there is 

a need to involve Deaf people in research that addresses health disparities in their communities but 

also to inform other biomedical research. There is woefully little available to research assistants and 

research study enrollers on how to conduct an informed consent with Deaf people, likely one of the key 

reasons why Deaf people are underrepresented in research as there is a history of mistrust in addition 

to inaccessible methods. The proposal is well detailed and appropriate, there is a long standing 

community academic relationships in place. The approach is sound and without major concerns. 

There is a platform for easy and ready dissemination to other CTSAs and beyond. The investigators 

and environment are excellent. This work is likely to have substantial impact in the field. 

1. Significance: 

Strengths 

 There is a need for more research on health disparities among Deaf people. 

 There is a long history of research mistrust and inaccessibility that must be taken into account in 

the development of an informed consent process. 

Weaknesses 

 None noted. 

2. Investigator(s): 

Strengths 

 Established, excellent evidence of community-academic partnerships. 

Weaknesses 

 None noted. 

3. Innovation: 

Strengths 

 Highly innovative –the very nature of the research question is innovative as is the use of 

simulation approaches to assess feasibility and uptake by research assistants. 

 Use of the Truth and Reconciliation model as a framework is highly innovative. 

Weaknesses 

 None noted. 

4. Approach: 

Strengths 

 Methodologically sound—multimethod approach inclusive of community forums and focus 

groups. 

 Standardized patients use is appropriate. 

 Pilot test also well-designed. 

Weaknesses 

 There is a growing literature on training and “best practices” for standardized patients (SPs). A 

more detailed description about how the SPs would be trained and quality checks in the SP 

process would have been useful. 

 It is unclear how long the actual intervention will be—the proposal describes limiting testing to 5 

research assistants because of the time involved. However, it isn’t stated how long the 

intervention will be and it needs to be short enough, yet instructive enough, to promote uptake 

by other research assistants and teams. 

5. Environment: 

Strengths 

 Outstanding. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 R21 DC015580-01 6 HDEP 

ANDERSON, M 

Weaknesses 

 None noted. 

Protections for Human Subjects: 

Acceptable Risks and/or Adequate Protections 

 No concerns identified. 

Data and Safety Monitoring Plan (Applicable for Clinical Trials Only): 

Not Applicable (No Clinical Trials) 

Inclusion of Women, Minorities and Children: 

 Sex/Gender: Distribution justified scientifically 

 Race/Ethnicity: Distribution justified scientifically 

 Inclusion/Exclusion of Children under 21: Excluding ages < 21 justified scientifically 

 No concerns identified. 

Vertebrate Animals: 

Not Applicable (No Vertebrate Animals) 

Biohazards: 

Not Applicable (No Biohazards) 

Budget and Period of Support: 

Recommend as Requested 

 No concerns identified. 

CRITIQUE 3 

Significance: 2 

Investigator(s): 1 

Innovation: 3 

Approach: 3 

Environment: 1 

Overall Impact: The proposed study seeks to reduce disparities among Deaf individuals through 

facilitating enrollment in (and accessibility to) biomedical research studies. The team is very strong, and 

plans to utilize a community-engaged approach are sound. The study will be guided by a strong 

conceptual model, which is an important strength. Another important strength is the strong letters of 

support provided by community partners. However, there are some relatively minor weaknesses. First, 

in addition to being properly consented to biomedical research studies, deaf individuals are likely to 

need appropriate navigation and support throughout the study. It is not clear how usable the proposed 

intervention will be as a stand-alone resource. Second, with regard to innovation, the study has 

essentially been previously conducted with African American and Latino individuals, yet very little 

information about this study is presented, and no actual data are presented. 

1. Significance: 

Strengths 

 There is a large population of Deaf individuals in the US, and this population suffers important 

health disparities. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

1 R21 DC015580-01 7 HDEP 

ANDERSON, M 

 Deaf individuals are underrepresented in biomedical research studies, and this is partially 

attributable to research studies being inaccessible. 

Weaknesses 

 In addition to being properly consented to biomedical research studies, deaf individuals are 

likely to need appropriate navigation and support throughout the study. Unclear how usable the 

proposed intervention will be as a stand-alone resource (without appropriate infrastructure and 

resources to retain Deaf individuals in studies to which they have been appropriately 

consented). 

 The issues raised regarding literacy and health literacy, and the complexity of language 

contained in standard consent forms, are fairly universal across vulnerable and underserved 

populations. 

 The simulation and other intervention materials that will be developed will be very intensive. It is 

not completely clear if the intended end-users will ultimately utilize the intervention. 

2. Investigator(s): 

Strengths 

 The team is outstanding, and highly qualified to carry out the proposed work. 

 The PI, Dr. Anderson, is very well qualified to lead the study. 

 The inclusion of a Deaf collaborator on the team – Mr. Riker – is an important strength. 

Weaknesses 

 None noted. 

3. Innovation: 

Strengths 

 Engaging Deaf community members throughout all phases of the research is innovative. 

 The use of simulation is innovative. 

Weaknesses 

 The study has largely been conducted with African Americans and Latinos, and those methods 

will simply be applied to Deaf individuals in the proposed study. The study lacks innovation in 

this way. 

4. Approach: 

Strengths 

 The community-engaged approach is a marked strength. 

 Strong letters of support from community sites. 

Weaknesses 

 The study has essentially been done previously with African Americans and Latinos in a 

previous study conducted by the investigative team. However, no real pilot data from this study 

are presented. Specifically, the PI indicates that the intervention worked well, but no actual data 

to support this are presented. Presenting strong data on utilization of the materials generated 

from the previous study might help support the need for the proposed study. 

5. Environment: 

Strengths 

 The environment is strong. 

Weaknesses 

 None noted. 

Protections for Human Subjects: 

Acceptable Risks and/or Adequate Protections 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 R21 DC015580-01 8 HDEP 

ANDERSON, M 

 Plans to protect human subjects from risk are acceptable. 

Data and Safety Monitoring Plan (Applicable for Clinical Trials Only): 

Not Applicable (No Clinical Trials) 

Inclusion of Women, Minorities and Children: 

 Sex/Gender: Distribution justified scientifically 

 Race/Ethnicity: Distribution justified scientifically 

 Inclusion/Exclusion of Children under 21: Including ages < 21 not justified scientifically 

 Women and men will be included, and individuals of all racial/ethnic backgrounds will be 

included. A justification for excluding children is not provided in the application. 

Vertebrate Animals: 

Not Applicable (No Vertebrate Animals) 

Biohazards: 

Not Applicable (No Biohazards) 

Budget and Period of Support: 

Recommend as Requested 

 No concerns identified. 

CRITIQUE 4 

Significance: 1 

Investigator(s): 1 

Innovation: 1 

Approach: 1 

Environment: 1 

Overall Impact: This proposal addresses the disconnect between the culturally based Deaf community 

of American Sign Language users and the biomedical research community which is driven by a medical 

model of deafness and a desire to “fix the problem.” A result of this disconnect is confusion among 

Deaf individuals with regard to informed consent procedures. On the other hand, there is lack of 

cultural understanding among hearing researchers who pursue deafness-related studies. Deaf people 

are reluctant to participate in these studies and researchers are in need of effective ways to recruit Deaf 

participants. If funded, this project will make strides toward a positive connection between the Deaf 

community and the biomedical research community that will foster mutual respect, cooperation and 

bidirectional learning. A major score-driving factor regarding the proposal was the potential to increase 

the knowledge-base and understanding of the informed consent procedure which can encourage 

participation of Deaf people in biomedical research studies. Ultimately, this will expand the 

opportunities for contributions to research by the often misunderstood and classically underrepresented 

population of persons who are Deaf. This participation may lead to discovery of factors which directly 

affect the health and well-being of Deaf community members. The overall impact score took into 

account the credible, practical experience of the PI, the inclusion of Deaf team members, the 

bidirectional impact that the simulation training will have on both Deaf and hearing individuals, and the 

combination of both qualitative and quantitative research methodology so critically important for studies 

of diverse populations. The notions of inclusion, diversity and social justice drive this proposal. The 

ultimate goal of the proposed project is to involve Deaf people in research that affects their community 

with a side effect of changing the status quo that has dominated and limited research among Deaf 

populations for decades. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 R21 DC015580-01 9 HDEP 

ANDERSON, M 

1. Significance: 

Strengths 

 The investigators have used this research model previously and successfully with African 

American and Latino communities. They are familiar and comfortable with the protocol used for 

recruiting subjects and developing prototype intervention simulation scenarios for 

underrepresented populations. As a fluent American Sign Language (ASL) user, the primary 

investigator, particularly, understands the cultural and linguistic subtleties of the Deaf 

community and has gained both experience and understanding of this unique group. She is 

well equipped to conduct a project that will result in enhanced understanding among 

researchers of ways to involve Deaf persons in informed consent procedures. A culturally and 

linguistically “Deaf friendly” approach will help to diminish the negative feelings that Deaf people 

may have regarding biomedical research and will promote entry of greater numbers of Deaf 

participants in important biomedical research projects. It is a “win-win” situation with Deaf 

participants growing in knowledge while hearing researchers exchange the “medical model” for 

a more culturally and linguistically balanced framework. Hearing researchers with no experience 

in the Deaf community will learn to view Deaf community members as viable partners in 

biomedical research. 

Weaknesses 

 Mention is made of recruitment Deaf individuals, including Deaf women. No plan is described to 

ensure racial and ethnic diversity. 

2. Investigators: 

Strengths 

 In the past five years, the PI has published four articles in refereed journals on issues related to 

violence against Deaf women. She has worked extensively in the general area of Deaf people’s 

behavioral health disparities. She expresses a strong commitment to provide behavioral health 

services to the severely underrepresented and often isolated Deaf population and has gained 

credibility through her work at Gallaudet University and Boston University. Her post-doctoral 

work at U Mass Medical School has provided her with further valuable experience in the 

treatment of trauma and addiction in the Deaf community. 

 The Co PI is a physician with experience in planning for health care in disadvantaged 

populations. She uses qualitative methodology to investigate diverse clinical populations, 

including sexual minorities, the seriously ill and the elderly. She is currently associated with 

UMass Medical School. 

 The American Sign Language expert/consultant is a second generation Deaf adult with ASL as 

his first language. He has a strong interest in helping to surmount barriers to health care access 

for Deaf individuals. 

 The team is rounded out with a fourth member whose expertise is in quantitative research 

methods and health equity intervention. 

Weakness 

 Three members of the team work at . The ASL consultant appears to be 

at Brown University. An explanation is needed to determine how this geographical divide will be 

handled. 

3. Innovation 

Strengths 

 One of the major strengths of this proposal is its recognition of the need to bridge the gap 

between the medical and Deaf communities. The project prepares hearing researchers and 

Deaf persons to participate effectively together in biomedical research efforts which may have 

positive, long-term benefits on the lives of Deaf community members. Often underemployed 

and undereducated, with resulting deficits in English literacy, potential Deaf research 
The majority of the research team is housed within the 

was awarded grants and contracts in excess of $244 million in fiscal 2014.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 R21 DC015580-01 10 HDEP 

ANDERSON, M 

participants have been shut out of research conducted by hearing professionals with a “medical 

mind set.” This proposed project will address this disconnect. The project team will develop 

and test the effectiveness of five culturally sensitive prototype intervention simulation scenarios 

which will teach research assistants and others to understand a culturally and linguistically 

appropriate process for enrolling Deaf persons in a biomedical research study using ASL 

interpreters for purposes of communication. Deaf participants will feel empowered, confident 

and respected, and, therefore, more willing to engage in informed consent procedures. This 

opens an opportunity for Deaf people to become engaged contributors and, potentially, benefit 

from, biomedical research outcomes. 

Weaknesses 

 None noted. 

4. Approach 

Strengths 

 This study involves personnel with expertise in both qualitative and quantitative research 

methodology. Given the fact that visual-spatial language, ASL, is a fundamental aspect of the 

project, it is critical to employ both research approaches. Attention will be given to visually 

salient translation (e.g. from English medical jargon to comprehensible ASL) of health-related 

vocabulary. Assumptions regarding common knowledge among Deaf people of health and 

wellness information will be addressed, so that Deaf individuals are fully informed. Clear 

communication leading to understanding is a major emphasis of the project. Products produced 

by the project will be developed and tested in a culturally and linguistically appropriate manner. 

In addition to the training modules, a tangible result of the study will be an easy-to-disseminate 

set of guidelines for enrolling Deaf people in biomedical research studies. The approach, 

clearly, intends to expand opportunities for Deaf people to participate in greater numbers in 

biomedical research studies and to give Deaf people greater awareness of ways in which they 

can access health options that can bring greater stability to their everyday lives. 

 Existing barriers which prevent Deaf individuals from providing informed consent will be 

identified through community-based forums. A sample size of 100+ Deaf participants will be 

identified. “Deaf friendly” discussion questions will tap into perceptions that forum participants 

my hold with regard to participation in biomedical research projects. Forum discussions will be 

videotaped and analyzed using grounded theory. Written questionnaires will also be used. 

Lesson learned directly from Deaf participants will provide the basis for developing the 

simulated intervention scenarios. This approach provides Deaf informants with some 

“ownership” in the development of effective training materials. The materials will be tested with 

research assistants from 

Weaknesses 

 None noted. 

5. Environment: 

Strengths 



 The 

school has a strong commitment to community health and building a diverse workforce. 

includes the Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, the Department of Quantitative Health 

Sciences and the Inter professional Center for Experiential Learning and Simulation. The full 

service simulation facility plays an important role in this proposed project and will be accessible 

easily for use by the project personnel. 

 Three nearby Deaf community cultural institutions will be used for the project forums: The 

Learning Center for the Deaf in Framingham, Advocates, a behavioral health agency for Deaf 

individuals also in Framingham, as well as the Center for Living and Working with specialized 

services for Deaf individuals in Worcester. The project will affiliate with the Brown University 
 

 

 

1 R21 DC015580-01 11 HDEP 

ANDERSON, M 

Center for Language Studies, a pioneer institution in the study of American Sign Language and 

literacy. 

Weaknesses 

 None noted. 

Protections for Human Subjects: 

Acceptable Risks and/or Adequate Protections 

 No concerns identified. 

Data and Safety Monitoring Plan (Applicable for Clinical Trials Only): 

Not Applicable (No Clinical Trials) 

Inclusion of Women, Minorities and Children: 

 Sex/Gender: Distribution justified scientifically 

 Race/Ethnicity: Distribution justified scientifically 

 Inclusion/Exclusion of Children under 21: Excluding ages < 21 justified scientifically 

 No concerns identified. 

Vertebrate Animals: 

Not Applicable (No Vertebrate Animals) 

Biohazards: 

Not Applicable (No Biohazards) 

Budget and Period of Support: 

Recommend as Requested 

 No concerns identified. 

THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS WERE PREPARED BY THE SCIENTIFIC REVIEW OFFICER TO 

SUMMARIZE THE OUTCOME OF DISCUSSIONS OF THE REVIEW COMMITTEE, OR REVIEWERS' 

WRITTEN CRITIQUES, ON THE FOLLOWING ISSUES: 

PROTECTION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS (Resume): ACCEPTABLE 

INCLUSION OF WOMEN PLAN (Resume): ACCEPTABLE 

INCLUSION OF MINORITIES PLAN (Resume): ACCEPTABLE 

INCLUSION OF CHILDREN PLAN (Resume): ACCEPTABLE 

COMMITTEE BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS: The budget was recommended as requested. 

Footnotes for 1 R21 DC015580-01; PI Name: Anderson, Melissa Lee 

+ Derived from the range of percentile values calculated for the study section that reviewed 

this application. 
1 R21 DC015580-01 12 HDEP 

ANDERSON, M 

NIH has modified its policy regarding the receipt of resubmissions (amended applications). 

See Guide Notice NOT-OD-14-074 at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOTOD-14-074.html. The impact/priority score is calculated after discussion of an application 

by averaging the overall scores (1-9) given by all voting reviewers on the committee and

multiplying by 10. The criterion scores are submitted prior to the meeting by the individual

reviewers assigned to an application, and are not discussed specifically at the review 

meeting or calculated into the overall impact score. Some applications also receive a 

percentile ranking. For details on the review process, see

http://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer_review_process.htm#scoring.
MEETING ROSTER 

Health Disparities and Equity Promotion Study Section 

Healthcare Delivery and Methodologies Integrated Review Group 

CENTER FOR SCIENTIFIC REVIEW 

HDEP 

02/04/2016 - 02/05/2016 

--Member. For grant app cat ons, temporary members 

may part c pate n the ent re meet ng or may rev ew on y se ected 

app cat ons as needed.