Skip Navigation Archive: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services www.hhs.gov
Archive: Agency for Healthcare Research Quality www.ahrq.gov
Archive print banner

Innovative Adaptation and Dissemination of AHRQ Comparative Effectiveness Research Products (iADAPT)

This information is for reference purposes only. It was current when produced and may now be outdated. Archive material is no longer maintained, and some links may not work. Persons with disabilities having difficulty accessing this information should contact us at: https://info.ahrq.gov. Let us know the nature of the problem, the Web address of what you want, and your contact information.

Please go to www.ahrq.gov for current information.


Notice of Updated Listing of Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) Products: The list of CER products which are candidates for adaptation and dissemination was revised and updated on November 27, 2009. The revised list is accessible through either of the two links published in the RFA (http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/healthInfo.cfm?infotype=sg and http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/healthInfo.cfm?infotype=rr) or at http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/index.cfm/search-for-guides-reviews-and-reports/.


Questions and Answers

Updated with questions received through December 1, 2009.

The following questions and answers feature responses from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to questions submitted on or before December 1, 2009, to iADAPTgrants@ahrq.hhs.gov regarding the Agency's funding opportunity announcement (FOA) RFA-HS-10-004: Recovery Act 2009 Limited Competition: Innovative Adaptation and Dissemination of AHRQ Comparative Effectiveness Research Products (iADAPT) (R18). Select to access the FOA.

How To Get Answers to Questions on the FOA

Question 1: Can we discuss our proposal in a phone conversation with AHRQ?

Answer 1: Due to AHRQ resource constraints and fairness and consistency considerations for all applicants, all questions should be addressed to AHRQ in writing using the iADAPT E-mail box. If you have a concept on which you would like specific feedback, please share a brief (one- or two-page) synopsis by E-mail and AHRQ will reply in writing.

How To Determine Which Topic Areas Are Candidates for Adaptation and Dissemination

Question 2: How can I determine whether my specific interest area, research, or intervention fits within the scope of products that can be adapted and disseminated under the FOA?

Answer 2: To be responsive to the FOA, applicants must base their proposed work upon at least one Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) Review, Executive Summary, or Summary Guide that will be completed by the anticipated time of award and project startup, which is approximately June 2010. CERs and associated products that are completed, nearly complete, or anticipated to become available before the anticipated June 2010 awards under this RFA are available through the links published in the RFA: http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/healthInfo.cfm?infotype=sg and http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/healthInfo.cfm?infotype=rr. As of October 27, 2009, both hyperlinks now direct the viewer to a search page on the updated Effective Health Care Web site, where a boxed "Notice: AHRQ RFA-HS-10-004, iADAPT (R18)" on the right-hand top of the page further directs and links potential applicants to a table of candidate CER products with embedded hyperlinks. The table captures the same content as was available at the RFA links before October 27 and also now explicitly identifies seven CERs that are in progress and expected to be available in at least draft form by June 2010. Please study the table closely for topics that may be relevant to your proposed development, implementation, and evaluation of customizations to target your proposed audience(s), stakeholder(s), system(s), or setting(s).

The seven applicable in-progress CER Reviews are listed below for convenience:

Cancer (N=3)

Functional Limitations and Disability (N=1)

Pulmonary Disease/Asthma (N=1)

Depression and Other Mental Health Disorders (N=2)

If, after reviewing the links and table information, you remain uncertain as to whether a current or forthcoming CER Review, Executive Summary, or Summary Guide is an acceptable candidate for adaptation, please contact the iADAPT mailbox.

Question 3: Does AHRQ anticipate additional CER products and their content being released during the life of the grant? If so, please provide guidance on the timeline and topics of pending releases.

Answer 3: As described in the answer to the previous question (#2), applicants can propose to adapt one or more of seven CER Reviews that are currently under development and anticipated to be available in at least draft form by June 2010. Applicants who believe they can adequately address all aspects and requirements of the FOA for multiple and future CER products should provide appropriate and acceptable justification and support for the feasibility, timeliness, quality, and evaluation of their planned approach.

Question 4: Are the topics from the Original Research (DEcIDE projects and CERTs projects) page (http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/ehc/index.cfm/search-for-guides-reviews-and-reports/?category=&search=&trackID=2&methodCategory=&agencyType=3&agencyType=4&language=1) in scope for adaptation, customization, and dissemination?

Answer 4: New research topics are not in scope for this FOA.

Question 5: Should products for dissemination be limited exclusively to "Final Report" products? Or can you propose to disseminate "Research in Progress" products?

Answer 5: As described under the response to question 2, above, applicants can adapt/disseminate CER Reviews, Executive Summaries, or Summary Guides that are complete or from the list of topic areas that are expected to be available in at least draft form prior to the time of award.

Question 6: Should you only propose to distribute products for which a Clinician, Consumer, or Policymaker Summary Guide is available?

Answer 6: You may distribute or adapt CER products without a Summary Guide, using either the CER Review or its Executive Summary. The FOA suggests that applicants consider such customizations via the adaptation of the original CER Review or Executive Summary contents to a specialized clinical audience of potential users (such as formulary or pharmaceutical and therapeutics committees and health care systems with electronic platforms such as electronic medical records that could support clinical decision support). However, it does not constrain applicants to do so.

Question 7: What if I want to innovate, adapt, and disseminate in a comparative effectiveness priority area where there is no Comparative Effectiveness Research Review, Executive Summary, or Summary Guide available?

Answer 7: The FOA seeks adaptations and novel dissemination mechanisms of a finite group of comparative effectiveness products that are described and referenced at length in question 2. Due to changes in the EHC Web site that occurred on October 27, 2009, the two hyperlinks listed in the request for applications (RFA) now reference a new Web page with a boxed "Notice: AHRQ RFA-HS-10-004, iADAPT (R18)" that directs applicants to a table with all relevant information. The content available for adaptation remains the same; only the appearance has changed. Adaptations and innovations should be based on the referenced CER products and not on unlisted priority or topic areas; the latter will not be considered responsive to the RFA.

Question 8: Can I combine two or more CER products?

Answer 8: The FOA allows applicants to propose combining two or more CER Reviews, Executive Summaries, or Summary Guides.

Question 9: Can you propose to disseminate "Final Report" products in year 1 and "Research in Progress" and "Draft Complete" documents in years 2 and 3 to allow time for these documents to become Final Reports?

Answer 9: Applicants who believe they can adequately address all aspects and requirements of the FOA for multiple and future CER products should provide appropriate and acceptable justification and support for the feasibility, timeliness, quality, and evaluation of their planned approach.

Question 10: Can we propose to adapt all available CER products?

Answer 10: Applicants can propose to adapt many or all of the available CER Reviews, Executive Summaries, and Summary Guides; we note and repeat the answer to question 4 above: the new research projects are not candidates for adaptation. Whatever applicants propose, they are reminded to consider, address, and support their planned activities, including their feasibility.

Questions Regarding Potential Modifications to Comparative Effectiveness Research Reviews, Executive Summaries, and Summary Guides

Question 11: Can innovations and adaptations be based on evidence that was not produced by the Effective Health Care Program? Specifically, can we use evidence produced by society guidelines that is not derived from Comparative Effectiveness Research Reviews or Executive Summaries (produced by the Evidence-based Practice Centers) or Comparative Effectiveness Summary Guides (produced by the John M. Eisenberg Center for Clinical Decisions and Communications Science)?

Answer 11: As per the FOA, applicants are to propose innovative customizations or adaptations to the content, presentation, and/or delivery mechanism(s) of one or more Comparative Effectiveness Research Review products, such as Comparative Effectiveness Research Reviews, Comparative Effectiveness Research Review Executive Summaries, or Comparative Effectiveness Research Summary Guides. We note that the FOA does not require the basis to be a Comparative Effectiveness Research Review Summary Guide, which is only one of three categories of materials developed through the Effective Health Care Program that may be adapted.

Any applicant proposing to incorporate additional or complementary evidence in the contents of a CER Review, Executive Summary, or Summary Guide that has been completed or is expected to be available by June 2010 (see question 2) will need to provide strong scientific justification for including that evidence and indicate how this additional evidence will further the use of the CER product upon which customizations and adaptations are based.

Question 12: Can an applicant propose to address only a portion of a CER Review, Executive Summary, or Summary Guide?

Answer 12: As long as fidelity to the original content is preserved and an appropriate and defensible justification is supplied, applicants may limit their customizations or adaptations to a portion of a CER Review, Executive Summary, or Summary Guide that is deemed self-contained and valid from the standpoint of evidence presentation and translation.

Question 13: Can an applicant propose to address only a portion of a priority area?

Answer 13: Applicants should be careful not to confuse the 14 priority conditions (described in the FOA under the "Background on Comparative Effectiveness" subsection under Section I.1 Research Objectives) with the specific CER products that are candidates for adaptation and dissemination under this FOA. CER products are based upon defined topics that fall within the 14 priority conditions. Adaptations and customizations are not applicable to the broad categories of priority conditions themselves.

Question 14: Does this FOA apply to new research findings of comparative effectiveness, say from the DEcIDE or CERTs programs, or is it restricted to Comparative Effectiveness Research Reviews?

Answer 14: The FOA is restricted to CER Reviews, Executive Summaries, and Summary Guides and does NOT pertain to new research done by the DEcIDE or CERTs programs.

Question 15: What if my dissemination and translation interest area or audience does not have a CER Review, Executive Summary, or Summary Guide?

Answer 15: Applicants whose audiences, stakeholders, systems, or settings cannot be addressed within the available CER products (see question 2) may consider applications to AHRQ's Health Services Research Demonstration and Dissemination Grants (R18) opportunity, described at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-09-071.html.

Question 16: Does this FOA include applications to develop new comparative effectiveness research or information in a topic area without a CER Review, Executive Summary, or Summary Guide?

Answer 16: No. The primary purpose of this FOA is to adapt, customize, and disseminate existing information as described in the FOA. Applicants wishing to develop new information by conducting empirical (primary or secondary) research of alternative treatments should consider applying to the CHOICE FOA at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-HS-10-003.html.

Question 17: To what extent can a Comparative Effectiveness Research Review product (CERRP) be surrounded by or integrated into related but different (not contradictory) health information about a condition or a treatment? If it is possible to surround or integrate CERRP content into related health information, how should it be sourced, cited, or linked back to AHRQ information?

Answer 17: An adapted CERRP may be surrounded by or integrated into related but different (not contradictory) health information about a condition or a treatment if the applicant provides strong justification about its scientific validity and the need for including that evidence to further the use of the CERRP that is being adapted or customized. Justification for the additional information may include assessment of the evidentiary strength of the information and/or provision of the source, citation, or link for the additional information in the application. In the adapted product(s), the nature of the information and its source should determine the manner in which its source is referenced, cited, or linked.

Nature of Allowable Collaborations

Question 18: Can we include disease/condition/other experts in our application? Is it acceptable to have a consultant or consultants whose expertise is complementary to that of the principal investigator (PI)--for instance, a disease/treatment expert for a PI with expertise in dissemination, or in dissemination for a PI who is an expert in the disease/treatment? Are there any requirements for how such experts' roles are defined or reimbursed? Should they be engaged as consultants or collaborators with a percentage effort?

Answer 18: There are no restrictions on the use or roles of experts beyond what is stated in the FOA under Eligibility Information. The nature and extent of their planned involvement, as well as advice from your institution's sponsored programs office, are the best determinants of how you choose to engage them.

Question 19: Can AHRQ share the names of applicants who have expressed an interest in this FOA so that contacts and potential collaborations be explored?

Answer 19: AHRQ cannot share information about the parties who have expressed an interest in this FOA or who have stated an intent to apply for it.

Target(s) for Adaptation and Dissemination Efforts

Question 20: Are there any limits on the geographic scope of the planned activities under this FOA?

Answer 20: No, the geographic scope can be narrow or broad as long as it is defended and justified appropriately within the overall application.

Question 21: Are the priority populations of interest limited in any way?

Answer 21: Within the requirements of the FOA, applicants have wide latitude in defining their targeted audience(s), whether they be patients, clinicians, or policymakers.

Question 22: Is adaptation of CER products to Native American populations of interest?

Answer 22: Adaptation for Native American populations is of potential interest.

Eligibility Questions

Question 23: Is my organization able to apply?

Answer 23: The FOA states that the following organizations/institutions are eligible to apply. Consistent with the purposes of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) (in particular, to preserve and create jobs and promote economic recovery in the United States and to provide investments needed to increase economic efficiency by spurring technological advances in science and health), applicants must be a domestic (U.S.) institution/organization of one of the types listed below. The U.S. institution/organization must be located in the 50 States, or in the territories and possessions of the United States, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, or District of Columbia. Foreign organizations/institutions are not permitted as the applicant organization.

You may submit an application(s) if your institution/organization has any of the following characteristics:

  • Public or nonprofit private institution, such as a university, college, or a faith-based or community-based organization.
  • Units of local or State government.
  • Eligible agencies of the Federal Government.
  • Indian/Native American Tribal Government (federally recognized).
  • Indian/Native American Tribal Government (other than federally recognized).
  • Indian/Native American Tribally Designated Organizations.

Current AHRQ contractors or grantees are eligible to apply.

AHRQ's authorizing legislation does not allow for-profit organizations to be eligible to lead applications under this research mechanism; thus for the purpose of this FOA, AHRQ will make grants only to nonprofit organizations. For-profit organizations may participate in projects as members of consortia or as subcontractors only. Because the purpose of this program is to improve health care in the United States, foreign institutions may participate in projects as members of consortia or as subcontractors only. Applications submitted by for-profit organizations or foreign institutions will not be reviewed. Organizations described in section 501(c) 4 of the Internal Revenue Code that engage in lobbying are not eligible.

Question 24: Is a nonprofit 501c 6 professional association eligible to apply if it has a government affairs department that engages in lobbying on behalf of the association, but which does so as a separate cost center that does not use Federal funds for any lobbying activities? Can ARRA funds be used for projects by the portion of the organization that does not engage in lobbying in any way?

Answer 24: What you describe is allowable. Relative to lobbying, applicants for HHS grants with total costs expected to exceed $100,000 are required to certify that they have not made, and will not make, such a prohibited payment; will be responsible for reporting the use of nonappropriated funds for such purposes; and will include these requirements in consortium agreements, other subawards, and contracts under grants that will exceed $100,000 and will obtain necessary certifications from those consortium participants and contractors. Disclosure reporting is required after award as indicated in Part II of the Grants Policy Statement (http://www.hhs.gov/grantsnet/docs/HHSGPS_107.doc#_Toc155580124; Word® file, 1.8 MB).

Also, there are new provisions related to communications regarding ARRA applications:

Applications submitted under ARRA are subject to restrictions on oral conversations during the period of time commencing with the submission of a formal application by an individual or entity and ending with the award of the competitive funds. Federal officials may not participate in oral communications initiated by any person or entity concerning a pending application for a Recovery Act competitive grant or other competitive form of Federal financial assistance, whether or not the initiating party is a Federally registered lobbyist. This restriction applies unless:

(i) the communication is purely logistical.
(ii) the communication is made at a widely attended gathering.
(iii) the communication is to or from a Federal agency official and another Federal Government employee.
(iv) the communication is to or from a Federal agency official and an elected chief executive of a state, local, or tribal government, or to or from a Federal agency official and the Presiding Officer or Majority Leader in each chamber of a state legislature.
(v) the communication is initiated by the Federal agency official.

Question 25: Can we propose collaborations or consortia arrangements with components of the current Effective Health Care Program--Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs), Developing Evidence to Inform Decisions about Effectiveness (DEcIDE), the John M. Eisenberg Center for Clinical Decisions and Communications Science (Eisenberg Center), or the Centers for Education and Research on Therapeutics (CERTs)?

Answer 25: Please refer to the list of eligible institutions in Section III.1.A of the FOA. As long as these conditions are met, there are no prohibitions against applications from any AHRQ grantees or contractors.

Question 26: Can I apply for this FOA if I have a K award from a Federal agency?

Answer 26: You should review the funding opportunity announcement under which your K award was issued and, if necessary, consult with your sponsored projects office and the agency that funded the K award to see if there are any prohibitions about applying for other sources of support. The iADAPT FOA does not prohibit an application from someone with a K award; however, the more critical factor is whether your K award places any limits on this. For example, the K awarding agency may bar your receiving salary support from an AHRQ grant if your application is selected for funding.

Question 27: Was RFA-HS-10-004 modified since publication--in particular, in its description of eligible applicants?

Answer 27: The RFA published in the NIH Guide on September 25, 2009, was complete and final and has not been modified. It can be accessed at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-HS-10-004.html. Notices of modification 1 and modification 2 sent out by the Grants.gov on September 25, 2009, and October 7, 2009, reflected only revisions to the descriptive synopsis of the full announcement itself. There has been no change to the FOA.

Questions Regarding Potential Approaches to the FOA

Question 28: Does AHRQ expect a fidelity to the actual language or format or is changing both of those okay and part of the funded translation process?

Answer 28: The FOA lists examples of adaptation and dissemination that may be considered but does not limit applicants to the listed options. Adapted contents should preserve the fidelity of the original's technical contents and evidentiary criteria and assessments, so as to avoid distortions or misrepresentations of the technical subject matter.

Question 29: In allocating resources, there is a tension between disseminating less to more individuals vs. disseminating more intensively to fewer individuals. Is there a preference for achieving maximum impact with fewer individuals (so it is clear just how much impact is possible) or toward achieving a more minimal impact with greater numbers?

Answer 29: The FOA states no preference for the size or intensity of the target(s) or adaptations. Applicants should propose and justify whatever approach(es) they choose in light of the content and target(s) they have chosen.

Question 30: How important is the evaluation component relative to the implementation? Does AHRQ recommend any rough proportion or ceiling of funding that should be allocated to evaluation?

Answer 30: There is no recommended proportion of effort or funding for evaluation. Because the nature of the proposed adaptation(s) will influence the nature of the proposed evaluation(s), individual applicants should use their best judgment as to the level of effort and funding to allocate to this activity. Pertinent sections of the FOA are Evaluation Plan Requirements in Section I and Evaluation, Assessment, and Reporting the Intervention's Translatability in Section IV.6.IV.

Question 31: Would a randomized trial of an educational effort employing one or more adapted CER products meet the intent of the RFA?

Answer 31: The FOA permits the use of a broad range of methodological designs, including randomized trials, to assess the effectiveness and impacts of dissemination and/or education efforts as proposed by the investigators. It is advisable that the application justify the specific methodological approaches employed in the evaluation component of the proposed project, as well as the appropriate design and, if applicable, statistical considerations.

Question 32: Should the PI have expertise in a specific disease/condition area, in communication/dissemination, or both?

Answer 32: The FOA invites PIs with the skills, knowledge, and resources necessary to carry out the proposed research. As stated in the FOA, the PI and investigators in the application will be reviewed and evaluated with the following questions: Are the PD(project director)/PI and other key personnel appropriately trained and well suited to carry out this work? Is the work proposed appropriate to the experience level(s) of the PI(s) and other researchers? Do the PD/PI and investigative team bring complementary and integrated expertise to the project (if applicable)?

To paraphrase, the FOA provides broad latitude in the PI's specific areas of expertise, which will be evaluated independently as well as in the context of the overall expertise of the assembled project team.

Question 33: Is it AHRQ's intention that Clinician, Consumer, and Policymaker Summary Guides be disseminated exclusively to these respective stakeholders?

Answer 33: No such intent is stated in the FOA.

Question 34: If mass media interventions are developed (e.g., public service announcements), do we also need to implement them in the project? In other words, would we include the cost of airing them? Or is it sufficient to produce such interventions and then provide them to AHRQ?

Answer 34: We invite you to consider how an unaired media intervention could satisfactorily address the evaluation requirements of the FOA.

Question 35: Can we propose an overall strategy that uses AHRQ input to choose among competing options at different phases of the project?

Answer 35: The grant mechanism does not allow the Federal Government to give directions on the work to be done. You should propose what you think is/are the likely best option(s), and if necessary, build in an external advisory function that excludes AHRQ and Federal Government employees.

Question 36: How can we build in contingencies for different funding amounts that we might need based upon preliminary research findings, such as needs assessment? We anticipate different cost scenarios for adaptation based upon the needs and preferences we elucidate in a particular target.

Answer 36: If the scope of a later phase of your planned activities is contingent upon as-yet-unknown findings from an earlier phase of your project, you should propose an amount of funding that would cover the most likely option or options that you can reasonably project. Peer review and AHRQ will need to review and ultimately determine a single funded amount if your application is funded and awarded.

We can imagine several options and invite you to consider others along the same lines. One alternative you might consider is to submit multiple applications for each of the potential design and implementation approaches that are possible, using the first phase of research to screen your target(s) to see which fit the mechanism you have proposed. Another option would be to do your market research in several audiences and then budget an appropriate amount of funds for design, implementation, and evaluation that could be applied to one or more alternative approaches that can reasonably and defensibly be accomplished within those funds. For example, you could state that based on early-phase needs assessment findings, you would be able to do X number(s) of community-based interventions, Y number(s) of thought-leader interventions, and/or Z number(s) of yet another intervention. Different permutations of options could also be proposed.

Top of Page

Update: Answers to Questions Received through December 1, 2009 (Posted December 9, 2009)

Question 37: Is the page limit 15 or 25 pages for PHS 398 sections 2-5?

Answer 37: As stated in the FOA Executive Summary under Research Plan Component Length and under Section IV.6, Other Submission Requirements, Items 2-5 of the PHS 398 Research Plan component may not exceed 15 pages, including tables, graphs, figures, diagrams, and charts. These specifications override the default of 25 pages. Applications exceeding 15 pages will not be accepted electronically.

Question 38: Do applications under this RFA use the new NIH format adopted for proposals after January 25, 2010, or will AHRQ use the NIH format standards that are in effect as of the December 16, 2009, receipt date?

Answer 38: With the due date of December 16, 2009, applications should use the current format for the 424 (R&R) and not the one that will become effective January 25, 2010.

Question 39: Are multiple PIs allowed on the application?

Answer 39: The FOA clearly states that only one PD/PI may be designated on the application. AHRQ grants policy does not allow or recognize the multiple-PIs grant application format at the present time. Additional senior investigators are welcome to lend their expertise as it benefits the project, but they must be officially designated as associate investigators on the application.

Question 40: How broad is the definition of "clinicians"? For example, would the definition include RNs, LPNs, or certified nurse assistants?

Answer 40: Applicants are allowed and encouraged to define and support whatever clinician audience(s) they propose to target.

Question 41: When and where within our budget application should we include the trip for the PI and up to two key personnel for which the RFA states that the timing is "to be determined in conjunction with the AHRQ project officer?"

Answer 41: Applicants may include this trip at the timepoint of their choice within their budget submission. It would be prudent to indicate that the actual timing will be determined in conjunction with the AHRQ project officer, using language or abbreviations to that effect , i.e. "tbd (to be determined) with AHRQ per RFA."

Question 42: Do you have any guidance on how to map the information requested in the research plan (such as which CER Summary Guide(s) are anticipated for use; targets to be studied; study approach and documentation of scientific or empirical basis of intervention; proposed products or tools and planned dissemination; and evaluation, assessment, and reporting on the intervention's translatability) to the sections that must be submitted on grants.gov (specific aims; background and significance; preliminary studies/progress report; research design and methods; and inclusion enrollment report)?

Answer 42: Applicants should use their best judgment about which sections of the grants.gov format should contain the information requested specifically in the RFA. The review of applications will be facilitated if applicants indicate clearly where the information requested in the RFA can be found within the grants.gov format.

Question 43: Is it within scope of the RFA to adapt CER Reviews to illustrate research needs and guide future research on the topic area(s) covered?

Answer 43: No. This is outside of the scope of the RFA, which is to increase the use, impact, and implementation of one or more CER Review products by customizing or adapting them, not by deriving new content for research purposes.

Question 44: Can we include "simple propagation of unchanged summary guides through printing and distribution, E-mail, or listservs" as one of several strategies in our application, given that the RFA states that applications that propose this will not be considered innovative or responsive to the FOA and will not undergo peer review?

Answer 44: The RFA policy about "simple propagation" not being innovative, responsive, or permissive of peer review was intended to exclude applications where this was the sole means of adaptation or customization. If such an approach is proposed as part of multiple adaptations and customizations, that will not automatically disqualify it from peer review.

Question 45: Can we partner with for-profit companies, given they are not eligible to lead applications under this research mechanism?

Answer 45: For this FOA, for-profit organizations may "partner" with eligible lead institutions as members of consortia or as subcontractors only. We should also note that HHS policy requires that under a consortium agreement, the recipient must perform a substantive role in the conduct of the planned project or program activity and not merely serve as a conduit of funds to another party or parties. If consortium/contractual activities represent a significant portion of the overall project, the applicant must explain why the applicant organization, rather than the ultimate performer of the activities, should be the grantee (which, in the case of a for-profit entity, is not permissible under this FOA).

We note also that eligible institutions are further restricted by the funding of this RFA under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). The purposes of ARRA are to preserve and create jobs and promote economic recovery in the United States, and to provide investments needed to increase economic efficiency by spurring technological advances in science and health. Consistent with these goals, eligible domestic (U.S.) institutions/organizations that are planning to submit applications that include foreign components should be aware that requested funding for any foreign component should not exceed 10 percent of the total requested costs or $25,000 (aggregate total for a foreign component or multiple foreign components), whichever is less.

Question 46: Should our PI use the new biosketch form with the personal statement and the four sections, ABCD? If not, which form should the PI use?

Answer 46: Applicants should use the biosketch form that is in the application material attached to this specific FOA package.

Question 47: What is required to make use of the existing CER Summary Guide booklets and images? Do we need to request permission, licensure, or some other kind of clearance before using them? Are we allowed to develop proprietary products based upon these materials for licensure by interested users in the future?

Answer 47: The technical contents, but not necessarily the images, within the CER Summary Guide booklets are not copyrighted and can be freely used. However, institutions wishing to use the images within the CER Summary Guides should check with the Eisenberg Center to determine whether the images can be used freely or require special arrangements, fees, or permissions due to Eisenberg Center licensing and use arrangements that may preclude or restrict subsequent uses.

In general, institutions that develop materials, technologies, or products with AHRQ funding may further distribute or license the materials to others, but in all cases the Federal Government retains a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable license for the Federal Government to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use the material and to authorize others to do so for Federal purposes, e.g., to make the materials available in government-sponsored databases for use by other researchers. Applicants should refer to the Intellectual Property section of the HHS Grants Policy Statement (http://www.hhs.gov/grantsnet/docs/HHSGPS_107.doc#_Toc155580256; Word® file, 1.8 MB) for detailed information.

To license materials (e.g., materials posted on the Web), the copyright should be posted. Licenses granted to others would be nonexclusive, and limited by a nonexclusive license that AHRQ retains, which gives the Agency the right to use materials developed with public funding for Agency purposes, including the right to independently disseminate the materials when deemed necessary for public health purposes. Grantees who license others to use something they develop with AHRQ grant funds should be aware that any license that they give is subject to AHRQ's retained license and should so inform the licensee.

Top of Page

  • Microsoft® Word® files can be viewed with the free Word® Viewer. Exit Disclaimer

Current as of December 2009

The information on this page is archived and provided for reference purposes only.

 

AHRQ Advancing Excellence in Health Care