[Federal Register: March 11, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 48)]
[Notices]
[Page 11625-11631]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11mr04-103]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Participatory Research on Community Interventions To Increase the
Utilization of Effective Cancer Preventive and Treatment Services
Announcement Type: New.
Funding Opportunity Number: PA 04087.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number: 93.945.
Key Dates:
Letter of Intent Deadline: March 26, 2004.
Application Deadline: May 10, 2004.
Executive Summary: None.
I. Funding Opportunity Description
Authority: Public Health Service Act, sections 301(a) and
317(k)(2), as amended.
Purpose: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
announces the availability of fiscal year (FY) 2004 funds for a grant
program from the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and
Health Promotion (NCCDPHP) Division of Cancer Prevention and Control
(DCPC) and the Public Health Practice Program Office (PHPPO) Office of
Science and Extramural Research. This announcement supports research to
evaluate the effectiveness of community interventions to increase the
use by health plans, health insurers, and/or health care providers of
evidence-based cancer screening and treatment services in the following
three areas: (1) To increase provision of colorectal cancer screening;
(2) to increase use of shared decision making for prostate cancer
screening; or (3) to increase use of systematically developed
guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of ovarian cancer.
Applicants may submit separate applications for one or more of the
three above areas of research. Findings from the funded projects will
contribute to reductions in cancer morbidity and mortality,
improvements in the quality of life for cancer patients, and increases
in the use of public health and prevention research in everyday health
practice.
This program announcement addresses the United States Department of
Health and Human Services (DHHS) Strategic Plan Goal to improve the
quality of health care services; the HealthierUS Initiative
``Prevention: Getting Preventive Screening; and ``Healthy People 2010''
focus areas of Cancer, Access to Quality Health Services, Educational
and Community-Based Programs, and Public Health Infrastructure.
Measurable outcomes of the program will be in alignment with the
following performance goal for NCCDPHP: Support prevention research to
develop sustainable and transferable community-based behavioral
interventions: The following performance goal will be in alignment with
PHPPO: Strengthen the public health infrastructure by stimulating
extramural prevention research to discover how to apply the latest
biomedical research at the local level and how to supply frontline
public health workers with evidence of what works.
Research Objectives: The specific research objective for this
program announcement is to stimulate investigator-initiated,
participatory research to evaluate the effectiveness of community
interventions to: (1) Increase provision of colorectal cancer
screening; (2) increase use of shared decision making for prostate
cancer screening; or (3) increase use of systematically developed
guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of ovarian cancer.
This objective addresses research gaps identified in recent reviews
conducted by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), the Cochrane Effective
Practice and Organization of Care group, and the Agency for Healthcare
Research and Quality (AHRQ). In Fulfilling the Potential of Cancer
Prevention and Early Detection, the IOM identified the possibility of
substantial near term reductions in cancer incidence and mortality if
health plans, health care providers, and health insurers implemented
evidence-based cancer screening services. The report also illustrated
problems for insurers, plans, providers and patients that result from
implementing new screening technologies when evidence on the balance of
benefits and harms from screening is uncertain. In Ensuring Quality
Cancer Care, the IOM concluded that for many cancer patients, a wide
gap exists between patients' experiences with cancer care and the
evidence-based quality diagnostic and treatment services that are
recommended. In The Unequal Burden of Cancer, the IOM provided evidence
that the cancer burden was greater and the provision of services was
less for many racial, ethnic and underserved populations.
Although a Cochrane systematic review of research on the
effectiveness of interventions to change health care systems or health
care provider practices found that some interventions are effective in
certain circumstances, a recent systematic review for AHRQ that focused
specifically on interventions to increase the use of evidence-based
cancer control practices found that evidence was insufficient to make
recommendations. In addition, interventions found to be efficacious in
research may not be translated into practice because the research often
does not involve the communities of interest in the research and does
not address community needs. Therefore, additional research is needed
on the effectiveness of community interventions to increase use of
evidence-based cancer screening and treatment services. This research
should also involve the affected communities of health plans,
providers, and insurers in the research process to increase the
likelihood that resulting interventions can be adopted into practice.
Activities: Awardee activities for this program are as follows:
(1) Conduct studies to evaluate the effectiveness of community
interventions to increase use of evidence-based cancer screening and
treatment services, specifically to:
(a) Increase provision of colorectal cancer screening.
(b) Increase use of shared decision making for prostate cancer
screening.
(c) Increase utilization of systematically developed guidelines for
the diagnosis and treatment of ovarian cancer.
(2) Involve the affected communities, i.e., health plans, health
care providers, and health insurers in the research process.
For purposes of this announcement the following definitions are
used:
Community refers to health plans, health care providers, and/or
health insurers, i.e., the people, organizations or networks (including
faith-based) that would be affected by the community interventions and/
or that would implement such interventions. The investigator for each
research proposal must define the relevant community or communities
using a set of tangible criteria. The criteria can include a common
interest, identity, or characteristic. These communities need not be
defined geographically.
Community interventions can include any of a variety of activities
implemented to change health system or
[[Page 11626]]
health care provider behavior to increase the use of evidence-based
cancer screening and treatment services. These may include, but are not
limited to, changes in insurance coverage, incentives, health care
provider training, reminders to providers or patients, audits and
feedback, opinion leaders, academic detailing, role modeling, or
standardized performance measures, e.g., the Health Employer Data and
Information Set provided at: http://www.ncqa.org/communications/publications/hedispub.htm
).
Participatory research involves collaboration with the community
being studied, at least in formulating the research questions and in
interpreting and applying the findings, and possibly also in developing
study methods and interventions and/or analyzing data, according to the
community's interests, time, and expertise. The community or
communities that are to be involved, as participants in the research
process must be explicitly identified. This announcement is not limited
to any particular model of participatory research. Applicants should
also consult guidelines on participatory research, such as those
provided at: http://www.ihpr.ubc.ca/guidelines.html and the campus-community partnership principles at: http://futurehealth.ucsf.edu/ccph/
.edu/ccph/
Effectiveness of community interventions means that the community
intervention in an intervention group results in a measurable and
statistically significant increase in the use of evidence-based
colorectal screening services, shared decision making for prostate
cancer screening, or evidence-based diagnostic and treatment services
for ovarian cancer. Effectiveness is determined when comparing the
intervention group to the comparison group or groups.
Evidence-based colorectal cancer screening services include only
tests evaluated and recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task
Force (USPSTF). Such tests are performed in the absence of symptoms or
signs in order to identify cancer at an early stage or to identify
precursor lesions. The USPSTF has found evidence that these tests are
effective in reducing mortality and that the balance of risks and
benefits is positive.
Shared decision making for prostate cancer screening, for purposes
of this announcement, refers only to definitions provided in the Guide
to Community Preventive Services recommendations on the effectiveness
of community interventions to increase the use of informed decision
making for cancer screening and in the U.S. Preventive Services Task
Force recommendations on shared decision making. Shared decision making
occurs when a patient and his health care provider discuss screening in
a clinical setting and decide together whether to screen or not. For
shared decision making to occur, the patient must understand the nature
and risks of the cancer, the screening test(s) and treatments and their
likely consequences, including risks (harms), limitations, benefits,
alternatives, and uncertainties. Further, the patient must consider his
or her preferences as appropriate, participate in decision making at a
personally desirable level, and either make a decision consistent with
his or her preferences and values or elect to defer the decision to a
later time. For prostate cancer screening, shared decision making must
include making patients aware of the following from the USPSTF: There
is good evidence that Prostate Specific Antigen screening can detect
early-stage prostate cancer, but there is mixed and inconclusive
evidence that early detection improves health outcomes; screening is
associated with important harms, including frequent false-positive
results and unnecessary anxiety, biopsies, and potential complications
of treatment of some cancers that may never affect or have affected a
patient's health; and evidence is insufficient to determine whether the
benefits outweigh the harms.
Systematically developed guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment
of ovarian cancer include only diagnostic and treatment services for
ovarian cancer recommended by a National Institutes of Health (NIH)
consensus panel or by a review group for the National Cancer Institute
Physician Data Query System. These guidelines include referral to a
gynecologic oncologist.
Health care involves the care, services, and supplies related to
the health of an individual. Health care includes preventive,
diagnostic, therapeutic, rehabilitative, maintenance, or palliative
care, and counseling, among other services. Health care also includes
the sale and dispensing of prescription drugs or devices.
Health plans are individual or group plans that provide or pay the
cost of health care. This includes private and public health plans, and
includes, for example, health maintenance organizations, preferred
provider organizations, long term care and health insurance companies,
employee health benefit plans, and any other plan that provides or pays
for the costs of health care.
Health care provider is a person who is trained and licensed to
give health care, or a place licensed to give health care. Doctors,
nurses, hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, some assisted living
facilities, and certain kinds of home health agencies are examples of
health care providers.
Health insurers/Health insurance--Insurance against financial
losses resulting from health issues, preventing, diagnosing and/or
treating disease, sickness or accidental bodily injury, as well as from
therapeutic, rehabilitative, maintenance, or palliative care.
II. Award Information
Type of Award: Grant.
Fiscal Year Funds: 2004.
Approximate Total Funding: $650,000 for Colorectal Cancer, 650,000
for Ovarian Cancer, 650,000 for Prostate Cancer, $1,950,000 Total.
Approximate Number of Awards: At least three total, including a
minimum of one for colorectal cancer, one for ovarian cancer, and one
for prostate cancer.
Approximate Average Award: $650,000 (This amount is for the first
12-month budget period, and includes both direct and indirect costs.).
Floor of Award Range: None.
Ceiling of Award Range: $650,000.
Anticipated Award Date: September 1, 2004.
Budget Period Length: 12 months.
Project Period Length: Four years.
Throughout the project period, CDC's commitment to continuation of
awards will be conditioned on the availability of funds, evidence of
satisfactory progress by the recipient (as documented in required
reports), and the determination that continued funding is in the best
interest of the Federal Government.
III. Eligibility Information
III.1. Eligible applicants
Applications may be submitted by the following entities:
Public nonprofit organizations.
Private nonprofit organizations.
Universities.
Colleges.
Research institutions.
III.2. Cost Sharing or Matching
Matching funds are not required for this program.
III.3. Others
CDC requires that you submit a Letter of Intent (LOI) if you intend
to apply to this Program Announcement. If CDC does not receive your LOI
by the LOI deadline specified under IV.3. Submission Dates and Times,
your
[[Page 11627]]
application will not be entered into the review process. You will be
notified that your application did not meet the submission
requirements.
If you request a funding amount greater than the ceiling of the
award range, your application will be considered non-responsive, and
will not be entered into the review process. You will be notified that
your application did not meet the submission requirements.
If your application is incomplete, it will not be entered into the
review process. You will be notified that your application did not meet
submission requirements.
If your application does not include a plan for measures of
effectiveness to demonstrate the accomplishment of the various
identified objectives of the grant, as noted in the review criteria
below, it will not be entered into the review process. You will be
notified that your application did not meet submission requirements.
In addition, if your application does not meet the following three
eligibility criteria, it will not be entered into the review process
and you will be notified that your application did not meet submission
requirements:
1. The principal investigator or co-principal investigator must
have conducted five or more years of competitively funded peer reviewed
research community interventions with health plans, health insurers,
and/or health care providers, and have published the findings from that
research in peer reviewed journals within the last three years.
2. The applicant's project team must include significant expertise
in research in the area of evidence-based cancer preventive or
treatment services relevant to the project that will be conducted.
a. For applications related to colorectal cancer, the project team
must have significant experience in researching or promoting the use of
cancer screening.
b. For applications related to prostate cancer, the project team
must have significant experience in researching or promoting shared
decision making for cancer screening.
c. For applications related to ovarian cancer, the project team
must have significant experience in researching or providing diagnosis
and treatment of ovarian cancer.
Such expertise must be evidenced by a history of competitively
funded peer reviewed research in that area and publication of the
outcomes from this research in peer reviewed journals.
3. The applicant must demonstrate an effective and well-defined
working relationship between the research organization and the
partnering communities of health care providers, insurers, or plans.
One source of documentation of this relationship must be provided in
the form of Letters of Support from each partnering community, briefly
describing the working relationship.
Documentation of Eligibility
Evidence of meeting the three additional eligibility criteria
stated above must be provided as a separate appendix to the
application, labeled ``Documentation of Eligibility,'' and the location
of the appendix must be identified in the table of contents. This
appendix should broadly summarize the additional eligibility criteria
listed above including institutional affiliations, and experience and
expertise as they relate to the application. However, this appendix
should not reiterate or itemize specific details included in the
Biographical Sketch provided for each of the key personnel.
These eligibility criteria are to ensure that the proposed research
will be of significant quality. Proposed research must meet the
rigorous methodological guidelines required of the research to be
included in evidence reviews conducted by the USPSTF, AHRQ, and the
Guide to Community Preventive Services. Furthermore, proposed research
should contribute to strong evidence on the effectiveness of
interventions to increase the use of evidence-based cancer control
practices.
Individuals Eligible to Become Principal Investigators: Any
individual with the skills, knowledge, and resources necessary to carry
out the proposed research, and who meets the eligibility criteria
specified above for the principal investigator or co-principal
investigator, is invited to work with his or her eligible applicant
institution to develop an application for support. Individuals from
underrepresented racial and ethnic groups as well as individuals with
disabilities are always encouraged to apply for CDC programs.
Note: Title 2 of the United States Code section 1611 states that
an organization described in section 501(c)(4) of the Internal
Revenue Code that engages in lobbying activities is not eligible to
receive Federal funds constituting an award, grant, or loan.
IV. Application and Submission Information
IV.1. Address To Request Application Package
To apply for this funding opportunity, use application form PHS 398
(OMB number 0925-0001 rev. 5/2001). Forms and instructions are
available in an interactive format on the CDC Web site, at the
following Internet address: http://www.cdc.gov/od/pgo/forminfo.htm
Forms and instructions are also available in an interactive format
on the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Web site at the following
Internet address: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/phs398/phs398.html
.
If you do not have access to the Internet, or if you have
difficulty accessing the forms on-line, you may contact the CDC
Procurement and Grants Office Technical Information Management Section
(PGO-TIM) staff at: 770-488-2700. Application forms can be mailed to
you.
IV.2. Content and Form of Application Submission
Letter of Intent (LOI): CDC requires that you submit an LOI if you
intend to apply to this Program Announcement. If you fail to submit an
LOI, any subsequent application will not be entered into the review
process. Although the LOI is not binding, and does not enter into the
review of your subsequent application, it will be used to gauge the
level of interest in this program, and to allow CDC to plan the
application review.
Your LOI must be written in the following format:
Maximum number of pages: Three pages
Font size: 12-point unreduced
Single spaced
Paper size: 8.5 by 11 inches
Page margin size: One inch
Printed only on one side of page
Written in plain language, avoid jargon
Your LOI must contain the following information:
Page 1
Descriptive title of the proposed research
Name, address, E-mail address, and telephone
number of the Principal Investigator
Names of other key personnel
Participating institutions
Number and title of this Program Announcement
(PA)
Pages 2-3
A non-binding summary of the proposed project,
which will be used in planning for peer review of the
[[Page 11628]]
applications. The summary should include information about the area of
research interest (colorectal cancer screening, prostate cancer shared
decision making, or researching or providing diagnosis and treatment of
ovarian cancer), the communities with which the investigators will
collaborate, the community intervention(s), and the basic study design.
Application: Follow the PHS 398 application instructions for
content and formatting of your application. For further assistance with
the PHS 398 application form, contact PGO-TIM staff at 770-488-2700, or
contact GrantsInfo, Telephone (301)435-0714, E-mail:
GrantsInfo@nih.gov.
Your research plan should address activities to be conducted over
the entire project period. It should also describe an effective and
well-defined working relationship between the researchers and the
partnering community or communities (of health care providers,
insurers, or plans) in which these partnering communities are active
participants with the researcher in the research process. The research
application should also include a clear statement of the roles of the
community participants. In addition, be sure to address the criteria
that will be used to review your application. These criteria are listed
at V. Application Review Information.
You are required to have a Dun and Bradstreet Data Universal
Numbering System (DUNS) number to apply for a grant or cooperative
agreement from the Federal government. Your DUNS number must be entered
on line 11 of the face page of the PHS 398 application form. The DUNS
number is a nine-digit identification number, which uniquely identifies
business entities. Obtaining a DUNS number is easy and there is no
charge. To obtain a DUNS number, access http://www.dunandbradstreet.com
or call 1-866-705-5711. For more information, see the CDC web site at:
http://www.cdc.gov/od/pgo/funding/pubcommt.htm.
This PA uses just-in-time concepts. It also uses the modular
budgeting as well as non-modular budgeting formats. See http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/modular/modular.htm
for additional
guidance on modular budgets. Specifically, if you are submitting an
application with direct costs in each year of $250,000 or less, use the
modular budget format. Otherwise, follow the instructions for non-
modular budget research grant applications.
Additional requirements that may require you to submit additional
documentation with your application are listed in section VI.2.
Administrative and National Policy Requirements.
IV.3. Submission Dates and Times
LOI Deadline Date: March 26, 2004.
Application Deadline Date: May 10, 2004.
Explanation of Deadlines: LOIs or Applications must be received in
the CDC Procurement and Grants Office by 4 p.m. Eastern Time on the
deadline date. If you send your LOI or application by the United States
Postal Service or commercial delivery service, you must ensure that the
carrier will be able to guarantee delivery of the LOI or application by
the closing date and time. If CDC receives your LOI or application
after closing due to: (1) Carrier error, when the carrier accepted the
package with a guarantee for delivery by the closing date and time, or
(2) significant weather delays or natural disasters, you will be given
the opportunity to submit documentation of the carriers guarantee. If
the documentation verifies a carrier problem, CDC will consider the LOI
or application as having been received by the deadline.
This announcement is the definitive guide on application submission
address and deadline. It supersedes information provided in the
application instructions. If your application does not meet the
deadline above, it will not be eligible for review, and will be
discarded. You will be notified that your application did not meet the
submission requirements.
CDC will not notify you upon receipt of your LOI or application. If
you have a question about the receipt of your LOI or application, first
contact your courier. If you still have a question, contact the PGO-TIM
staff at: 770-488-2700. Before calling, please wait two to three days
after the LOI or application deadline. This will allow time for LOIs or
applications to be processed and logged.
IV.4. Intergovernmental Review of Applications
Executive Order 12372 does not apply to this program.
IV.5. Funding Restrictions
Restrictions, which must be taken into account while writing your
budget, are as follows:
Construction costs and pieces of equipment
costing more than $10,000.
If you are requesting indirect costs in your budget, you must
include a copy of your indirect cost rate agreement. If your indirect
cost rate is a provisional rate, the agreement should be less than 12
months of age.
Awards will not allow reimbursement of pre-award costs.
IV.6. Other Submission Requirements
LOI Submission Address: Submit your LOI by express mail or delivery
service to: Technical Information Management--PA 04087, CDC
Procurement and Grants Office, 2920 Brandywine Road, Atlanta, GA 30341.
LOI's may not be submitted electronically at this time.
Application Submission Address: Submit the original and five hard
copies of your application by express mail or delivery service to:
Technical Information Management--PA 04087, CDC Procurement
and Grants Office, 2920 Brandywine Road, Atlanta, GA 30341.
Applications may not be submitted electronically at this time.
V. Application Review Information
V.1. Criteria
The goals of CDC-supported research are to advance the
understanding of biological systems, improve the control and prevention
of disease and injury, and enhance health. In their written comments,
reviewers will be asked to evaluate the application in order to judge
the likelihood that the proposed research will have a substantial
impact on the pursuit of these goals.
The scientific review group will address and consider each of the
following criteria in assigning the application's overall score,
weighting them as appropriate for each application. The application
does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to
have major scientific impact and thus deserve a high priority score.
For example, an investigator may propose to carry out important work
that by its nature is not innovative, but is essential to move a field
forward.
The criteria are as follows:
Measures of Effectiveness: You are required to provide measures of
effectiveness that will demonstrate the accomplishment of the various
identified objectives of the grant. Measures of effectiveness must
relate to the performance goals stated in the ``Purpose'' section of
this announcement. Measures must be objective and quantitative, and
must measure the intended outcome. These measures of effectiveness must
be submitted with the application and will be an element of evaluation.
Significance: Does this study address an important problem? If the
aims of the application are achieved, how will scientific knowledge be
advanced? What will be the effect of these studies on the
[[Page 11629]]
concepts or methods that drive this field?
Approach: Are the conceptual framework, design, methods, and
analyses adequately developed, well-integrated, and appropriate to the
aims of the project? Does the applicant acknowledge potential problem
areas and consider alternative methods?
Innovation: Does the project employ novel concepts, approaches or
methods? Are the aims original and innovative? Does the project
challenge existing paradigms or develop new methodologies or
technologies?
Investigator: Is the investigator appropriately trained and well
suited to carry out this work? Is the work proposed appropriate to the
experience level of the principal investigator and other researchers?
Does the principal investigator have significant and successful
experience in conducting community intervention research with health
plans, health insurers, and/or health care providers? Does the project
team have expertise in research in the area of evidence-based cancer
preventive or treatment services in which the project will be conducted
(in increasing cancer screening use, for colorectal cancer projects; in
shared decision making for cancer screening, for prostate projects; and
in diagnosis and treatment of ovarian cancer, for ovarian cancer
projects)?
Environment: Does the scientific environment in which the work will
be done contribute to the probability of success? Do the proposed
experiments take advantage of unique features of the scientific
environment or employ useful collaborative arrangements? Is there
evidence of institutional support?
Additional Review Criteria: In addition to the above criteria, the
following items will be considered in the determination of scientific
merit and priority score:
1. Study design and methods used for the proposed community
intervention research must be of sufficient quality to qualify for
inclusion in evidence-based reviews conducted for the Guide to
Community Preventive Services. Those quality criteria are described in
an early Community Guide publication in the American Journal of
Preventive Medicine.
2. Proposed screening tests, informed decision making
interventions, treatments, and diagnostic services, must be consistent
with systematic reviews, recommendations and definitions, as noted in
the definitions section above.
3. The applicant must demonstrate an effective and well-defined
working relationship between the researchers and the partnering
community or communities (of health care providers, or one or more
insurers or plans) in which these partnering communities are active
participants with the researchers in the research process. Reviewers
will refer to both the research plan of the application and Letters of
Support (Section III.3.) from the community.
4. The development, implementation, and maintenance of an annual
information-exchange program between the institutional researchers and
the community members (even if the institutional researchers are also
community members) is required. This information-exchange program must
describe the project's current level of community input and
involvement, its progress in accomplishing its objectives, and a
summary of the relevant findings the research has produced.
Documentation of this program must be in the form of annual reports
that use plain language, as specified by Section 508 of the Workforce
Rehabilitation Act, are easily comprehendible, and readily accessible
to Community Members. Applicant's budgets must reflect the cost
required for their information-exchange program.
(5) The proposed research must be judged by the reviewers as likely
to have a substantial impact on the pursuit of the project's goals.
Protection of Human Subjects from Research Risks: Does the
application adequately address the requirements of Title 45 CFR part 46
for the protection of human subjects? This will not be scored; however,
an application can be disapproved if the research risks are
sufficiently serious and protection against risks is so inadequate as
to make the entire application unacceptable.
Inclusion of Women and Minorities in Research: Does the application
adequately address the CDC Policy requirements regarding the inclusion
of women, ethnic, and racial groups in the proposed research? This
includes: (1) The proposed plan for the inclusion of both sexes and
racial and ethnic minority populations for appropriate representation;
(2) The proposed justification when representation is limited or
absent; (3) A statement as to whether the design of the study is
adequate to measure differences when warranted; and (4) A statement as
to whether the plans for recruitment and outreach for study
participants include the process of establishing partnerships with
community(ies) and recognition of mutual benefits.
Budget: The reasonableness of the proposed budget and the requested
period of support in relation to the proposed research.
V.2. Review and Selection Process
Applications will be reviewed for completeness by the Procurement
and Grants Office (PGO), and for responsiveness by PHPPO. Incomplete
applications and applications that are non-responsive to the
eligibility criteria will not advance through the review process.
Applicants will be notified that their application did not meet
submission requirements.
Applications that are complete and responsive to the Program
Announcement will be evaluated for scientific and technical merit by an
appropriate peer review group or charter study section convened by
PHPPO in accordance with Department of Health and Human Services
requirements, and according to the review criteria listed above. As
part of the initial merit review, all applications may:
Undergo a process in which only those
applications deemed to have the highest scientific merit, generally the
top half of the applications under review, will be discussed and
assigned a priority score.
Receive a written critique summarizing the
discussion of the review panel.
Receive a second level review by the Secondary
Review Panel to be appointed by CDC.
Award Criteria: Criteria that will be used to make award decisions
include:
Scientific merit (as determined by peer review)
Availability of funds
Programmatic priorities
Recommendations by the Secondary Review Panel
V.3. Anticipated Announcement and Award Dates
September 1, 2004.
VI. Award Administration Information
VI.1. Award Notices
Successful applicants will receive a Notice of Grant Award (NGA)
from the CDC Procurement and Grants Office. The NGA shall be the only
binding, authorizing document between the recipient and CDC. The NGA
will be signed by an authorized Grants Management Officer, and mailed
to the recipient fiscal officer identified in the application.
Unsuccessful applicants will receive notification of the results of
the application review by mail.
VI.2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements
45 CFR Part 74 and Part 92
For more information on the Code of Federal Regulations, see the
National
[[Page 11630]]
Archives and Records Administration at the following Internet address:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html
The following additional requirements apply to this project:
AR-1 Human Subjects Requirements
AR-2 Requirements for Inclusion of Women and
Racial and Ethnic Minorities in Research
AR-6 Patient Care
AR-8 Public Health System Reporting Requirements
AR-10 Smoke-Free Workplace Requirements
AR-11 Healthy People 2010
AR-12 Lobbying Restrictions
AR-13 Prohibition on Use of CDC Funds for
Certain Gun Control Activities
AR-14 Accounting System Requirements
AR-15 Proof of Non-Profit Status
AR-16 Security Clearance Requirement
AR-22 Research Integrity
AR-23 States and Faith-Based Organizations
AR-24 Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act Requirements
AR-25 Release and Sharing of Data
Additional information on these requirements can be found on the
CDC web site at the following Internet address: http://www.cdc.gov/od/pgo/funding/ARs.htm
.
VI.3. Reporting
If awarded, you must provide CDC with an original, plus two hard
copies of the following reports:
1. Interim progress report, (use form PHS 2590, OMB Number 0925-
0001, rev. 5/2001 as posted on the CDC Web site) no less than 90 days
before the end of the budget period. This annual progress report will
serve as your non-competing continuation application, and must contain
the following elements:
a. Current Budget Period Activities Objectives.
b. Current Budget Period Financial Progress.
c. New Budget Period Program Proposed Activity Objectives.
d. Budget.
e. Measures of Effectiveness Progress Report.
f. Annual Report from Information-Exchange Program.
g. Additional Requested Information.
2. Financial status report no more than 90 days after the end of
the budget period.
3. Final financial and performance reports, no more than 90 days
after the end of the project period.
These reports must be mailed to the Grants Management Specialist
listed in the ``Agency Contacts'' section of this announcement.
VII. Agency Contacts
For general questions about this announcement, contact: Technical
Information Management Section, CDC Procurement and Grants Office, 2920
Brandywine Road, Atlanta, GA 30341, Telephone: 770-488-2700.
For scientific/research issues, contact: Ralph Coates, Ph.D.,
Extramural Project Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
NCCDPHP/DCPC/OD, 4770 Buford Highway, NE, MS K-52, Atlanta, GA 30341-
3717, Telephone: 770-488-3003, E-mail: RCoates@cdc.gov.
For questions about peer review, contact: Joan Karr, Ph.D.,
Scientific Review Administrator, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, PHPPO/OD/ESA, 4770 Buford Highway, NE (MS K-38), Atlanta,
GA 30341, Telephone number: 770-488-2597, Fax: 770-488-8200, E-mail
address: JKarr@cdc.gov.
For financial, grants management, or budget assistance, contact:
Sharon Robertson, Grants Management Specialist, CDC Procurement and
Grants Office, 2920 Brandywine Road, Atlanta, GA 30341, Telephone: 770-
488-2748, E-mail: sqr2@cdc.gov.
VIII. Other Information
References
1. Curry SJ, Byers T, Hewitt M (eds). Fulfilling the potential
of cancer prevention and early detection. Institute of Medicine.
National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 2003. Available at: http://www.iom.edu/report.asp?id=5402
.
2. Hewitt M, Simone JV (eds). Ensuring quality cancer care.
Institute of Medicine. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1999.
Available at: http://www.iom.edu/report.asp?id=5593.
3. Haynes MA, Smedley BD, (eds). The Unequal Burden of Cancer.
National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1999. Available at: http://books.nap.edu/catalog/6377.html
.
4. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Strategic Plan.
Draft 14, October 2003. Available at: http://www.aspe.hhs.gov/hhsplan/
.
5. Executive Office of the President and the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services. HealthierUS Initiative. Prevention: Get
Preventive Screening. Available at: http://www.healthierus.gov/.
6. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. ``Healthy
People 2010.'' Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office,
2000. Available at: http://www.health.gov/healthypeople.
7. Grimshaw JM, Shirran L, Thomas R, et al. Changing provider
behavior: an overview of systematic reviews of interventions.
Medical Care 2001; 39(8 Suppl 2):112-45.
8. Ellis P, Robineson P, Ciliska D, et al. Diffusion and
dissemination of evidence-based cancer control interventions.
Evidence Report/Technology Assessment Number 79. (Prepared by Oregon
Health and Science University under Contract No. 290-97-0017.) AHRQ
Publication No. 03-E033 Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare
Research and Quality. May 2003. Available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/tp/cancontp.htm
.
9. Glasgow RE, Bull SS, Gillett C, et al. Behavior change in
health care settings. A review of recent reports with an emphasis on
external validity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine
2002;23:62-9.
10. Glasgow RE, Lichtenstein E, Marcus AC. Why don't we see more
translation of health promotion research to practice? Rethinking the
efficacy-to-effectiveness transition. American Journal of Public
Health 2003;93:1261-67.
11. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Guide to Clinical
Preventive Services. Available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/cps3dix.htm
12. Ovarian cancer: screening, treatment, and followup. NIH
Consensus Statement 1994 Apr 5-7;12(3)1-30. Available at: http://consensus.nih.gov/cons/096/096_intro.htm
13. NIH Consensus Development Panel on Ovarian Cancer. Ovarian
cancer: Screening, treatment, and follow-up. JAMA 1995;273(6):491-7.
14. PDQ (Physician Data Query System) of the National Cancer
Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. Available
at: http://www.nci.nih.gov/cancerinfo/pdq/adulttreatment
15. Ovarian cancer: screening, treatment, and followup. NIH
Consensus Statement 1994 Apr 5-7;12(3) p. 15. Available at: http://consensus.nih.gov/cons/096/096_intro.htm
16. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Colorectal Cancer--
Screening. Summary of Recommendations. Supporting Documents. Release
date: July, 2002. Available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf/uspscolo.htm
17. Briss P, Rimer B, Reilley B, et al. Promoting Informed
Decision Making About Cancer Screening: What Can Communities and
Health Systems Accomplish? Conceptual Background and a Systematic
Review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 2004; 26(1): 67-90.
Available at: http://www.thecommunityguide.org/cancer/default.htm
18. Sheridan SL, Harris RP, Woolf SH, for the Shared
Decisionmaking Workgroup, Third U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.
Current methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: A review
of the process. Shared decision making about screening and
chemoprevention. A suggested approach from the U.S. Preventive
Services Task Force. American Journal of Preventive Medicine
2004;26(1):67-80. Available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/3rduspstf/shared/sharedba.htm
19. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Prostate Cancer--
Screening. Summary of Recommendations. Supporting Documents. Release
date: December, 2002. Available at:
[[Page 11631]]
http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf/uspsprca.htm
20. National Institutes of Health (NIH). Final NIH Statement on
Sharing Research Data. February 26, 2003. Notice: NOT-OD-03-032.
Available at: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-03-032.html
21. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 794d.
Workforce Investment Act of 1998. Available at: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/508/508law.html
22. Briss P, Zaza S, Pappaioanou M, et al. Developing an
evidence-based Guide to Community Preventive Services. American
Journal of Preventive Medicine 2000; 18(1S): 35-44. Available at:
http://www.thecommunityguide.org/pubs/default.htm
Dated: March 4, 2004.
Sandra R. Manning,
Director, Procurement and Grants Office, Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 04-5433 Filed 3-10-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-P