Introduction to CHIP, and - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Introduction to CHIP, andSome Reflections on Grant Writing from the Trenches

Rev.

6/18/14, 1:30pm

Jeffrey D. Fisher, Ph.D.

Board of Trustees Distinguished Professor of Psychology

Director, Center for Health, Intervention, and Prevention

University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT

CHIP Grantsmanship Training Workshop

for Health Behavior Researchers

June

19 and 20,

2014Slide2

Welcome to CHIP2Slide3

Although CHIP began in 2002 with a focus on HIV prevention, it is now a University Research Center with internationally known scientists in the fields of HIV prevention, obesity prevention, medication adherence, exercise science, autism, cancer prevention, complementary and alternative medicine, meta-analysis, and experts in other health domains as well. At CHIP, these researchers -- from disciplines representing almost every school and college at UConn -- work together to address critical public health-related problems.Slide4

The University of Connecticut’s Center for Health, Intervention, and Prevention (CHIP): Creates new scientific knowledge and theoretical frameworks in the areas of health behavior, health behavior change, health intervention, and prevention.

Health is broadly defined and may include physical and mental health, and outcomes with critical implications for health (e.g., decreasing stress).

CHIP’s Mission

4Slide5

CHIP encourages work at the intersection of behavior and biology (e.g., increasing medication adherence). This includes genomics, which has strong psychological, physiological, and behavioral health-related components (e.g., decisions to receive genetic testing).

CHIP disseminates its research and cutting-edge interventions widely.

5CHIP’s Mission

(continued) Slide6

CHIP serves as a nexus for investigators at the University of Connecticut and other institutions to form cross-disciplinary, collaborative partnerships for the development of research in health behavior and health behavior change.6Slide7

CHIP Research NetworkOur network includes more than 225 affiliate scientists from almost all of the schools and colleges at the University of Connecticut, from other universities, and from other institutions.Our boundary spanner, Jennifer Wang, can find you almost any type of expertise you might need in your grant proposal from our affiliate network.

7

Jennifer WangProgram Coordinator and Boundary SpannerSlide8

CHIP Total Cumulative Costs Awarded8Slide9

CHIP Total Costs ExpendedFY02 vs. FY149Slide10

Countries in which CHIP

Currently has Funded Projects

10Slide11

CHIP Grant Proposals SubmittedCHIP Affiliates submit about $50M in CHIP grants each year.

11Slide12

CHIP Services12Slide13

CHIP Lecture SeriesThe CHIP Lecture Series hosts about 20 speakers annually, many of whom are internationally recognized researchers.The lectures are streamed live and also are archived on CHIP’s website.

13

Jennifer Wang

Donna Hawkins Program Coordinator and Boundary Spanner Program Assistant

The CHIP Programs and Research Development Teamis responsible for the CHIP Lecture SeriesSlide14

CHIP InternalSeed Grant OpportunitiesGenerally, CHIP has a seed grant competition for CHIP faculty affiliates, in which they can submit an application for funding pilot work in any area of health behavior change in which they plan to write an external grant.

CHIP also offers graduate student seed grants.Seed grant announcements will be available in September on the

CHIP website (http://www.chip.uconn.edu/). (Jen Wang administers all CHIP seed grant programs.)

14Slide15

CHIP offers:Pre-submission review of the overall content of external grant proposals by outside experts.

Methodological and statistical pre-submission review of

grant proposals. Writing of the power analysis and data analysis sections by our statistical consultant.Access to samples of awarded internal and external grants.

Searches for external grant funding opportunities.15

CHIP ServicesSlide16

CHIP recruits and mobilizes networks of health researchers with common interests in “interest groups” (Obesity, Cancer, e/mHealth, HIV, and Health Marketing).CHIP Associate Director Deborah Cornman coordinates the CHIP interest groups and works closely with interest group directors and members to increase CHIP grant submissions in the areas that the interest groups serve.

16

CHIP Interest GroupsSlide17

Pre- and Post-Award Grants ManagementPersonnel and Payroll

Purchasing Travel

17

CHIP Grants Management Support Services

Susan Hoge Melissa Stone AnnMarie White Kathy Moriarty

Personnel, Payroll

Head of

CHIP Admin Team

Grants, Purchasing, Travel

Grants Management

Grants ManagementSlide18

CHIP IT Support ServicesProvides assistance at interface of IT and health behavior science (e.g., creating Internet-based interventions).Provides assistance with eHealth/mHealth technology.

18

CHIP Technology Support

Chris Tarricone

Josh Hardin

Director of IT at CHIP

IT Support ConsultantSlide19

Some Reflectionsfrom the Trenches:Organized (and More Dissociated) Thoughts from25 Years of Grant Writing, and$25M in funding as an

NIH Principal Investigator

19Slide20

Grants Involve Scientific Writing, Which Can be Painful20Slide21

My Thoughts on Scientific Writing21While it can be painful when it is in process, scientific writing can be a source of creativity, great pleasure, and a contribution you can make to posterity when the writing is complete.

One needs to do at least an hour of scientific writing every day. You’ll be amazed how much you can write in a week, a month, and in a year.Slide22

22Don’t have much ego involved in the early drafts – try to write a complete draft quickly and early in the writing process, without worrying too much about its quality. You will feel

relief – all you have to do now is improve it!

Do your scientific writing the first thing each day. When you are done, you will feel you have accomplished one of the most important things you could have done that day!

My Thoughts on Scientific Writing(continued)Slide23

23Write early drafts in a relaxed atmosphere in which you are not self-critical; allow creative thoughts to emerge and incorporate them, uncensored. See if they pass the “test of time” as you edit the document.Don’t ever be so invested in what you have written that you are conflicted at making changes to it, or even in eliminating large sections to improve the

document.

My Thoughts on Scientific Writing(continued)Slide24

24One should read a manuscript or a grant proposal front to back many times at different junctures during the writing process, making changes throughout it each

time. One needs to spend much more time revising a manuscript or a grant proposal than writing the initial draft. Make many sets of revisions. Keep revising it until you think it is exceptional, and believe that others will agree

.My Thoughts on Scientific Writing(continued)Slide25

Writing a Successful Grant25To me, grant writing has always felt like a

lottery in which pages of PHS 398 or SF 424 are filled with my research dreams and

fantasies. By writing great prose, I can increase my chances of winning (being funded) dramatically.

PHS Form 398Slide26

26Its always seemed amazing to me that I could write my private thoughts about

“the way the world works” on NIH grant forms and get several million dollars from the U.S. government to fund every aspect of the research necessary to find

out if I am right or wrong. When you think about it, that is really quite remarkable.

Writing a Successful Grant(continued)Slide27

27To write a successful grant, you have to become obsessed with what you are doing; writing a fundable grant is all-consuming.

You need to spend considerable time on it every day.You

need to think about it while falling asleep and while taking a shower.Writing a

Successful Grant(continued)Slide28

28You have to believe deeply in what you are proposing, be highly enthusiastic about it, and

it has to be written so that this is contagious to those reviewing the proposal.These days, you won’t get funded unless what you write is exceptional.

Don’t even think about writing a grant unless you are willing to do everything in your power to make it outstanding; otherwise, it’s a waste of time.Writing a Successful Grant

(continued)Slide29

29Coming Up with the Research Idea for a GrantWhen I was in graduate school I worried that I would choose a research focus that someone else had already

fully addressed. It has never happened in 43

years. When I am immersed in a research area, and have read widely in it, I am constantly getting ideas about critical things that are missing from the literature, or critical next steps that might make major conceptual or applied contributions to the area of study. There are good ideas for grants.

Writing a Successful Grant(continued)Slide30

30I also get research and grant ideas at CHIP brown bags, in conversations with colleagues, when reviewing others’ papers for publication, and while I am engaged in mundane, unrelated activities.

I have a pen with a post it pad next to my bed, and sometimes I call my voicemail in the middle of the night to record a research or grant idea.

Some ideas “stick” and others do not survive my own scrutiny when I revisit them over time, or the scrutiny of my research team.Writing a Successful Grant(continued

)Slide31

31I think that if one is immersed and deeply interested in a research domain, lets him- or herself be creative without self-censoring, he or she will not have problems coming up with good ideas for grants.

The trick is deciding which are the most innovative, important, timely, yet feasible, and likely to be reviewed well and funded.

Writing a Successful Grant(continued)Slide32

32A grant, like an article, has to tell a story.It has to be a GOOD story for an article – a GREAT story for a

grant.You have to convince the grant reviewers

that you are proposing to perform research in an important area, that has critical things UNDONE, and that you will do some of the most important of these, systematically.

Writing a Successful Grant(continued)Slide33

33For health grants, you have to convince the reviewer that there is a terrible health problem that exists, and later in the grant, convince them that you have a powerful idea that might help to resolve it.

I call this my “Horribleness/Terribleness Paragraph.” (From my South Africa Options Grant.)

“The HIV epidemic in South Africa has created catastrophic human suffering that extends to all segments of society, threatening the future prosperity and viability of the country (Thomas, 2004). It is estimated that between 1.2 and 2.3 million South Africans have died from HIV/AIDS; that 70% of deaths among South Africans aged 15-49 are attributable to AIDS; and that more than 600,000 South African children have been orphaned by this disease (Dorrington

et al., 2004; Rehle & Shisana, 2003). AIDS-related morbidity and mortality have also had an enormous economic impact on South Africa, from the cost of caring for the dying to a dramatic reduction in the workforce (Mhone

, 2002).”

Writing a

Successful Grant

(continued

)Slide34

34The Literature Review

You must convince the reader that something critical is missing from the current understanding of the

problem or with past attempts to resolve it, and that YOU will “fill in the critical missing piece.”:“There are few completed U.S. trials of successful HIV transmission risk reduction interventions designed specifically for PLWHA (Fisher et al., 2004, 2006; Kalichman et al., 2001; Richardson et al., 2002; Wingood et al., 2004), and to our knowledge, there have been no such trials in South Africa.

(Of relevance, however, is a brief, IMB model-based HIV-risk reduction counseling intervention for South African STI clinic patients at high risk for HIV, but who have not been diagnosed with HIV, that was found to be effective at increasing HIV preventive behavior; Simbayi et al., 2004b). The scarcity of research regarding effective HIV prevention interventions for PLWHA in South Africa, together with the potential for such interventions to have an important impact, especially when delivered in the context of clinical care, highlights the need for development of interventions to assist South African PLWHA to reduce HIV transmission risk behavior.”

Slide35

35A strong literature review for a grant should later be able to be published independently in a top tier journal. Don’t let its final resting place be the unpublished body of your grant.

Two of my literature

reviews for grants were later published in Psychological Bulletin.The Literature Review

(continued)Slide36

36The work which is proposed in a health behavior change grant must have critical conceptual and applied implications. Often, but not always, lack of relevant theory can hurt one’s chances of being funded.A health behavior grant usually entails a series of studies, or several phases of proposed research.

They must progress logically from one to another.It can never appear that particular research findings from work early in your grant are a precondition for your performing the work which you propose to do later in the grant.

The Grant BodySlide37

37It can never appear that you may ultimately find that any critical aspect of the proposed research is not feasible to perform.

You often need to cite your own pilot work or others’ earlier research in a similar or related area and using similar methodology in order to prove the feasibility of the proposed research.

The Grant Body (continued)Slide38

38If you provide too much evidence that your work will (almost certainly) be successful the reviewers likely will not fund it.

If you provide too little evidence that your work will be successful the reviewers likely will not fund it.

There needs to be a good potential that the proposed work will solve an important conceptual and/or applied problem but it can’t be a “slam dunk,” or it may appear there is no reason to fund it.A ParadoxSlide39

39The proposed work shouldn’t be too ambitious for your stage of career and previous experience leading grant funded projects. There are appropriate grant mechanisms for every level of previous grant funding and every career stage.

If there are potentially contradictory findings/predictions to your research which are more or less equally likely,

either must be important and have implications for health.Some Dissociated ThoughtsSlide40

40CADILLAC Assumption: It doesn’t matter what it costs (within reason); propose to do the research well! You are not spending your own money or trying to save it; your job is to do ‘world class’ research.Assemble the very best possible team. Don’t be limited by your institution or your colleagues. Recruit the very best people in the field to join you in the grant proposal.

If there are any weaknesses in your own background/ experience/strengths, add others to the research team who have those strengths.

Some Dissociated Thoughts (continued)Slide41

41The Proposal:must

be extremely well-written.must ultimately have

a simple, parsimonious, powerful, intuitively appealing theme.must be user-friendly to read and to interact with.

If you make it painful for the reviewers to read it, they will make the outcome of the review painful to you!Some Dissociated Thoughts (continued)Slide42

42In the proposal, at every stage, do more than the minimum:Do

pilot work and report its results.Include

appendices with drafts of your outcome measures, possible intervention content, etc.If you are using a new technology, provide an early version of a sample of it to demonstrate that your team can master the technology (LifeWindows example.)

Some Dissociated Thoughts (continued)Slide43

43A grant writer must look at his or her proposal with a microscope searching for potential weaknesses and refute them either by changing the proposal so they are no longer present, or by convincing the reader they are not highly problematic. Any

possible flaw must be anticipated and refuted almost immediately, before it becomes troubling to the readerIt is critical to have knowledgeable others who are not involved in the proposed work and who can think “out of the box” review the grant and see if there are any weakness that you have not envisioned

. (CHIP can help you with that.)Anticipating ProblemsSlide44

44I believe that in the best health promotion grants, there is strong theory and strong potential for application of the work for practical (health) benefit.

Health promotion research must generally be done in the “real world”

with participants at real risk for a particular health condition.Laboratory work is possible as part of a health promotion grant, but not a large part.

I’ve seen many attempts to try to apply the typical social psychology laboratory research paradigm to health problems which fail miserably in review because it is too synthetic.Proper Balance between Lab and Field Work and

Between Conceptual and Applied ContentSlide45

Statistics Section45The statistics section should be written by a statistician who can make complicated statistics understandable to an intelligent scientist

on the review panel who is not a statistician.

I believe that the best statistician for a project is someone knowledgeable in terms of sophisticated statistics, but also in your content area, so he or she can not only understand your results but also suggest alternative analyses that are meaningful.

Blair will tell you more. Slide46

46The Review Committee: Study the Membership of the Committee that will Review the Proposal.

CHAIRPERSON

----------------------- PATTERSON,   THOMAS   L ,  PHD,  (14)

PROFESSORDEPARTMENT OF PSYCHIATRYUNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGOLA JOLLA,  CA  92093 

MEMBERS---------------- 

BOGART,   LAURA   M ,  PHD,  (16)

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR

DEPARTMENT OF MEDICINE

HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL

BOSTON,  MA 02215 

BOWLEG,   INGRID   ALISA ,  PHD,  (14)

PROFESSOR

DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY

GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY

WASHINGTON,  DC 20052 

BULL,   SHEANA   S ,  PHD,  (14)

PROFESSOR

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND BEHAVIORAL HEALTH

SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH

UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO, DENVER 

AURORA,  CO 80045 

COOK,   ROBERT   L ,  MD, MPH,  (19)

PROFESSOR

DEPARTMENT OF EPIDEMIOLOGYCOLLEGE OF PUBLIC HEALTHAND HEALTH PROFESSIONS

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDAGAINESVILLE,  FL 32610 

CUNNINGHAM,   CHINAZO ,  MD,  (18)ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR

DIVISION OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINEMONTEFIORE MEDICAL CENTERALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE OF MEDICINEBRONX,  NY 10467 

GAROFALO,   ROBERT ,  MD, MPH,  (14)ASSOCIATE PROFESSORDEPARTMENT OF PEDIATRICSCHILDREN'S MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

FEINBERG SCHOOL OF MEDICINENORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITYCHICAGO,  IL 60614 

GIORDANO,   THOMAS   P ,  MD, MPH,  (18)ASSOCIATE PROFESSORDEPARTMENT OF MEDICINE

BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINEHOUSTON,  TX 77030 

BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES OF HIV/AIDS STUDY SECTIONCenter For Scientific Review(Terms end 6/30 of the designated year)Slide47

47

LI,   XIAOMING ,  PHD,  (14)PROFESSORDEPARTMENT OF PEDIATRICS

SCHOOL OF MEDICINEWAYNE STATE UNIVERSITYDETROIT,  MI 48201 

MIMIAGA,   MATTHEW   JAMES ,  SCD, MPH,  (19)ASSISTANT PROFESSORDEPARTMENT OF EPIDEMIOLOGYSCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH

HARVARD UNIVERSITYBOSTON,  MA 02115 

NYAMATHI,   ADELINE   M ,  PHD,  (15)

DISTINGUISHED PROFESSOR

SCHOOL OF NURSING

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES

LOS ANGELES,  CA 90095 

OTTO-SALAJ,   LAURA   L ,  PHD,  (15)

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WORK

CENTER FOR ADDICTION, BEHAVIORAL HEALTH RESEARCH

HELEN BADER SCHOOL OF SOCIAL WELFARE

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN, MILWAUKEE

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN, MILWAUKEE

MILWAUKEE

,  WI 53201 

OWNBY,   RAYMOND   L ,  PHD, MD,  (15)

PROFESSOR AND CHAIRDEPARTMENT OF PSYCHIATRY AND BEHAVIORAL MEDICINE

COLLEGE OF OSTEOPATHIC MEDICINENOVA SOUTHEASTERN UNIVERSITYFORT LAUDERDALE,  FL 33314 

REYNOLDS,   NANCY   R ,  PHD,  (19)

PROFESSORSCHOOL OF NURSING

YALE UNIVERSITYNEW HEAVEN,  CT 06536 ROURKE,   SEAN   BRENDAN ,  PHD,  (14)

PROFESSORDEPARTMENT OF PSYCHIATRY

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTOTORONTO, ONTARIO,   M5B1W8, CANADA SEAL,   DAVID   W ,  PHD,  (14)

PROFESSORDEPARTMENT OF GLOBAL COMMUNITY HEALTHAND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCESSCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND TROPICAL MEDICINE

TULANE UNIVERSITYNEW ORLEANS,  LA 70112 SOLOMON,   SONDRA   ELICE ,  PHD,  (18)

ASSOCIATE PROFESSORDEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGYUNIVERSITY OF VERMONTBURLINGTON,  VT 05405 

WALDROP-VALVERDE,   DRENNA ,  PHD,  (19)ASSOCIATE PROFESSORNELL HODGSON WOODRUFF SCHOOL OF NURSING

EMORY UNIVERSITYATLANTA,  GA 30322Slide48

48Know their areas of expertise, prejudices, and likely views in areas relevant to your proposal (MEMS cap adherence story)

Don’t forget to cite their work if it is relevantBe gentle if you are claiming that their work is problematic.

Rick will tell you more. The Review CommitteeSlide49

The Budget:Getting More Bang for the Buck49

In the budget justification, make it appear that you are going to great lengths to save money. If reviewers see one item that seems excessive, they may think the entire budget is excessive.Slide50

50The “Optics: can also be important A no treatment control group can be a no cost natural history cohort (two for the price of one.).

A no treatment time and attention control group can test another intervention the target population may need, but which won’t affect the primary outcome variable (two for the price of one).

In my high school grant proposal I pitted three different types of HIV prevention interventions different types of schools would want to use vs. a “standard instruction” control condition. This could have identified 3 effective HIV prevention interventions for use in schools, not just one (three for the price of one).The Budget:

Getting More Bang for the BuckSlide51

51

That’s All,

Folks!Slide52

52

Feel free to contact me if you have

any questions or would like to discuss any of this material further, and let me know how CHIP can help you with any future grant proposals.

Jeffrey D. Fisher, PhDBoard of Trustees Distinguished Professor of PsychologyDirector, Center for Health, Intervention, and Preventionjeffrey.fisher@chip.uconn.edu