Pilot Funding

The Contact PI must hold a UW–Madison Faculty appointment or Scientist title with an appointment greater than or equal to 0.5 FTE at UW–Madison (the award funding account will be managed through the Contact PI’s UW–Madison department).

• Any track (clinical health sciences, clinician teacher, tenure, research professor, teaching professor or clinical adjunct) is eligible if they have the capacity to conduct the research according to UW–Madison policy.

Individuals who do not meet the criteria for PI may serve as Co-Investigators or other Key Personnel

Proposals that include multiple PIs (MPIs) must designate one person as the Contact PI. The Contact PI must hold a UW–Madison faculty appointment or scientist title.

A Contact PI may not:

• Be the Contact PI or MPI on an active CAARN grant award (serving as Co-I or other Key Personnel is not exclusionary).
• Have been the Contact PI or MPI on another CAARN grant award application submitted during the current calendar year (serving as Co-I or other Key Personnel is not exclusionary).

Please review and follow these instructions carefully. Deadlines and contact information are summarized at the top of this page.

Resources available for developing a competitive application are included at the end of this RFA:

• Appendix A: “Aging-Related Resources of Campus,” provides descriptions and contact information for established programs on campus that may provide insight or collaboration.
• Appendix B: “References and Additional Resources,” provides information and resources regarding the ideas that are related to this RFA.
• Appendix C: “Resources for Writing Competitive Grant Applications,” lists campus resources available to support your proposal submission. We welcome applicants from all departments and experience levels, and recognize that navigating NIH-style applications can be challenging for researchers who haven’t done it before. We strongly encourage applicants who are new to the NIH-style grant format to review these resources and seek out writing support early in the application process.
  • If you are new to the NIH format, we highly recommend collaborating with an experienced mentor, co-PI, or team member who can provide guidance throughout the writing process.

The LOI serves to determine eligibility and to assist in the identification of appropriate peer reviewers. The LOI will not be used for final review or ranking of the full application.

Before submitting the LOI

We strongly recommend that investigators interested in submitting an LOI contact the CAARN program manager for an initial (no-cost) consultation (CAARN@nursing.wisc.edu). The initial consultation will help the investigator identify a specific resource(s) to support community engagement and identify whether the applicant would benefit from support in writing this NIH-style application.

LOI format

PDF, 1 page maximum, single spaced, 0.75” minimum margins, Arial 11-point font

Please include the following information, in this order:

• Title of proposed research project
• Names, titles, and email addresses of the Contact PI and any Co-PIs.
• Names and roles of Co-Investigators and/or other key personnel crucial to the design and conduct of the proposed research.
• A brief summary of the proposal, including specific aims, general research design, and methods.
• A brief description of the knowledge and/or gap(s) this proposal intends to address, including specific population-level data of any specific population groups in Wisconsin with whom you seek to partner.
• A list of anticipated contributors, collaborators, organizations, community partners, consultants, and/or invested groups, including a brief description of how they will be involved in this research. If community partners are not already involved, describe your plans for identifying and engaging community partners.
• Identify a specific resource that has agreed to help with engaging community partners. A letter of support is not required from this resource for the LOI. Investigators are encouraged to contact CAARN (caarn@medicine.wisc.edu) for help in identifying a specific resource.
• Please indicate whether this proposal serves specific groups or populations with historically reduced access to resources, such as:
  • People in rural communities
  • People experiencing poverty
  • People with disabilities
  • People with low education and/or health literacy
  • People with cognitive impairment

How to submit the LOI

• The LOI must be submitted by email to CAARN@nursing.wisc.edu (see the Key Dates and Info).
• Once the LOI is received, the applicant will receive an email acknowledgment.

What happens after submitting the LOI

• A link to the online application submission form will be provided in that confirmation email.

• LOIs will be reviewed within 5 business days to determine eligibility. If eligible, the Contact PI will be invited via email to submit a full application.

Eligible Contact PIs who have submitted an LOI will receive a confirmation via email that contains a link to the online application submission form. All application materials are submitted via this online form.

Application instructions:

• Online form fields: the submission form contains fields that collect academic (required) and demographic (optional) information about the Contact PI. The Contact PI should enter their information first and then add information about a Co-PI (if applicable) in the “Partner PI Information” section.
• If there is more than one PI, both must enter: ORCID, eRA Commons ID, and institutional email address.
• Include items 1-9 below.
• Please insert page numbers on the full application.
• Use CAARN’s Template for the Budget, available here. There is no need to convert this spreadsheet into a PDF.
• Page/word limits (if applicable) are specified in each section.

Application components (1-9):

1. Scientific Abstract (500 words, maximum)

Please provide a concise description of the proposed research written for scientific audiences. The Scientific Abstract must include:

• Scientific rationale supporting the proposed research
• Specific hypothesis or hypotheses to be generated or tested
• Research aim(s)
• Research design or framework
• How the project uniquely advances health and/or function for older adults
• Brief description of how this project will inform your next grant, including potential funders who have identified your research topic as a health priority

2. Community Abstract (500 words, maximum)

Please provide a description of the proposed research written for community reviewers. This abstract should not reiterate the Scientific Abstract but should tell a story that addresses the importance of this research, whose lives will be impacted, and how.

The Community Abstract could include topics such as:

• Magnitude of the health issue for the intended population
  • How many individuals are affected? Does the intended population experience inequities related to the issue? Does the intended population perceive the issue to be important?
  • What evidence indicates that research addressing the health problem is sought by potential end-users?
• How and when the project (including anticipated future work) directly helps the population involved?
• Knowledge gap/Assistive technology gap
  • What gap will the proposed research address?
  • What will the anticipated project results provide that is new?
• What does the project propose to do? What steps will be taken to address the gap?

• What specific resource(s) is the investigator working with to engage community partners during the project?
  • What has that resource done so far to support the research idea or project?
  • What will they do if the project is awarded?
• What community partners/organizations will be engaged in the project?
  • How were community partners/organizations or members identified and invited to collaborate? If they are not already identified and invited, how will they be?
  • How have community partners/organizations been involved to date and how will they be involved in the project if funded?
  • Who are the proposed users of the assistive technology and how will they be involved in the project?
  • How will the project ensure the involvement of community partners/organizations is meaningful, respectful, and non-transactional?
• Other partners: Describe the engagement and roles of the relevant health care providers or advocacy groups with this project

 

3. Biosketches for all investigators and Key Personnel listed in the budget

Please use the current NIH template: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/forms/biosketch.htm

 

4. Narrative (7 pages, maximum)

This section should be uploaded as an attachment with the following format: PDF,  7-page maximum, single spaced, 0.75” minimum margins, Arial 11-point font.

Must include all the following sections (A – I), in this order:

A.  Specific Aim(s). Include clearly defined and measurable objectives.

B.  Background and Significance

• Describe the problem older adults are facing that your developed AT addresses.
• Describe the knowledge and/or gap(s) this proposal intends to address, including specific population-level data in Wisconsin for the population groups with whom the research team will partner.
• Describe who the intended users for your developed AT are (e.g. older adults themselves, care partners, etc) and the potential benefit to older adults that will accrue from the AT
• Describe and/or provide evidence showing that the end-user feels the work is important and that they are willing to be engaged.
  • Include any involvement/engagement that older adults, caregivers, community, clinical providers, and/or other impacted entities have had in developing the research question or AT to date.
• Describe any feedback to date from community partners and/or the study population related to the proposed AT.
  • If no feedback has been collected, describe why.
• Describe the potential long-term impact of this research.
  • How might this project improve function, health or well-being of older adults in Wisconsin and/or reduce caregiver burden. How might it benefit specific older adult populations with reduced access to health resources?
  • How might this program of research translate new and existing findings into improvements in clinical practice and/or community health?
  • What will happen next if this pilot is successful?
  • How might this research inform or impact organizational or public policies?

C. Innovation

• Describe how this project addresses the specific aims in a new way.
• Describe any challenges to current AT, research practices, clinical practices, or community living, that this project helps address.
• Describe how this project improves upon existing methodologies for addressing AT needs.
• Describe how this project proposes to address and reduce equity gap(s) in the use of the developed AT.

D. Investigator

• Describe how the Contact PI, research team, and collaborators are especially suited to this project.
• If the Contact PI is an early-career investigator, describe experience, training, and mentorship related to the proposed work.
• If the Contact PI is an established investigator, describe accomplishments (i.e. publications, external funding, sustained practice, and/or policy change) related to the proposed work.
• Describe previous experience of the research team working directly with the community organizations, patients, and/or other impacted entities involved in this application.
  • If the research team has not had direct experience working with end-users and other impacted entities, describe the experience of the research team with the specific resource that will facilitate community-academic partnerships for the project.
  • Identify and describe whether this proposal incorporates any of the following circumstances:

E. Environment

• Describe the scientific environment in which the work will be done.
• Describe how this environment will contribute to the success of the project.
• Describe how the project will benefit from the unique features of the environment.

 F. Approach

• Describe any preliminary research and experience relevant to this proposal.
  • Include any preliminary evidence of the functionality of the proposed AT. Include any evidence, if available, that suggests this AT could be effective with the intended users of the technology.
  • How have community partners been engaged to date?
• Describe study design, including study procedures and data collection.
  • How will user-centered design cycles be used to support the refinement of the developed AT?
  • How will community partners support the conduct of this research? This description can be brief, as we ask for more details in Section G.
• Describe qualitative and/or quantitative methodologies for data collection.
• Describe plans for data analysis.
  • Describe how qualitative and quantitative data, as applicable, will be evaluated and interpreted.
  • Describe how the results and findings will be used to support AT further refinement and testing.
  • Describe how data evaluation methods and techniques were selected.
  • Describe sample size justification, if applicable.
• Describe potential difficulties and limitations, and how to overcome or mitigate them.
• Describe any plans to ensure the development and refinement of the proposed AT will be culturally and/or linguistically aligned with community norms for the intended users and older adult beneficiaries of the AT.
• Describe how this line of research will address gaps in access for one or more populations of older adults in Wisconsin.
  • Are the research plans justified for the (1) protection of human research participants from research-related risks, and (2) inclusion of individuals with a variety of lived experiences, members of all sexes and/or genders, and/or vulnerable subjects?

G. Community Engagement and Collaboration Plan

• Describe how 1) organizational partners (i.e. collaborating community and/or clinical organizations) and/or 2) relevant individual community members (e.g., older adults, caregivers and partners, community care professionals) will be meaningfully involved in the proposed work.
  • Describe the roles that organizations and individuals will play in the project and at what stages.
  • Describe how community and/or clinical partners will be identified, recruited, and engaged, if they have not already been. Give evidence of the feasibility of recruitment and engagement.
  • What are the proposed recruitment sites for participation and how are they appropriate to engage older adults?
  • Describe ways in which the project will benefit from the unique features of the community partners’ organizations

 H. Dissemination Plan

• Describe the audience(s) to which results from this project will be disseminated (e.g. older adults, community partners, clinical practices, advocacy groups, etc, as well as academic audiences).
• Describe how and when the results of this project will reach the specified audience(s).
• Identify the dissemination scale (local, national, international).

I. Future Considerations

• What is the next step in this research project’s trajectory, for the proposed AT?
  • What is the potential for generalizability of this work? What kinds of collaborators and/or community partners will need to be engaged for future work?
• What are your plans for acquiring subsequent funding? If the pilot is successful, an expectation of this program is that the research team must have plans to apply for external, peer-reviewed funding.

5. Citations

List all citations referenced. No specific formatting style is required (e.g., APA or MLA); however, the style must be consistent within the list and full citations must be referenced for all relevant and cited literature. Include the Digital Object Identifier (DOI), where applicable.

6. Timeline

Describe how all proposed activities are feasible within the 12-month grant period, which begins with UW IRB approval. Include a table that shows all project activities and milestones after receiving IRB approval.

7. Other Financial Support

Please submit a list of other sources of funding for all PI and Co-Investigators listed in the Budget, using the current NIH template: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/forms/othersupport.htm. If applicable, include a statement of overlap between previously funded projects and the proposed research.

8. Letters of Support (LOS)

Please include signed (ink or electronic) letters of support from all collaborators.

Letters from collaborators and/or community partners should specify the following:

• The support they are offering the project.
• Their specific, meaningful role(s).

PIs in a Scientist track must include a letter of support from the mentor and/or department chair or dean expressing strong support for this independence and an outline of the PI’s proposed academic trajectory.

9. Budget and Justification

Budgets must be submitted using the following template and include all expenses that directly support the proposed project. Total budgets may not exceed $50,000 in direct costs.

Faculty/Scientist PI, Co-PI, and mentor salaries are not allowed.

Budgets are subject to review and approval by CAARN.

Budget sections must include:

• UW–Madison Personnel
  • Include the percent effort to be committed to the project for all contributors, with fringe benefit where applicable, including Co-Investigators, collaborators, staff, and students.
    • Graduate student and post-doctoral associate stipends are allowed for work related to the pilot, with justification. Include any proposed tuition remission in the budget, per UW–Madison policy.
    • List all contributors, even those with in-kind or zero-dollar contributions (such as the PI(s)).
    • The utilization of staff (i.e. research coordinators or project coordinators) is highly recommended.
• Community Collaborators and/or Contractual Costs
  • List all non-UW-Madison collaborators, including the organization they represent, their role on the project, and their qualification to serve in that role
  • Include payments to individuals and/or organizations that are outside of UW–Madison. Payments could be in the form of stipends or fees for services.
  • Compensation to community and/or patient partners, individuals and/or organizations must be commensurate with their contributions to the proposed work. Please describe how the partner compensation was determined (we encourage you to work with your partner organization(s) to co-develop an appropriate compensation plan).
  • If the budget does not include financial payment to any community individuals or organizations that are collaborating, describe other potential benefits (tangible or intangible) that these partners may receive from their participation in this work in the Budget Justification section (below).
• Research Participant Costs
  • Include any costs associated with paying research participants for their participation and/or food, travel, parking, childcare, or other items provided directly to participants for the purpose of contributing to this research. (Note: All research participant incentives ultimately will require approval by the Institutional Review Board (IRB)).
• Supplies and Materials
  • You may request laboratory and computing supplies, research equipment, office supplies, software, etc., that are essential, solely for the study, and not otherwise available.
  • Large equipment expenditures (> $5,000) are not allowed.
• Travel
  • Include any travel, made by UW–Madison personnel, which is necessary for the conduct of the research at community sites.
• Other Expenses
  • List any expenses that do not fit into any of the previous categories.
• Budget Justification
  • Include cost-based information for all listed expenses.
  • Create a list of justifications in the same order as the Detailed Budget Table.
  • All categories that have proposed spending must be justified in this section.

Eligible proposals will first be reviewed and scored by a Scientific Review Committee (SRC). Meritorious proposals will then be reviewed, scored, and ranked by an External Community Review Committee (ECRC).

Applications with highest scores from both SRC and ECRC will be recommended for funding. This recommendation may be subject to approval from NIA.

The review criteria for each of these committees is described below.

Scientific Review

All applicants, regardless of funding decisions, will receive a summary statement and aggregate comments, explaining the rationale for the scores following completion of the entire review process.

Each application will be evaluated by three independent peer reviewers with appropriate expertise using the NIH 9-point (1 = exceptional; 9 = poor) scoring system, using the new simplified peer review framework of five core criteria (Significance, Investigators, Innovation, Approach, Environment). Reviewers will receive guidance on specific factors to consider for each criteria, all of which are listed below.

Each application receives a score for Overall Impact based on four factors (three of which are scored):

• Factor 1: Importance of the Research (Significance, Innovation), scored 1-9
• Factor 2: Rigor and Feasibility (Approach), scored 1-9
• Factor 3: Expertise and Resources (Investigator, Environment), evaluated as either sufficient for the proposed research or not (in which case reviewers must provide an explanation)
• Factor 4: Community Collaboration, scored 1-9

Merit will be determined by averaging the Overall Impact scores from at least three reviewers with appropriate expertise.

The SRC will strongly consider whether the budget is reasonable and justified in relation to the proposed research and collaboration(s) and may request further clarification and/or modifications.

Overall Impact

Reviewers provide an overall assessment of the likelihood for the project to achieve the proposed aims as well as contribute to future AT refinement that is responsive to community needs and has potential to improve health access for the intended target group, in consideration of the following review criteria:

Significance: Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress in the field of AT development that is responsive to community needs? Is there evidence that the problem is deemed important by the community? If the aims of the project are achieved, how might this work contribute to a subsequent grant application? How will successful completion of the aims change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, and/or preventative interventions that drive this field? Does the proposal directly address unfair/unequal access to health resources? Does the application describe the implications and impact of the project for populations with lack of access to resources?

Innovation: Does the proposed research seek to enhance functioning, health, and/or quality of life for older adults? Does it seek to improve current research, clinical, or community health practice through application of novel technologies as tools for safe and healthy living? Is this a refinement, improvement, or new application of AT concepts, approaches or methodologies proposed? Does the proposed research seek to tailor the developed AT for a group that has had historically low support and research participation?

Rigor: Does the project have potential for producing unbiased, reproducible, robust data? Is the sample size sufficient and well-justified? Are there adequate plans for analysis, interpretation, and reporting of results, including adequate plans to address relevant biological variables (sex, age, etc.) in the design, analysis, and reporting? If the project involves research with human subjects also consider the rigor of the intervention, whether variables are justified, whether the results will be generalizable (or, in the case of a rare disease/special group, relevant to the particular subgroup), whether the sample is appropriate and sufficiently diverse to address the proposed question(s), whether the inclusion plans are appropriate for the scientific goals, whether the plans for protection of human subjects are justified, whether potential problems/alternative strategies/benchmarks for success are clearly presented. Applicants are not expected to identify and present mitigation plans for every potential obstacle but rather identify major risks and compare that with the potential for advancement that the proposed project presents.

Feasibility: Are the overall strategy, study design, methodology, and data analysis plans (qualitative and/or quantitative) well-reasoned, rigorous, and appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project? Is the proposed approach sound and achievable, including plans to address problems or new challenges that emerge in the work? For human subjects, does the project have an adequate and feasible plan to recruit and retain a population of participants that represents a broad range of perspectives? How likely is it that the project can enroll the proposed population? Is there evidence of a clear plan to evaluate that this proposed technology would be feasible and acceptable for the intended users and beneficiaries? Will the strategy establish feasibility for subsequent research?

Investigator(s): Are the PIs, mentors, collaborators, and other researchers well suited to the project? Is the project truly collaborative, do the investigators have complementary and integrated expertise, and are their leadership approach, governance, and organizational structures appropriate for the project? Are investigators or collaborators included to address methods or analysis? Are there any gaps in the expertise of background/training of the research team?

Environment: Will the environment in which the scientific work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional support and resources available to the investigators adequate for the project proposed? Will the project benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, subject populations, and/or collaborative arrangements? Are the community collaborators and recruitment sites/partners appropriate to engage the older adult users?

Community Collaboration: Does the research team meaningfully engage community members who represent the intended users of the technology? Is the engagement plan appropriate to engage with the intended users? Does the collaboration plan articulate meaningful engagement of relevant community organizational partners? Are the roles and areas of responsibility delineated for all organizational collaborators, including channels of communication and decision-making? Is there a plan to ensure the study materials, methods, and developed AT will be appropriate for the intended users? Are the recruitment sites appropriate to engage with the intended audience (or is there a plan to address limitations and potential challenges)? Are community collaborators compensated appropriately (that is, is the compensation of community-based collaborators fair and commensurate with their project contributions)?

An application does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major impact. For example, a project that by its nature is not innovative may be essential to advance a field or of great need.

Community Review

Applications meeting a high threshold of scientific merit are forwarded for review by the External Community Review Committee (ECRC). The ECRC includes representatives from agencies and organizations throughout the state who are committed to improving health, function, and quality of life for Wisconsin’s older adults. The ECRC ensures that a strong community voice is represented in funding decisions and makes final funding recommendations to CAARN leadership.

Proposals are scored using a two-part system:

Part 1: using a 1-9 rating scale, reviewers evaluate the project’s potential to have a positive impact on the intended users of the technology.

Part 2: reviewers evaluate five specific factors related to the likelihood of the project to positively impact intended users. These are:

• Is the research team meaningfully engaging, or does it have robust plans to meaningfully engage community members who represent the intended users of the technology?
• Are the community partners/patients or collaborators actively working on the topic OR is there evidence that the innovation has been identified as a need for the intended users and might be sustainable beyond this grant?
• Are study materials/methods/intervention appropriate for the intended users or are there robust plans to ensure they will be appropriate?
• Is there evidence that the proposed approach would be feasible and acceptable for the intended users, or are there robust plans to ensure that it will be feasible and acceptable?
• Is the engagement plan appropriate to engage with the intended users, or are there robust plans to ensure it will be appropriate to engage with intended users?

All applicants receiving CAARN funding must adhere to the following administrative requirements:

• Pre-award consultation: Awardees meet with CAARN staff to learn about grant requirements and share their experience with the application process.
• Regulatory approvals: Copies of all human subjects approval documents (including updates) must be forwarded to CAARN award administrators.
• Semi-Annual Progress Report: PIs complete a brief report via online survey describing progress to date, what is going well, spending projections, and barriers/obstacles to progress.
• Timely account closure: Within 60 days of the project end date, PI’s submit any final invoices along with a written description of accomplishments, including conference abstracts, publications, grant applications, and plans to further develop the project.
• Online surveys will be requested annually for 5 years beyond the end date of the project. They will address metrics of populations/communities involved in the research, grants and dissemination products, and steps taken with assistive technology development since the project end date.
• Awardees must adhere to the NIH Public Access Policy and obtain PMCID numbers for every publication utilizing pilot data.
• Awardees must acknowledge NIA and CAARN (pilot award funders) in NIH biosketches and all publications, presentations, and dissemination activities and notify CAARN of such publication submissions/acceptances, as well as any grant submissions/awards, that use data generated from the pilot project. Specific instructions will be provided in the Notice of Grant Award Letter.

• To facilitate community-engaged research by supporting academic and community partners as they develop new – or define existing – assistive technologies that decrease negative health outcomes and improve the health, function, and quality of life of older adults.
• To fund activities to refine an assistive technology prototype, ensuring that the proposed technology is acceptable to use across communities and/or clinical settings. This refinement should be accomplished through continuous input from partners with a broad range of lived experience, to determine acceptability and feasibility in meeting the needs and priorities of the populations served.
• To help investigators conduct initial tests of the feasibility and usability of the proposed technology with human users prior to large-scale and clinical testing of usability and health outcomes, and eventual application into practice.
• To support projects that will have a high likelihood of leading to extramural funding.
  • Early career investigators with limited PI experience and/or unfamiliarity with NIH-style proposals are strongly encouraged to submit proposals as the Contact PI, in partnership with senior investigators who have relevant research expertise to serve as Co-Investigators, collaborators, or mentors.
• To support interdisciplinary academic partnerships. All academic teams must include at least one health sciences investigator and one science/engineering investigator.
• We welcome all projects aiming to use AT to improve health/quality of life for older adults. However, this funding cycle we are especially interested in proposals that focus on:
  • Hearing/vision
  • Mobility/physical activity
  • Memory/cognition
  • Self-management

• This funding mechanism excludes clinical trial projects. Per the NIH, a study is a clinical trial if it meets all of the following criteria:
• Involves human participants.
• Human participants are prospectively assigned to receive one or more interventions.
• The study evaluates the effect of an intervention on the participants.
• The effect being evaluated is a health-related biomedical or behavioral outcome.

If you are unsure whether your proposed project is a clinical trial, CAARN can help! Reach out to us at CAARN@nursing.wisc.edu

• This funding opportunity does not support basic scientific or engineering research that aims to improve theory or prove the concept of a new technology. The assistive technology in question must be 1) intended for use by older adults and/or their caregivers and 2) provide direct benefit for older adults, not as a research tool.    

Our Pilot Program defines AT broadly, as fulfilling any of the descriptions in the checklist below:

• Helps individuals maximize their function and health, enabling people to live productive, independent, and dignified lives for as long as possible.
• Any innovations in hardware or software, or integration of both, that help individuals communicate, function mentally, hear, see, move, or care for themselves.
• Enables people to participate in education, work, leisure activities, health self-management, family and community activities, to communicate care preferences, or to live independently.
• Reduces burden of caregiver support.

The Community-Academic Aging Research Network (CAARN) helps build capacity for UW–Madison researchers:

• By offering funding, community engagement opportunities, and pre-proposal consulting resources to develop collaborative partnerships with older adults, caregivers, community organizations, and health care providers to co-design, refine, and test new AT.
• By helping investigators to prepare community engagement budgets.
• By providing support letters for funding applications.

CAARN’s model is rooted in commitment to meaningful community engagement, which should be prioritized before, during, and after funded research activities.

CAARN supports trust-building between UW–Madison investigators and organizations serving individuals with a variety of lived experience in Madison and Milwaukee as well as rural populations across the state. Our      goal is to increase the number and quality of community-academic research partnerships.

• This Pilot Award supports meaningful community-engaged methodologies employing a user-centered design approach of iterative cycles of input and testing, which provides a foundation for successful collaboration. We define meaningful engagement as involvement of patients, caregivers, engineers and computer scientists, health scientists, clinicians, and other healthcare or community care partners throughout the research process.

• Addresses critical and emerging health needs that are important to community partners.

• Advances health for populations of older adults in Wisconsin.
• Leverages a wide range of identified community assets.
• Uses clearly defined, rigorous research methods.
• Creates sustainable collaborations between health systems and/or researchers and/or communities.
• Propels research and education innovations into clinical and community practice.
• Utilizes a sound community and user-engagement methodology, including engaging populations with historically low participation as advisors or partners.
• Clearly describes long-term goals for practical application through subsequent research that builds directly upon the proposed work.
• Pilot Award team is multidisciplinary, including at least one health sciences researcher and at least one researcher from a science or engineering department.

The Contact PI must hold a UW–Madison faculty appointment or scientist title in any track (clinical health sciences, clinician teacher, tenure, research professor, teaching professor or clinical adjunct).

They must have an appointment greater than or equal to 0.5 FTE at UW–Madison.

A Contact PI may not:

• Be the Contact PI or MPI on an active CAARN grant award (serving as Co-I or other Key Personnel is not exclusionary).
• Have been the Contact PI or MPI on another CAARN grant award application submitted during the current calendar year (serving as Co-I or other Key Personnel is not exclusionary).

An LOI must be submitted by email to CAARN@nursing.wisc.edu (see the Key Dates and Info table on page 1). Once the LOI is received, the applicant will receive an email acknowledgment.

LOIs will be reviewed within 5 business days to determine eligibility. If eligible, the Contact PI will be invited via email to submit a full application. A link to the online application submission form will be provided in that confirmation email.

An Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval is a formal clearance that a research project needs before it can involve people as participants. This helps protect the rights, safety, and well-being of human research participants, and ensures that the research is being conducted in an ethical and responsible manner.

Since the goal of this Pilot Award is to fund applications that involve older adults and their care partners in the development/refinement of AT, all funded applications must obtain IRB approval.

The approved IRB protocol must be for this specific Pilot project, using the same project title as listed in the official Notice of Grant Award. Amending an IRB approval from another existing project is NOT sufficient.

IRB approval is not required at the time of application, but the award funds will not be disbursed until a letter of Protocol Development Activities (PDA), Approval, or Exemption is issued from the Health Sciences Institutional Review Board.

If you are new to research with human participants and would like support preparing your protocol for the IRB application, CAARN can provide consulting support for your application.