Pilot Funding

The Contact PI must hold a UW-Madison faculty appointment or scientist title

• Must have 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)
• Faculty or Scientist with any title, in any track (clinical health sciences, clinician teacher, tenure, research professor, teaching professor or clinical adjunct) are 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 must include at least one UW College of Engineer or Department of Computer Sciences faculty/scientist as part of project leadership (PI or Co-PI).

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).

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

Required Information, in this order:

1. Title of proposed research project
2. Names, titles, and email addresses of the Contact PI and any Co-PIs
3. Names and roles of Co-Investigators and/or other key personnel crucial to the design and conduct of the proposed research
4. A brief summary of the proposal, including specific aims, general research design, and methods
5. A brief description of the knowledge and/or equity gap(s) this proposal intends to address, including specific population-level data of historically underrepresented groups in Wisconsin with whom you seek to partner
6. 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 and plans for identifying and engaging community partners, if they are not already involved.
7. 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 the CAARN program manager (wpalmer3@wisc.edu) for help in identifying a specific resource).
8. Indicate any special population(s) served by this proposal:

• • People in rural communities
  • People from sexual and/or gender minoritized groups
  • People from racial and/or ethnic minoritized groups
  • People experiencing poverty
  • People with disabilities
  • People with low education and/or health literacy
  • People with cognitive impairment

It is strongly recommended that investigators who are interested in submitting a LOI contact the CAARN program manager for an initial (no-cost) consultation at wpalmer3@wisc.edu. The initial consultation will help the investigator identify a specific resource to support community engagement.

An LOI must be submitted via email to caarn@medicine.wisc.edu (see the Key Dates and Info Table on Page 1). Once the LOI is received, the applicant will receive e-mail acknowledgment.

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.

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 by Monday, March 10.

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

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.

Please note the 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. Additional information that must be entered for both PIs includes: ORCID, eRA Commons ID, and institutional mailing address.
• A complete application includes items 1-9 below
• Please insert page numbers on the full application
• Template for the Budget is available here
• 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 equity for the health disparity being addressed
• 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 be a reiteration of 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 that will be informed by this project, will directly help the population involved and advance health equity
• Knowledge gap/Assistive technology gap
  • What gap will the proposed research address?
  • What will the anticipated project results show that is new?
• What does the project propose to do? What steps will be taken to address the research gap?

• What specific resource 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 (6 pages, maximum)

This section should be uploaded as an attachment with the following format: PDF, 1 page maximum, single spaced, 0.75” minimum margins, Arial 11-point font.

Must include all the following sections, 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 equity gap(s) this proposal intends to address, including specific population-level data of historically underrepresented groups in Wisconsin with whom the research team will partner.
  • Describe who the intended users for your developed AT are (e.g. older adults themselves, care partners, and/or health care delivery or service organizations) and the potential benefit to them and other partners in their health.
  • Describe and/or provide evidence showing that the end-user feels the work is important and needed, and that they are willing to be engaged.
  • Include any involvement/engagement that older adults, caregivers, community, clinical providers, and/or other impacted entities had in developing the research question.
  • Describe any feedback to date from community partners and/or the study population (e.g., patient advocacy groups, community clinicians, health care administrators) on the proposed work.
    • If no such feedback has been collected, clearly describe why.
    • Describe the potential long-term impact of this research.
    • How might this project improve function and health and enhance equity for older adults in Wisconsin?
    • 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:
    • New Junior – Senior Investigator collaboration – The project involves a new partnership between an early career investigator, as the Contact PI, and a senior investigator. A new partnership refers to two investigators who have not co-authored a manuscript.
    • Interdisciplinary collaboration – The project involves collaboration among faculty investigators from different UW-Madison schools or colleges or different departments in the same school or college.

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 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 implementation of this research?
    • What are the proposed recruitment sites for participation and how are they appropriate to engage older adults?
  • 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 appropriate for the intended users and older adult beneficiaries of the AT.
  • Describe how this line of research will address inequities in Wisconsin older adults.
    • Are the research plans justified for the (1) protection of human research participants from research-related risks, and (2) inclusion of marginalized populations, 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 partners and impacted entities will be identified, recruited, and engaged, if they have not already been. Give evidence of the feasibility of recruitment and engagement.
    • Describe how partner organizations will contribute to the success of the project and ways in which the project will benefit from the unique features of the community partners’ organizations.
    • Describe how community partners’ preferences will be taken into consideration in planning and conducting research activities. Provide plans for meaningful engagement of community partners during the project, and afterwards if applicable.

 H. Dissemination Plan

• • Describe the audience(s) to which results from this project will be disseminated (e.g. older adults, community partners and/or specific clinical practices, advocacy groups or policy makers, 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. Include a table that shows all project activities and milestones. Example activities include (but are not limited to):

• Submitting the IRB application
• Establishing and nurturing relationships with community partner(s)
• Developing the technology (prototype) and project tools/data collection forms
• Participant recruitment efforts
• Data collection, extraction/abstraction, validation, analysis
• Dissemination activities: presentations of results, manuscript preparation, etc.

 

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 support they are offering the project, their specific, meaningful role(s), and how this project addresses the needs of their clients, constituents, community.

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 the cap listed for this award ($50,000 in direct costs). PI and Co-PI salaries and indirect and/or administrative costs 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, mentors, 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.
  • All research participant incentives must be approved 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).

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

Scientific Review

Each application will be evaluated using the NIH 9-point (1 = exceptional; 9 = poor) scoring system, using the new simplified peer review framework of the five regulatory criteria (Significance, Investigators, Innovation, Approach, Environment).

Each application will receive a score for Overall Impact based on three factors (two 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)

Merit will be determined by averaging the Overall Impact scores from at least three independent 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.

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.

Overall Impact

Reviewers will 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 equity, in consideration of the following five core review criteria. 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.

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 health disparities and/or promote health equity? Are the implications and impact of the project for populations with significant disparities well described?

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 historically underrepresented group?

Investigators

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?

Environment

Will the environment in which the scientific work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Are the institutional supports 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?

Approach

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 there evidence or a clear plan to evaluate, that this proposed technology would be feasible and acceptable for the intended users and beneficiaries? Are potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success clearly presented? Will the strategy establish feasibility for subsequent research? If the project involves research with human subjects, are the plans for the protection of human subjects and mitigation of risks justified in terms of the scientific goals and research strategy proposed?

Does the design adequately plan for the inclusion of populations historically underrepresented in research?  Is there early and meaningful engagement of relevant community representatives and older adult users of the AT in the research? Are individuals, communities or organizations facing significant health and health care inequities involved in the design and/or conduct of this research? Does the collaboration plan articulate meaningful engagement of relevant individuals and organizations (e.g. community members, older adults, caregivers, community organizations, clinicians)? Are the roles and areas of responsibility appropriate for all organizational collaborators, including well-established lines of communication and decision-making? Is there a plan to ensure the study materials, methods, and developed AT are culturally/linguistically appropriate for the intended users? Are community collaborators compensated appropriately?

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 1-9 rating scale, based on two main criteria:

• Addresses a significant problem affecting the health, function, or quality of life of older adults from one or more historically underrepresented communities.
• Meaningful engagement of community partners. As appropriate, criteria may include:

a. Thoughtful selection of the community partners, including rationale for choosing partners based in urban vs. rural settings, or serving specific marginalized populations.

b. Extent to which community members and/or organizations were engaged in development of the proposal.

c. Roles of specific community partners and collaborators in the project.

d. Extent to which community partners’ preferences will be taken into consideration in planning and conducting research activities.

e. How the partners have expressed their commitment and ability to support the research in their Letters of Support.

f. Discussion of how the relationship might extend beyond the one-year lifetime of the Pilot Award (i.e., the non-transactional nature of the relationship; does the research partner intend to continue nurturing the relationship once the project is over? How? What kinds of support might the research team offer beyond the project’s lifetime?).

g. Consideration to “over sampling” a community/patient partner that has historically been asked to collaborate with multiple research projects.

h. Whether the compensation of community and/or older adult partners is commensurate with the support they are providing to the UW-based research team.

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

• Pre-award survey. Awardees must complete a survey that allows CAARN to collect information on awardees’ experiences and perspectives as an investigator, departmental fiscal contacts, and project-specific regulatory considerations.
• Regulatory approvals. Copies of all human subjects approval documents (including updates) must be forwarded to CAARN award administrators.
• Semi-Annual Progress Report. PIs will be expected to complete a brief progress check via online survey, consisting of a few questions on what is going well and barriers/obstacles to progress.
• Timely account closure. Within 60 days of the project end date, submit any final invoices along with a written description of accomplishments, including conference abstracts, publications, grant applications, and plans to further develop the project.
• Surveys will be requested annually for 5 years beyond the end date of the project. These will be collected via online survey, and 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, using data generated from the pilot project. Specific instructions will be provided in the Notice of Grant Award Letter.