Notice to Update Cooperative Research Agreement - National Center for Construction Safety and Health Research and Translation (U60)

Notice Number: NOT-OH-13-014

Key Dates
Release Date: August 1, 2013

Related Announcements
RFA-OH-13-001

Issued by
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)

Purpose

This Notice updates RFA-OH-13-001  to inform applicants who plan to submit FY13 applications for the funding opportunity announcement regarding three items: clarification for the FOA expiration date, clarification for budgeting for the pilot small studies research program, and application Review Criteria, Section V., for the Applied Research Component/Objectives for All Applications and for the Support Service/Unit for Construction Data and Statistics. An applicant is encouraged to review and compare the Review Criteria in this Notice for each applied research project proposal as well as for the construction data and statistics service.

Part 1. Overview Information

FOA Expiration Date is September 2, 2015

Part 2. Full Text of Announcement

Section 1. Pilot/Small Studies Research Program

Clarification for paragraph two, first sentence: The sub program includes up to 6 new studies per year with an annual budget of up to $180,000 in total costs.

Part 2. Full Text of Announcement

Section V. Application Review Information

Clarification for missing review criteria for two sub sections: Review criteria for sub section III. Applied Research Component/ Objectives and for sub section IV. Support Service/Unit for Construction Data and Statistics. These missing criteria immediately precede the section titled ‘Additional Review Criteria - Overall Programs and Projects.’

III. Review Criteria for Applied Research Component/Objectives for All Applications (including applied research projects and translation & research-to-practice projects)
Significance:
Does the proposed research project address some of the most hazardous exposures and risk factors for improving an understanding for construction safety and health?

Do the proposed research projects address the NORA Ready for Impact goals, Exploratory and
Development goals, and/or an identified emerging occupational safety and health issue in construction industry?

Does the proposed research project address worker, employer or owner related factors for improving an understanding for construction safety and health?

Are there clearly described expected intermediate and end outcomes, by occupation, trade, or worker group?

Is there evidence of worker and employer support and involvement for yielding quality results?

Is there evidence of non-union and union worker involvement and recruitment (i.e., parity)?

Will the project facilitate the adoption of or hastening the transfer of research recommendations and outputs?

When applicable, do project goals facilitate the adoption or adaption or transfer of new technology or products to worksites?

Does the project address systems or organizational level considerations, study design or co-factors, as appropriate?

Is the quality of the proposal highly likely to contribute to evidence-based information or scientific knowledge relating to r2p? 

Are any research projects a truly novel or creative solution for a high hazard issue or NORA goal?

Investigators:
Are the qualifications of the research project PI adequate as evidenced by his/her training, publications, and record of accomplishments adequate?

If expertise is to be provided by an external collaborative arrangement, is the level of commitment, execution and coordination, and accountability adequately addressed?

Does the project-specific PI foster multidisciplinary investigators, as appropriate?

Does the project-specific PI have experience with conducting OSH applied research?

Innovation:
Does the project proposal employ novel concepts, attributes, or methods?

Does the project PI engage private and public institutions to foster innovation?

To what degree is state-of-the-art concepts and approaches acknowledged, used or, modified?

Does the research project consider ‘up range’ and ‘down range’ conceptual constructs instead of solely ‘compartmentalized’ research?

Is innovation in research translation demonstrated? Is the likely degree of success for adoption or adaption by owners, employers, manufacturers, unions, and workers described?

Is it clear as to how and why an r2p research proposal makes the critical link between research and workplace impact?

Is the communication/dissemination science for the project’s findings identified? Is there a process for adapting or refining research results (findings, technologies, or information) into informational products for target construction audience(s)?

Approach:
What is the potential of the project to get vital information to workers at worksites?

How will the approach motivate and persuade construction workers, contractors and owners to participate in studies?

Are the conceptual framework, design (including composition of study population), methods, and analyses adequately developed, well-integrated, and appropriate for the aims?

Does the applicant acknowledge potential problem areas and consider alternative approaches (e.g., owner or worker acceptance for use of scientifically-developed interventions)?

Do projects clearly address relevant topics such as certain health outcomes (injury or illness), leading mechanisms and causative factors for traumatic injury, and important influences on construction culture, management, and work organization?

Do research projects for NORA construction goals 8-15 address either organizational factors responsible for safety behaviors, or evaluate employer/management-led programs/initiatives to change and maintain safety behaviors by means of removing safety obstacles, constrains, and uncertainties? (e.g., time pressure, planning/design, lack of adequate tools and PPEs, long work hours).

Do projects identify external professional and scientific partners, both as research collaborators and as users of the research products? (This would be consistent and supportive of the FOA’s ‘Center Plus’ r2p coordination.)

Does the project have an r2p plan component, and is it of sufficient clarity and detail to assess its relevance and potential benefit?

Environment:
Is there evidence of institutional commitment for individual projects demonstrated by faculty or personnel release time, space, computing, travel support, supplies, support personnel, or any in-kind contribution?

Is there an adequate description of the organizational and physical attributes of contracted or collaborating organizations and academia, as appropriate?

Is there institutional commitment for dissemination and promotion of research products beyond that of an individual/co-collaborator only?

Does the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success?

Does the proposed study benefit from unique features of the scientific environment(s), or subject populations, or employ useful collaborative arrangements e.g., in-kind support, access and/or participation agreement with employers or unions, contract or Memorandum of Understanding?

IV. Review Criteria for Support Service/Unit for Construction Data and Statistics
Significance:
Is the emphasis on the tracking of construction industry indicators and characterization?  Is there demonstrated ability to enter into official agreements for data and publication?

Does the applicant acknowledge support for NORA Construction Goal 14 Surveillance Intermediate goals?

Is there clear evidence or discussion of data management ‘lessons learned,’ major success, and access to relevant data sources?

Is there evidence of capability and capacity beyond that of a basic program for scientific and technical outputs and services?

Generally, did the applicant highlight the strengths, limitations and utility of proposed data sets (e.g., narrative, external links, and/or summary matrix)?

Do surveillance and tracking aims have relatedness or integration with the other program areas, as appropriate?

Is there a statement of commitment to provide no-cost consultative assistance to the public?

Does the application show evidence of planning and organization for data analyses planning and data management?

Investigators:
Do professionals have adequate expertise or skills (e.g., epidemiology, biostatistics, social sciences, mathematics, and communication science)?

Does staff have relevant publications indicating appropriate expertise?

Does staff indicate a willingness to collaborate with NIOSH personnel in surveillance and dissemination topics, when appropriate?

Innovation:
Does the project describe whether and how meaningful data and reports will be generated and made available over the five year project period?
Does the applicant describe access or a strategy to obtain new data sources? Have they obtained new data sources?

Approach:
Does the applicant include a clear project plan that describes how they intend to organize the service function/program; the data protections, retrieval and storage aspects; and documentation and reporting of the disposition of service requests?

Does the applicant propose to address NORA Construction Surveillance Intermediate goals (goal 14.0)?

Does the applicant identify governmental and private sources of data? Will statistical reports, papers, and educational materials be generated? Is there a description of online and other services that will be provided?

Does the applicant identify the provision of consulting services? Will materials and data be made available in electronic and/or hard copy formats? Is there disclaimer or disclosure information for external clients?

Does the applicant describe epidemiological and statistical barriers or needs of researchers and how its services will overcome those barriers?

Does the applicant identify the breadth and form of data and databases that would be accessible to external researchers? If data is proprietary in nature, is a clear rationale provided?

Do applicants propose use of new data sources or analyses or a plan for new statistical collaboration?

Does the applicant understand the limitations and caveats for surveillance data sources and/or communication dissemination channels?

Environment:
Is the environment conducive for supporting professional continuing education?

Is there evidence of institutional support in the form of software, official agreements, resourcing for services for public requests, publications, and other targeted materials?

Does the institution provide resources, space, equipment, an adequate number of computers, phones, and data?

All other aspects of the FOA remain unchanged.

Inquiries

Please direct all inquiries to:

Scientific/research inquiries
Steven Inserra
Scientific Program Official, NIOSH
Telephone: 404-498-2552
Email: sinserra@cdc.gov

Peer review inquiries
George Bockosh
Peer Review Official
Telephone: 412-352-5181
Email: GBockosh@cdc.gov

 


Weekly TOC for this Announcement
NIH Funding Opportunities and Notices



NIH Office of Extramural Research Logo
  Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) - Home Page Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS)
  USA.gov - Government Made Easy
NIH... Turning Discovery Into Health®



Note: For help accessing PDF, RTF, MS Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Audio or Video files, see Help Downloading Files.