Implementing a Maternal health and PRegnancy Outcomes Vision for Everyone (IMPROVE) Maternal Health Centers of Excellence Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Requests for Applications (RFAs)

  • RFA-HD-23-035: Maternal Health Research Centers of Excellence (U54 Clinical Trial Optional)
  • RFA-HD-23-036: Maternal Health Research Centers of Excellence Data Innovation and Coordinating Hub/Resource Center (U24 Clinical Trial Not Allowed)
  • RFA-HD-23-037: Maternal Health Research Centers of Excellence Implementation Science Hub/Resource Center (U24 Clinical Trial Optional)

NICHD sponsored two pre-application webinars for these RFAs, on September 29 and October 4. Links to the webinar recordings are included in this FAQ page.

If you have additional questions that are not addressed on this page, please email IMPROVEinitiative@od.nih.gov.

FAQs

Overarching for All Three RFAs

  • Will the government supply recordings of the pre-application webinars for those who were unable to attend?
     
  • The RFA code "HD" suggests that the funding institute is NICHD, but many participating institutes, centers, and offices (ICOs) are listed in the RFA. What is the role of non-NICHD ICOs in this cooperative agreement?
     
    • NICHD is the administrative lead for the Centers of Excellence (CoEs) and will administer the grants. All ICO partners will provide scientific input, serving as project scientists and experts for programmatic review.
       
  • Can an institution apply to be a Research Center, the Data Innovation and Coordinating Hub, and the Implementation Science Hub? Can an institution submit more than one application?
     
    • An institution may apply to one, two, or all three funding opportunity announcements (FOAs). Institutions may submit more than one application, provided that each application is scientifically distinct; however, we do expect to have geographic diversity among the awarded research centers to meet the needs of diverse populations, including those in maternity care deserts.
       
  • Please clarify the roles of the three components (Research Centers, Data and Innovation Hub, and the Implementation Science Hub).
     
    • The Maternal Health Research CoEs will have a hub-and-spoke structure and will consist of one Data Innovation and Coordinating Hub, one Implementation Science Hub, and up to seven Research Centers. The Research Centers will propose and conduct studies, and the Hubs will provide expertise to help with implementation of research projects, including data collection, data sharing, etc. It is expected that funded investigators will work jointly with NIH scientific staff from partner ICOs to assist, guide, coordinate, or participate in project activities.
       
  • Since our budget will be more than $500,000 each year, do we need to submit a request for approval? Our sponsor program’s office will want documentation/confirmation if it is not required.
     
    • Applicants for all three FOAs do not need to submit a request for approval for a large grant if they are requesting $500,000 or more in direct costs in any one year. This policy (described in NOT-OD-02-004) does not apply to applications submitted in response to RFAs or in response to other announcements that include specific budgetary limits. Contingent upon annual appropriations, NIH intends to commit the following amounts:
      • RFA-HD-23-035 Research Centers: Up to $1.75 million in direct costs per year
      • RFA-HD-23-036 Data Innovation Hub: Up to $2 million in total costs per year
      • RFA-HD-23-037 Implementation Science Hub: Up to $3 million in total costs per year

Research Centers of Excellence (RFA-HD-23-035)

General

  • What are the page limits for the Research Strategy for each of the components? Are the page limits inclusive or exclusive of the Specific Aims page?
     
    • The following page limits do not include the Specific Aims page. The Public Health Service (PHS) 398 Research Plan Form includes fields to upload several attachments, including Specific Aims and Research Strategy. For more information, please refer to the Multi-Project Instructions for NIH and Other PHS Agencies: SF424 (R&R) Application Packages Guide (PDF 6.38 MB) and the Table of Page Limits.
       
    • The maximum number of pages for the Research Strategy for each of the components depends on the number of Research Projects being proposed:
      • If 1 Research Project is proposed, the maximum number of pages for the Research Strategy is 36 pages: 12 Overall + 12 Research Project + 6 Community Partnership + 6 Training = 36 total pages for the Research Strategy
         
      • If 2 Research Projects are proposed, the maximum number of pages for the Research Strategy is 48 pages: 12 Overall + 24 Research Project (12 pages x 2) + 6 Community Partnership + 6 Training = 48 total pages for the Research Strategy
         
      • If 3 Research Projects are proposed, the maximum number of pages for the Research Strategy is 60 pages: 12 Overall + 36 Research Project (12 pages x 3) + 6 Community Partnership + 6 Training = 60 total pages for the Research Strategy
         
  • Would you please confirm that applications to RFA-HD-23-035 should not include an Administrative Core component? If so, for center-wide activities that typically would be covered by an Administrative Core such as strategic planning, center-wide meetings and communication, data and resource sharing, and annual review, should these be distributed across the center components or are we to anticipate that they will be covered by the Coordinating Hub/Resource Center (RFA-HD-23-036)?
     
    • Applications in response to RFA-HD-23-035 should not include an Administrative Core component. It is expected that the Data Innovation Hub (RFA-HD-23-036) will provide a coordination infrastructure to foster communication and collaboration for participating Research Centers and the Implementation Science Hub under the Maternal Health CoE initiative; support data collection, facilitate data curation, and ensure high-quality data are shared with CoE researchers and submitted to public repositories when appropriate; and provide cutting edge biomedical research informatics and data science expertise to maximize data comparability and facilitate data harmonization. Each awardee will be responsible for submitting their own Research Performance Progress Report annually.
       
  • How will geographic diversity be assessed? Will other institutions in our metropolitan area count or not count toward this diversity? Or are you looking for sites completely outside of our region/area?
     
    • Geographic diversity will be assessed across all applications received. It is anticipated that awarded Research Centers will be geographically spread across the United States and have the racial and ethnic diversity necessary to address health equity and targeted high-risk populations.
       
  • Can a for-profit small business apply to be a stand-alone Research Center, or will it require collaboration with entities such as universities in addition to a community health care partner?
     
    • A for-profit business may apply to be a Research Center (view Section III of each RFA for a list of eligible organizations). Research Centers are expected to partner with community collaborators, and at least one must be a community health care partner. A cooperative and equitable partnership between the Research Center and the community partner(s) in each stage of the research process (concept, implementation, evaluation, and dissemination) must be clearly demonstrated.
       
  • Can you clarify the data management and data sharing that is the responsibility of the individual Research Centers (rather than the responsibility of the Data Coordinating Center), and in which component the budget for such activities should be placed, since there is no Administrative Core allowed for the Research Centers?
     
    • Data management and sharing is a shared responsibility and both the Research Center, and the Data Hub should plan for their role in it. For example, the Research Center will be responsible for providing data to the Data Hub, which will facilitate data processing and submission to repositories such as the NICHD Data and Specimen Sharing Hub (DASH). They will also work together to define common data elements (CDEs), which the Research Center will use for collection. The Research Center will also need to ensure that all consent forms clearly state that the data will be shared. If Tribal communities are included, this will need to be discussed and negotiated with them.

Staffing and Budgeting for Personnel

  • Would it be acceptable to have a multiple PI leadership team that includes a co-PI who does not have a doctoral degree?
     
    • We have not placed a requirement for a doctoral degree for applicants. It is important to demonstrate appropriate expertise and experience for the investigators involved.
       
  • Can we propose a multiple PI application? If so, can we propose a different PI for each project component and/or each participating institution?
     
  • Can you please speak more about the range of who is included as an early-stage investigator (ESI)? Does this include undergraduate, master’s degree, doctoral, post-doctoral, and junior faculty? Others? Can ESIs be arranged and come from another institution?
     
  • The RFA budget does not include an Administrative Core/Overall component, yet we would like to allocate PI effort, support staff, strategic planning, communications, data and resource sharing, annual review, and travel costs to annual meetings. Must these costs be placed in another component, or will they be covered by the Data Innovation Hub (RFA-HD-23-036)?
     
    • For the CoE as a whole, the Data Innovation Hub (RFA-HD-23-036) will provide coordination infrastructure to foster communication and collaboration for participating Research Centers and the Implementation Science Hub; support data collection, facilitate data curation, and ensure high-quality data are shared with CoE researchers and submitted to public repositories when appropriate; and provide cutting-edge biomedical research informatics and data science expertise to maximize data comparability and facilitate data harmonization.
       
    • For the Research Center applications, costs that are not specific to a component or research project, such as travel for the annual CoE meeting, will need to be included in the research project(s) budgets. If you include an additional “Administrative” component, you will exceed the page limit.
       
  • Given that there is a Data Hub, should each Research Center plan and budget for a statistician, data managers, etc.? Should the sites plan for their own implementation science team or utilize that of the Implementation Science Hub? Where should we budget for data managers/analysts?
     
    • For the data science expertise, this will depend on your proposed project(s) and whether you choose to utilize the resources of the Data Hub for statistical analysis, modeling, etc., or use your own personnel. The Data Hub will provide the data management system. For the Implementation Science expertise, this may depend on the project(s) being proposed. If a project is specifically about implementation science, then you may want to use local expertise. You may utilize the expertise at the Implementation Science Hub, your institution, or both.
       
    • Please note that each application should have its own data sharing plan.
       
    • These costs should be included in the research project(s) budgets.
       
  • Is the facility and administrative (F&A) rate for the training component similar to the rest of the proposal, or is it limited to 8% only?
     
    • The F&A rate for the training component should be based on your institution’s current negotiated indirect cost rate agreement. Because RFA-HD-23-035 utilizes the U54 mechanism, the F&A rate will not change for the training component.
       
  • How is community health partner defined? Does this partner need to deliver health care (versus being a health/health care focus)? Can we use community health care workers to fulfill the “Community Partnership Component” of this FOA or does this have to be an organization?
     
    • Per the RFA, a “community organization” is a non-federal, non-academic organization that provides goods, services, support, resources, or advocacy to members of a defined community. Governmental organizations at the local, regional, Tribal, or state level fall within this definition.
       
    • From the RFA’s examples, organizations that may be community health partners may include, but are not limited to, public health departments, health care systems, community health centers, and potentially social service agencies involved in providing health care services.
       
  • If our research institute is a research entity within a health care system, can it partner with the broader health care system as a community organization, or does it have to partner with a separate community health care partner?
     
    • If it is still within the same health care system and you have community input and partners, then this could count as a community health care partner.
       
  • Would certain community partnerships be considered more desirable than others? For example, hospital systems versus community-based organizations led by individuals from the most impacted communities.
     
    • Given the CoE’s purpose is “to generate innovative approaches to address preventable maternal mortality, decrease severe maternal morbidity, and promote maternal health equity in partnership with communities that are most affected,” partnerships should be formed with organizations that are in regular contact with and/or led by the communities most impacted. Of the community partners for each Research Center, at least one must be a community health care partner.
       
  • The RFA states, “A strong multi-disciplinary research community is a fundamental requirement for establishing a Research Center.” Is the research community limited to the institution submitting the application, or can it include researchers from other institutions? Can our application incorporate other academic sites/universities or is this a single center application?
     
    • Applicants can include other sites, either via a multi-PI application or as satellite sites/sub-grants/subcontractors under the main institution. Please review the responses to other FAQs about satellite sites for additional details.
       
  • Should any satellite sites we include in the application already have well established community ties, or can they be proposed as part of this application?
     
    • The expectation is that the community partners will be involved from the inception of the projects. A cooperative and equitable partnership between the Research Center and the community partner(s) in each stage of the research process (concept, implementation, evaluation, and dissemination) must be clearly demonstrated. Applications should provide justification for any satellite site(s) proposed and demonstrate how the main institution will effectively manage and oversee its sites. If a satellite site is located near the main center, it is possible that they may work with the same community partner(s) and community health organization(s).
       
  • Can a Project Performance Site from another state be included and justified in this application and evaluated during the award period?
     
    • You can include multiple sites, including those in another state, but should provide justification for these sites, demonstrate their local community partnerships, and clearly detail how they will be managed effectively.
       
  • How does the research community differ from and fit within the Research Center? It looks like Research Center = experts + partnerships with community organizations (the definition states that community organizations cannot be academic), with "experts" matching research project investigators and researchers leading/staffing the components. Can you please clarify if the research community is specific to research projects (project investigators and their community collaborators) or the broader center (all experts and all partnering organizations)?
     
    • For the purposes of this FOA, the research community includes the broader center (all experts and all partnering organizations).
       
  • Does the same community partner need to be included in all three of the projects proposed, or does each project need to have a separate community partner?
     
    • The same community partner can be, but does not have to be, included in every proposed project. However, each project should include community partner(s), at least one of which must be a community healthcare partner. The projects need to address the community needs.

Training

  • Is there a restriction on the level of trainees for the training program (e.g., might high school or college students be considered)?
     
    • This may depend on what training is proposed. The following language from the FOA may be helpful in preparing your application/training program plans:
       
      • A description of any training and/or mentoring opportunities available to encourage participation of students, postdoctoral researchers, and co-investigators from diverse backgrounds is required (included in Attachment 1, Plan for Enhancing Diverse Perspectives).
         
      • Each Research Center must include a research training program that addresses the biological, behavioral, environmental, sociocultural, and/or structural factors that affect pregnancy-related morbidity and mortality. A training program for ESIs is of high interest. Support for visiting scientists, exchange programs between Research Centers for postdoctoral fellows, community health partners, hands-on training sessions, seminars, and research forums are appropriate items for inclusion in an enrichment program.

    •  
  • Can we include travel costs for training of students, junior faculty, and/or community partners? Can we have an annual symposium and budget for travel scholarships?
     
    • Travel support may be requested to allow investigators to travel to present scientific findings, to develop new collaborations, or to engage in scientific information exchanges. This may include visiting scientists, exchange programs between Research Centers/Resource Hubs for postdoctoral fellows, hands-on training sessions, seminars, and research forums, if applicable to the planned outreach/training activities.
       
  • Can we include salaries for post-doctoral, master of public health, and/or medical resident effort? Can we budget for physician time for training?
     
    • The budget should not cover stipends for the research trainees.
       
    • The budget may include the salaries for those personnel developing and conducting the trainings as part of the research project(s).
       
  • We would like to form a panel of consultants that could assist us in impacting maternal health care and insurance coverage. Could we pay these individuals a small stipend?
     
    • This may depend on the nature of the Research Project proposed and staying within the budget constraints.

Research Projects

  • Given that this is a U mechanism and cooperative agreement, what latitude will Research Centers have to carry out the projects they propose? Will the CoEs work as a research network – where all centers are working on the same projects – or will each of the funded centers be working on their own projects as well as joint projects?
     
    • The Research Centers will be expected to implement the project(s) that they propose. We want these to be community-driven projects, focusing on what each community needs to address their particular severe maternal morbidity and maternal mortality (SMM/MM) challenges.
       
    • The Research Centers will not function as a research network. It is anticipated that awarded Research Centers will conduct one to three Research Projects each. While Research Projects may potentially be conducted across multiple Research Centers, we do not expect this to happen often.
       
  • Do the three research projects need to all span the full 7 years, or could one project start in year 1 and another project start in year 3? How many years should each research project be budgeted for?
     
    • Each proposed Research Project must be submitted as part of the initial application. It is up to each Research Center to decide whether they plan to start all projects at the same time and how long a study needs to be conducted to reach the intended sample size, outcomes, etc. within the 7-year maximum project period.
       
  • For research projects, is it permissible to build in time for tailoring the intervention with the community partners? We are aware that projects must have specific plans in advance.
     
    • The project(s) need to be part of the initial application and undergo peer-review but may evolve further over time after award. Any modifications will need to be discussed and approved by NIH staff.
       
  • How big do these projects need to be? We were thinking one R01-level and two R21-level projects, with the R21s observational.
     
    • Research Projects can vary in length and size, dependent on what is being proposed.
       
  • Do all three Research Projects proposed have to come from the same institution? Or can projects come from different institutions as along as at least one comes from the submitting institution, and all three projects have synergy to the overall theme of the Research Center?
     
    • Assuming these are satellite sites as part of the Research Center, all proposed Research Projects do not have to come from the main institution, as long as at least one project is at the submitting institution. All projects should contribute to the overall theme of the Research Center.
       
  • Is a focus on postpartum (delivery and 1-year postpartum) reasonable?
     
    • Yes, the Maternal Health Research CoEs will focus on maternal health in the pre-pregnancy, pregnancy, and/or postpartum period with projects that have the potential to reduce pregnancy-related and pregnancy-associated maternal deaths and severe maternal morbidities.
       
  • What is your vision for including Tribal data?
     
    • We encourage Research Centers to include Native American populations in their studies. If they do, the Research Centers and Data Hub will need to respect Tribal sovereignty. Agreements will need to be established with the appropriate tribal nations and submitted with Institutional Certifications as an integral part of the data submission and sharing process. Applicants should propose an approach that aligns with the NIH activities in this space. NIH policy is available at:
       
  • Given the sample size necessary to investigate SMM as an outcome and specifically the racial disparity, we would need tens of thousands of participants within a prospective intervention study. Can NIH provide insight on expectations regarding SMM as an outcome for prospective interventions?
     
    • You may include risk factors for SMM as an outcome. Any single intervention project is not likely to have large enough numbers of participants to show significant reduction in SMMs or MMs. The purpose of using the CDEs and models is that we can use the data across centers to evaluate these outcomes.
       
  • Will we have the opportunity to switch out a research project?
     
    • No, awardees will be expected to implement the projects they propose and funded.

Attachments and Required Documentation

  • Please clarify the time frame for Attachment 2, Populations Available for Studies, specifically Table 2, Inclusion of Obstetrical, Postpartum, or Lactating Individuals Available.
     
    • This table should include data for calendar year 2021.
       
  • For the Human Subject sections, do we need to include an overall single study record for all involved components when the same study spans multiple components? If study components don’t overlap, is a Human Subject section still required? If study components do overlap, what information do you want in overall component versus the research project(s) as we do not want duplication?
     
    • We recommend that applicants pay particular attention to instructions in the Multi-Project Instructions for NIH and Other PHS Agencies: SF424 (R&R) Application Packages Guide (PDF 6.38 MB), in particular, M.500, PHS Human Subjects and Clinical Trials Information. Page 154 of the SF424 (R&R) Application Guide states:
       
      • “Complete one Study Record for each study if it spans multiple components. This Study Record must include sufficient information for all components that are involved in the particular study.”

Review Criteria

  • Will reviewers read the full grant? For instance, will an application be broken up so one reviewer may only read one project, or assigned certain components of the proposal, or are they assigned to review the entire proposal?
     
    • Reviewers will review the grant in its entirety. Each research project proposed will receive its own score. Funding of all included projects may depend on the scores received and availability of funds.
       
  • For the Community Partnership Research Strategy and the Training Component Research Strategy, are we required to organize under Significance, Innovation, and Approach headings or may we adapt headings to be more responsive to the prompt in the RFA?
     
    • Applications should be organized according to the usual headings (Significance, Innovation, Approach, etc.). Please pay particular attention to the FOA-specific review criteria.

Data Innovation and Coordinating Hub (RFA-HD-23-036)

General

  • What is most important part of the Data Hub’s scope?
     
    • The Data Hub will be responsible for:
      • Providing expertise to support the Research Centers and any potential additional investigators outside of the Research Centers involved with the IMPROVE initiative, including data management systems, a website, and other necessary infrastructure. The Research Centers will be located in different geographic areas with their own research projects.
         
      • Harmonizing data elements across all Research Center projects
         
      • Working with the Research Centers to further develop their research projects
         
      • Managing the CoE projects data sharing plans
         
  • Will the Data Hub be expected to contribute to the Research Centers’ study designs, execution, and publication of the analyses? Is it expected that the Data Hub will lead or collaborate with the Research Centers to finalize study protocols (e.g., sample size calculations) and execute those analyses? If no, which entity (Research Center or Implementation Science Hub) is responsible for executing those analyses? If the Data Hub is not responsible for study design and performing analyses, is the sole purpose of the Data Hub for data curation, data management, and development of online tools (as needed)?
     
    • The research projects are expected to be fairly well designed as part of the application submission. The expectations The following are some of the functions listed in the FOA:
       
      • Provide leadership, overall management, and primary oversight of data coordination/data quality assurance and analytics activities for all Research Centers and the Implementation Science Hub under the Maternal Health Centers of Excellence initiative
         
      • Adapt existing, and if necessary, develop CDEs for maternal health research (e.g., social determinants of health data)
         
      • Facilitate data coordination, data management, and data analytics activities for projects across the Maternal Health Research CoEs
         
      • Utilize existing standards and facilitate in the extraction and transformation of data as collected by the Research Centers and other IMPROVE initiatives as appropriate for use (i.e., enhance the capacity of Research Center institutions and other IMPROVE initiatives to prepare and link data)
         
      • Develop methods to extract real world data from electronic health records (EHR) for prediction and risk assessment
         
      • Develop artificial intelligence/machine learning data science approaches to data analysis, with an emphasis on approaches that balance ethical concerns as there is a potential for these tools to exacerbate existing health disparities
         
      • Provide the expertise and infrastructure needed for data management, including standardized acquisition, harmonization, annotation, quality control, timely dissemination, and public accessibility, and capacity to prepare data for submission to relevant data repositories designated by NIH

Data Systems

  • What level of security do we need for the data access environment?
     
    • The awardee institution's information security officials will make this determination. The Hub is not a data repository and is not a federal information system, and therefore is not subject to Federal Information Security Modernization Act requirements.
       
    • Research Centers will need to have access to their own center’s data and the ability to monitor how many participants have been recruited for each study. This is the dashboard function described in the FOA, which could be done on a platform or via some other means for access.
       
    • The CoE will need a public-facing component/website to showcase the studies.
       
  • Will we provide an analysis expertise or platform for all for the Research Centers, or will the Research Centers do their own analyses? Analysis platforms are very expensive, and work well for dealing with extremely large amounts of data, but the multiple CoE studies will be smaller than this. Is there any flexibility in a centralized architecture?
     
    • We are expecting all the data to come to the Data Hub. Applicants can propose a platform if they want to. The awardee is responsible for: ingesting data; facilitating extractions; managing, curating/quality control, harmonizing, and transforming the data; staging the data for Research Center access and analysis; performing cross-study analysis to “Generate derived variables or new data products to support research priorities”; creating new analysis tools (including artificial intelligence/machine learning); and preparing the data for submission to other repositories.
       
    • The environment should be secure and support these functions, whether a commercial or other platform is used to support these functions is up to the awardee.
       
    • Research Centers may utilize the Data Hub for statistical analyses or use their own local resources for this.
       
  • What types of systems may be needed?
     
    • Applicants must propose an approach for handling different data types (depending on what the Research Centers propose generating). The data management system may, for instance, need the ability to link mother-infant records from their EHR. Additional guidance on this will be published in Spring 2023. The guidance will likely include a Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources model to connect everyone for data collection and data analysis. The system will also need to be able to allow entry of non-EHR data, such as telehealth or mobile health data.
       
    • The awardee should plan for a diversity of user types with a specific emphasis on the populations emphasized in the FOA. The awardee will determine through engagement with Research Centers what types of tools should be provisioned to enable equitable analysis of datasets in the environment.
       
  • Will NICHD be providing cloud infrastructure/environment for the Data Innovation Hub (thus ensuring longevity of the data management platforms) or will the implementation of the infrastructure be left entirely to the applying institution?
     
    • Implementation of the infrastructure be left to the applying institution. The Data Hub will submit data to existing data repositories, such as NICHD's DASH for long-term sharing.

CDEs and Data and Specimen Sharing

  • What is the role of the Data Hub in developing CDEs for the projects? What is the timeline for the Data Hub CDE development, linking mother-infant records, etc.? Do we set aside Year 1 of the 7-year period to do this?
     
    • The Hub will be responsible for ensuring that study data can be appropriately co-analyzed across IMPROVE projects and by other researchers, through the implement of CDE collection instruments and elements and downstream data harmonization. The FOA describes existing standards to review/draw from. The Data Hub will work with the Research Centers to come to agreement on which CDEs to use across all CoE studies. For instance, maternal outcomes such as hypertension, mortality, vital statistics info, etc., would be collected the same way across all projects. Research Centers will have to use the CDEs that are decided upon.
       
    • This will likely be in Year 1 but will depend on the research projects proposed.
       
  • Is the Data Innovation Hub expected to support data management, coordination, or any other activities related to biospecimens? Does the Hub have to store all physical samples (biological, blood, etc.)? Or is that each Research Center?
     
    • We do not expect many (if any) of the projects to collect biospecimens. This could evolve over time. If a Research Center proposes a project to collect biospecimens, that Research Center should budget for the biospecimen storage and processing and shipping and handling to DASH. After analyses, any remaining biospecimens should be shared, per the application’s data and specimen sharing plan. The submission of the biospecimens and related data will be coordinated with the Data Hub who will be responsible for submitting to DASH.

Implementation Science Hub (RFA-HD-23-037)

  • Please clarify the objectives and scope of RFA-HD-23-037. Is this funding opportunity announcement to develop an Implementation Science Hub? Will the Implementation Science Hub PI have to secure other funding to conduct the implementation research?
     
    • The Implementation Science Hub will not conduct its own implementation science research. The Implementation Science Hub will serve as a resource to awarded Research Centers and collaborate with the Data Innovation and Coordinating Hub. Recently published opportunities can be utilized by the Research Centers as well as the Implementation Science Hub investigators (view NOT-HD-22-043).
       
    • Section I of RFA-HD-23-037 seeks applications from investigators with expertise in implementation science research models, including but not limited to implementation science conceptual frameworks, including those emphasizing health equity, and hybrid-effectiveness implementation design; expertise in disseminating information to diverse audiences/ interested parties, integrating implementation-related data elements, including needs assessments, process evaluations, and aiding in the design of implementation-focused sub-studies.
       
    • The Implementation Science Hub will develop and implement a consultation and technical assistance program tailored to the needs of the Maternal Health Research CoEs and facilitate in bridging the evidence-to-practice gap to inform integrated efforts involving policy and practice changes to improve pregnancy, perinatal, and postpartum care and advance maternal health and maternal health equity.
       
    • Expertise in the promotion and equitable dissemination and implementation of evidence-based interventions among underrepresented communities is strongly encouraged.
top of page BACK TO TOP