The annual Funded Research Grant Data (FRGD) report captures research funding from all extramural sources (e.g., NIH and other federal funding agencies, associations, foundations, industry, state agencies) to Principal Investigators (PI, including MPI and Project Leads on NIH grants) or Co-PIs/Co-Investigators (Co-I) who are faculty members, staff, and/or trainees (students, postdoctoral fellows, and residents) at colleges and schools of pharmacy.

Every day, pharmacists help people live their healthiest lives. Whether it’s giving vaccinations, managing a patient’s medications, or consulting with health care professionals, pharmacists are on the front lines of patient health care. 

2024 NIA Application Deadlines

• Letter of Intent Deadline: October 18, 2023 at 11:59 PM EDT
• Full Application Deadline: December 13, 2023 at 11:59 PM EDT

Table of Contents

• Preparing the Letter of Intent
• Preparing the Application Form
  • Biographical Sketch
  • Budget
  • Research Narrative
    • Formatting and required components
    • Resubmissions
  • Supporting Documents
    • Animal Research
    • Human Subject Research
  • Letters of Support
  • Download Signature PDF
  • Upload Signature Document

Guidelines for Preparing the 2024 NIA Letter of Intent

The LOI consists of information about the applicant used to determine eligibility for the NIA and information about the proposed project that will be used to evaluate the LOI by a reviewer drawn from the appropriate AACP Section. Applicants will also be asked to identify their research mentor and research mentor’s institution. In preparing the LOI, applicants are encouraged to view the evaluation criteria that will be used to score LOI. 

The following information must be included in the LOI under Proposed Project:

• Brief description (Max 300 words)
• Keywords (Max of 5)
• Specific Aims (Max 750 words): 
  • A clear statement of the objective(s) of the proposal, which may include testing a central hypothesis, creating a novel design or developing a new technology, solving a specific problem or addressing a critical barrier;
  • The aims in which to attain the objective(s);
  • The expected outcomes for the research field;
  • The expected outcomes for the applicant’s career.

One figure in pdf format can be uploaded as part of the Specific Aims. 

Guidelines and Specifications for Preparing the 2024 NIA Full Proposal Application Form

The NIA Application Form consists of six tasks as shown below, including the Research Narrative and appropriate supporting documents. The application package may be prepared at any time; however, completed applications may not be submitted through the online submission portal until the LOI has been reviewed and the applicant has received an invitation to submit a full application. Application packages with incomplete or missing information will not be reviewed. Specific instructions regarding the preparation of each component of the application package can be found below.

Task 1: Biographical Sketch

The NIA biographical sketch consists of the following sections:

• The applicant's education;
• The applicant's professional and teaching experience;
• The applicant's previous relevant publications; and
• The applicant's additional previous experiences relevant to the application.

Applicants must not include an NIH biosketch as a supporting document.

Task 2: Budget

The NIA is designed to provide start-up money for new investigators to obtain enough data to apply for additional extramural funding from government and non-government sources. A maximum of $11,000 may be requested for the completion of the proposed research. Award money may not be used for indirect or overhead costs that are commonly allowed by government research grants and contracts. Award money may also not be used for the applicant’s, collaborator’s or other professional’s/consultant’s salary, either as salary offset or as a summer salary. Grant money may be used, however, to pay the salary of student or technical trainees, but must be justified in the application. Up to $1,000 of grant money may be budgeted for travel to the AACP Annual Meeting to present the NIA research findings when the NIA project is completed, final project and financial reports are submitted, and a poster abstract is submitted before the deadline.

Task 3: Research Narrative

Preparing the Research Narrative
In preparing the Research Narrative, applicants are encouraged to view the evaluation criteria that will be used to score applications in phase 1 of review.

• The Research Narrative is limited to six (6) pages in length, including legible figures, tables, surveys, and references. The research narrative section must be single-spaced (no more than six lines of text within one vertical inch). Use a font that is no less than 11 point. All margins (top, bottom, left, right) must be one-inch. Headers and footers may be used for titles and page numbers.
• Do not include reprints of any research articles with your application.
• The Research Narrative must contain each of the following sections with appropriate headings:
  •  Nature of Project: A brief description of the purpose and goals of the proposed work, including appropriate background material.
  • Specific Aims: A clear statement of the objective(s) of the proposal, including the central hypothesis, novel design, new technology, specific problem or critical barrier to be addressed in the proposal and the aims in which to attain the objectives.
  • Methods: The methods to be used for the study, including data analysis and interpretation; the indicators that will be used to measure the project’s success and analysis of results; and documentation of the adequacy of the research facilities to complete the proposed study.
  • Timeline for Completion of the Project: A maximum of one year. Proposals that require long-term patient enrollment are discouraged.
  • Contribution to Career: The relationship between the project and the applicant’s career objectives and the role of this project in relation to future funding efforts.
  • Significance of the Project: The ways in which the project will contribute to the advancement of new knowledge, the contribution that the project will make to the applicant’s program and or school, and the applicant’s plan for dissemination or publication of the research results.
  • Budget Justification: Justification for requested budget items, excluding minor supply expenses, should be in sufficient detail to enable reviewers to evaluate how funds will be used to support the proposed research project.
  • Personnel Description: Provide information on all those involved in this research project.
  • References: A list of the most relevant references related to the proposed project. 
• Narratives that exceed the six (6) page limit or are not formatted according to the specifications above will not be reviewed.

Resubmissions

• Resubmissions of unfunded NIA proposals are accepted if the applicant still meets the eligibility criteria listed above. Applicants must indicate in the LOI if the proposal is a resubmission. Resubmissions are allowed an additional one (1) page at the beginning of the Research Narrative labeled:
• Introduction that specifically addresses previous reviewer comments. New applications must not contain an introduction, nor may resubmissions exceed the one (1) page limit for the introduction. Applications that utilize all or part of the introduction page for any purpose other than to address reviewer comments will not be reviewed.

Task 4: Supporting Documents 

This section must not be used to include any Research Narrative materials as a means to off-set the page requirement. Certain supporting documents may be required, depending on the nature of the project and/or PI. Allowed supporting documents include:

• Copies of IRB/IACUC submission cover letters as described in the “Animal Research” and “Human Subject Research” sections above, if applicable (required for all proposals describing animal or human subject research). 

Animal Research

Research involving animals must be subjected to review and written approval by the appropriate Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). The research application must be submitted to the IACUC before the application deadline December 13, 2023. A copy of the IACUC submission cover letter with the request for approval must be included as a supporting document in the NIA application, and the final IACUC approval letter must be sent to AACP immediately after approval is granted but no later than February 2024. Email approval letters to NIA@aacp.org. No animal research application will be funded without prior written IACUC approval. Investigators who plan to use significant numbers of animals or potentially painful procedures are recommended to obtain IACUC approval before submission.

Human Subject Research

Research involving human subjects must receive written approval from the appropriate Institutional Review Board (IRB). The research protocol must be submitted to the IRB before the application deadline December 13, 2023. A copy of the IRB submission cover letter with the request for approval must be included as a supporting document in the NIA application, and the final IRB approval letter must be sent to AACP immediately after approval is granted but no later than February 2024. Email approval letters to NIA@aacp.org. No human subject research application will be funded without written IRB approval. Research involving human subjects must also abide by NIH policy regarding inclusion of women and minority group members in the study populations, unless there is a clear and compelling rationale and justification that their inclusion is inappropriate with respect to the health of the subjects or the research goals. This rationale and justification should be included in the research narrative. All investigators who plan on utilizing human subjects must abide by the NIH Policy and Guidelines on The Inclusion of Women and Minorities as Subjects in Clinical Research – Amended, November, 2017.

Task 5: Letters of Support

This section must not be used to include any Research Narrative materials as a means to off-set the page requirement. The following Letters of support should be included:

• Letters of support from collaborators stating a willingness to assist in the proposed research (required for proposals that use collaborators to assist in any capacity in the proposed research; the applicant should also describe the collaborator’s role in the Research Narrative).
• A letter of support from the proposed research mentor.
• Approval letters from appropriate institutional committees for research projects involving biohazards, such as radioactive materials or infectious organisms, if applicable.
• An official university appointment letter demonstrating how the applicant’s salary is fully supported by the institution (required for all regular full-time clinical- or research-track faculty). 

Applications missing required documentation will be returned without review.

Task 6: Download Signature PDF

Please download and save the Signatures document as LastName_FirstName_NIA Signatures prior to uploading in the next Task. The following information is required to be filled:

• Project Title
• Name of Principal Investigator (PI)
• PI’s Current Position Title
• PI’s Institution
• AACP Academic Section
• Budget Amount Requested

Required Signatures (By signing below, each person indicates that he/she has read and
reviewed this proposal. The applicant additionally certifies that the research proposal in this NIA application has not been submitted to another funding agency unless previously noted in the Letter of Intent. Electronic or scanned original signatures are accepted).

• Principal Investigator’s Name, Sign and Date
• Applicant’s mentor Name, Sign and Date
• Applicant’s CEO Dean Name, Sign and Date 

Task 7: Upload Signature Document

Upload the above PDF document saved as LastName_FirstName_NIA Signatures to this Task. 

Submitting the Application Package

Please be sure to check all completed tasks to ensure it is complete and correct. AACP will not check for the presence, accuracy or compliance of uploaded applications prior to the submission deadline. Applications not in compliance with the above specifications will be returned without review.

Inquiries

Please direct all inquires to NIA@aacp.org.

Thank you for attending “Coincidence Analysis: Case Studies for Practice-based Implementation and Programmatic Assessment Projects,” a virtual training session, on October 12, 2023. Please take a few minutes to fill in this anonymous survey to help us gauge the effectiveness of the session and plan for future events. 

Submission

Letter of Intent

The following criteria (point values in parenthesis) will be used by the disciplinary reviewer in evaluating LOI. Please refer to the criteria and point values below as a guide for the preparation of the NIA LOI. A reviewer may utilize continuous whole numbers when scoring each criterion. Example: If a reviewer determines the Objectives to be between “Excellent” and “Satisfactory,” a score of 4 points may be given.

Criteria 

Each criterion will be rated on a five-point scale, with that rating multiplied as indicated to arrive at the final criterion score.

• Objectives (10 points maximum)
• Aims (15 points maximum)
• Outcomes – Impact on research field (10 points maximum)
• Outcomes - Contribution to career (15 points maximum)

Objectives 

Multiply point rating by two to determine final criterion score.

• Excellent (5 points): Objectives, such as a testable hypothesis, novel design, new technology, specific problem to be solved or critical barrier to be addressed, are well-defined and appropriate.
• Satisfactory (3 points): Objectives are not clearly defined and/or are not clearly appropriate.
• Needs Improvement (1 point): Objectives are minimally defined or are not appropriate.
• Omitted (0 points): Objectives are not defined or not stated.

Aims

Multiply point rating by three to determine final criterion score.

• Excellent (5 points): The aims are clearly linked to and appropriate for the objectives proposed.
• Satisfactory (3 points): The aims are provided but are not clearly linked to the objectives proposed OR are not clearly appropriate for the objectives proposed.
• Needs Improvement (1 point): Aims are provided but are not linked to AND inappropriate for the objectives proposed.
• Omitted (0 points): Aims are not provided.

Outcomes – Impact on research field

Multiply point rating by two to determine final criterion score.

• Excellent (5 points): The research proposed is likely to contribute to the generation of significant future research.
• Satisfactory (3 points): The research proposed has the potential to be used as preliminary data for more substantial research in the same area. 
• Needs Improvement (1 point): The research proposed is unlikely to contribute to the generation of future research. 
• Omitted (0 points): Project outcomes not stated. 

Outcomes – Contribution to career

Multiply point rating by three to determine final criterion score.

• Excellent (5 points): Relevance of the project in relation to past and future scholarship interests of the applicant is clearly stated.
• Satisfactory (3 points): Relevance of the project in relation to past and/or future research interests of the applicant is briefly addressed.
• Needs Improvement (1 point): Relevance of the project in relation to the applicant's past and future research interests is unclear. 
• Omitted (0 points): The relevance to the applicant’s career is not provided.

Selection of LOI for Full Proposal Submission

After evaluation of LOI by disciplinary reviewers, top scoring LOI will be considered by the NIA Review Committee, which will determine the LOI which will be invited to submit full proposals using scores and reviewer comments. Consideration will also be given to the disciplinary mix of invited applications, and preference may be given to LOI concerning research fields not otherwise represented in the application pool. Note: COS Board Members will have final discretion to invite full applications based on recommendations of the full NIA Review Committee.

Full Proposal - Phase 1

The following criteria (point values in parenthesis) will be used by the disciplinary review panels in evaluating applications. Please refer to the criteria and point values below below as a guide for the preparation of NIA application. A reviewer may utilize continuous whole numbers when scoring each criterion. Example: If a reviewer determines the Nature of the Project to be between “Excellent” and “Satisfactory,” a score of 4 points may be given.

Criteria

Each criterion will be rated on a five-point scale, with that rating multiplied as indicated to arrive at the final criterion score.

• Nature of Project (5 points maximum)
• Specific Aims (15 points maximum)
• Significance of the Project (15 points maximum)
• Methods I: Methods to Be Used in the Study (20 points maximum)
• Methods II: Data Analysis and Interpretation (15 points maximum)
• Timeline (5 points maximum)
• Contribution to Career (15 points maximum)
• Budget Justification (10 points maximum)

Nature of Project

• Excellent (5 points): Provides a clear, concise, and thorough background, structure, and scope of the project.
• Satisfactory (3 points): Provides partial background, structure, and scope of the project.
• Needs Improvement (1 point): Provides minimal background, structure, and scope.
• Omitted (0 points): Background, structure, and scope not provided. 

Specific Aims

Multiply point rating by three to determine final criterion score.

• Excellent (5 points): Goals are defined and appropriate. Objectives, such as a testable hypothesis, novel design, new technology, specific problem to be solved or critical barrier to be addressed, are well-defined and appropriate.
• Satisfactory (3 points): A majority of goals are defined, appropriate and testable.
• Needs Improvement (1 point): A minority of goals are defined, appropriate and testable.
• Omitted (0 points): Goals are inappropriate and/or untestable.

Significance of the Project

Multiply point rating by three to determine final criterion score.

• Excellent (5 points): The research proposed is likely to add significantly to the current relevant literature with a stated plan to disseminate the results and contribute to the generation of future research.
• Satisfactory (3 points): The research proposed has the potential to be used as preliminary data for more substantial research in the same area and a stated plan for result dissemination. 
• Needs Improvement (1 point): The research proposed is unlikely to add to the body of evidence that currently exists in the field and is unlikely to be widely disseminated. 
• Omitted (0 points): Project significance not stated and has no plan for dissemination of results. 

Methods I: Methods to Be Used in the Study

Multiply point rating by four to determine final criterion score.

• Excellent (5 points): Provides a clear explanation of appropriate methods and are appropriate for testing the study hypothesis. They are sound and workable within the one-year time frame including sufficient collaborative support when needed. There is adequate recognition and discussion of the limitations.
• Satisfactory (3 points): Provides adequate explanation of methods. There is room for improvement with the proposed research techniques. Limitations have not been properly considered.
• Needs Improvement (1 point): Provides an unorganized explanation of poor methods. It is unlikely the methods will produce the proposed data.
• Omitted (0 points): Methods not provided or inappropriate for goals or objectives.

Methods II: Data Analysis and Interpretation

Multiply point rating by three to determine final criterion score.

• Excellent (5 points): Provides clear evidence the Principal Investigator can efficiently evaluate the data with proper statistical measures.
• Satisfactory (3 points): Provides adequate evidence the Principal Investigator can evaluate the data, statistics are appropriate and limitations of data have been considered.
• Needs Improvement (1 point): Unclear if the Principal Investigator can evaluate the data appropriately.
• Omitted (0 points):  Data analysis methods not provided.

Timeline

• Excellent (5 points): The project is appropriate for a one-year time frame. 
• Satisfactory (3 points): The project is appropriate for a one-year time frame but requires modification to ensure timeline is met.
• Needs Improvement (1 point): Questionable project for completion within one-year time frame, requires significant modification to meet timeline.
• Omitted (0 points): The project is not appropriate for a one-year time frame.

Contribution to Career

Multiply point rating by three to determine final criterion score.

• Excellent (5 points): Purpose of the project is clearly stated in relation to past and future scholarship interests of the applicant and will assist in future grant proposals.
• Satisfactory (3 points): Purpose of the project is vaguely stated in relation to past and/or future research interests of the applicant but will assist in future grant proposals.
• Needs Improvement (1 point): Purpose of the project is unclear in relation to the applicant's past and future research interests. 
• Omitted (0 points): The contribution to the applicant’s career is not provided.

Budget Justification

Multiply point rating by two to determine final criterion score.

• Excellent (5 points): The salary, equipment, and supply items requested in the budget are consistent and justified by the proposed methods.
• Satisfactory (3 points): The salary, equipment, and supply items requested are consistent but not justified by the proposed methods.
• Needs Improvement (1 point): The salary, equipment and supply items requested are not justified by the proposed methods. 
• Omitted (0 points): Justification for budget not stated. 

Full Proposal - Phase 2

After evaluation of proposals by disciplinary review panels, top scoring proposals from each disciplinary section are compared to each other using scores and reviewer comments from Phase 1. The NIA Review Committee will provide an overall impact score based on a modified NIH 9-point scale:

• 1 = Exceptional (Exceptionally strong with essentially no weaknesses)
• 2 = Outstanding (Extremely strong with negligible weaknesses)
• 3 = Excellent (Very strong with only some minor weaknesses)
• 4 = Very Good (Strong but with numerous minor weaknesses)
• 5 = Good (Strong but with at least one moderate weakness)

The NIA scoring system differs from NIH in a few ways:

• Scores ranging from 6-9, representing satisfactory or low impact proposals, are not used. This is because proposals that would score in this range are not brought forward from Phase 1 for further consideration.
• Proposals are scored by members of the NIA Review Committee to one decimal place (e.g. 2.2). Immediately prior to scoring a proposal, the Review Committee agrees to a half-point range (e.g., 1.0-1.5, 1.6-2.0, 2.1-2.5, etc.) from which individual scores are submitted.
• If a disciplinary section puts forward multiple proposals for consideration, no more than two may have the same score range.

Top scoring proposals in this phase will be recommended for funding. Note: COS Administrative Board Members will have final discretion to assign awards based on recommendations of the full NIA Review Committee.

2024 Award Information

The AACP New Investigator Award will not be administered in 2024-2025. In the coming 1-2 years, AACP will evaluate the NIA and other research-related programs through the work of the 2024-2025 Research and Graduate Affairs Committee and in consultation with research leaders in the Academy. Based on the outcome of this evaluation, the NIA funding decision will be revisited in future years.

Meet the 2024 New Investigators!

General Information 

The COD Programming Committee is seeking presenters for networking sessions that are scheduled during the 2024 AACP Annual Meeting:

• Challenging Topics Facing Deans:  examples of topics include navigating challenging budgeting conversations with University leadership, supporting student organizations/engagement with reduced budgets, and navigating conflict of interests with faculty.
• Fostering Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Challenging Political Landscapes: examples of topics include navigating challenging legal issues and recruitment of faculty in challenging political landscapes.
• Innovative Approaches to Advancing the Pharmacists Scope of Practice:  examples of topics include engaging with state or national payors for payment of pharmacist services (e.g. Medicaid, national insurance carriers such as Blue Cross Blue Shield, etc.), developing coalitions with Boards of Pharmacy, schools, and other stakeholders, and advocating/engaging with non-pharmacy organizations (e.g. patient advocacy organizations, physician professional organizations, etc). 

Please submit your information by Monday, April 8, 2024.