Adaptation and Evaluation of a Brief, Nurse-Delivered Sexual Risk Reduction Intervention for HIV-Positive Women in the South; Notice of Availability of Funds-Amendment, 38150-38152 [05-13014]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
38150
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 126 / Friday, July 1, 2005 / Notices
On pages 31476 and 31477, Third and
First columns respectively, V.2. Review
and Selection Process, please delete all
the information in this section and
replace with the following:
‘‘Applications will be reviewed for
completeness by the Procurement and
Grants Office (PGO) staff, and for
responsiveness by NCHSTP. Incomplete
applications and applications that are
non-responsive to the eligibility criteria
will not advance through the review
process. Applicants will be notified that
their application did not meet
submission requirements.’’
On page 31477, Second column, VII.
Agency Contacts, please delete the
following: ‘‘For scientific/research
issues, contact: Amy L. Sandul, Health
Science Administrator, Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention,
National Center for HIV, STD, and TB
Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., MS
E–07, Atlanta, GA 30333, Telephone:
404–639–6485, E-mail:
ASandul@cdc.gov’’; and replace with:
‘‘For scientific/research issues contact:
Marta Ackers, MD, Project Officer, 1600
Clifton Road, Mailstop E–45, Atlanta,
Georgia 30333, Telephone: 404–639–
6117, Fax 404–639–6127, E-mail:
MAckers@cdc.gov.’’
On page 31477, Second column, VIII.
Agency Contacts, please delete the
following: ‘‘For questions about peer
review, contact: Mary Lerchen, DrPH,
Scientific Review Administrator,
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, 1 West Court Square, Suite
7000, Mailstop D–72, Decatur, Georgia
30030, Telephone: 404–371–5277, Fax
404–371–5215, E-mail: mlerchen
@cdc.gov’’; and replace with: ‘‘For
questions about objective review,
contact: Beth Wolfe, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton
Road, Mailstop E–07, Atlanta, GA
30333; Telephone: 404–639–8531, Email: eow1@cdc.gov’’.
Dated: June 27, 2005.
Alan A. Kotch,
Director, Procurement and Grants Office,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 05–13011 Filed 6–30–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163–18–P
VerDate jul<14>2003
18:11 Jun 30, 2005
Jkt 205001
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention
[Request for Application (RFA) PS05–083]
Adaptation and Evaluation of a Brief,
Nurse-Delivered Sexual Risk
Reduction Intervention for HIV-Positive
Women in the South; Notice of
Availability of Funds—Amendment
A notice announcing the availability
of Fiscal year (FY) 2005 funds to award
a Cooperative Agreement for Adaptation
and Evaluation of a Brief, NurseDelivered Sexual Risk Reduction
Intervention for HIV-Positive Women in
the South published in the Federal
Register, on June 3, 2005, Volume 70,
Number 106, pages 32624–32629].
The notice is amended as follows: On
page 32624, Third column, please
change application deadline date to:
July 22, 2005.
On page 32627, First column, Section
IV.2 Content and Form of Application
Submission, please delete the following:
‘‘This announcement uses the modular
budgeting as well as non-modular
budgeting formats. See:
https://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/
modular/modular.htm for additional
guidance on modular budgets.
Specifically, if you are submitting an
application with direct costs in each
year of $250,000 or less, use the
modular budget format. Otherwise,
follow the instructions for non-modular
budget research grant applications’’; and
replace with the following sentence:
‘‘This announcement uses the nonmodular budgeting format.’’
On page 32627, First column, Section
IV.3. Submission Dates and Times,
please change application deadline date
to: July 22, 2005.
On page 32627, Second column,
Section IV.6. Other Submission
Requirements, please delete the
following: ‘‘Submit you LOI by express
mail or delivery service to: Mary
Lerchen, DrPH, Scientific Review
Administrator, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, One West Court
Square, Suite 7000, MS D–72, Decatur,
GA 30030, Telephone: 404–371–5277,
Fax: 404–371–5215, Email:
Mlerchen@cdc.gov’’; and replace with
the following: ‘‘Submit your LOI by
express mail or delivery service to: Kim
Williams PhD, Project Officer, 1600
Clifton Road NE., M.S. E–37, Atlanta,
GA 30333, Telephone: 404–639–6157,
Fax: 404–639–1950, E-mail:
ktw5@cdc.gov.’’
On page 32627, Third column,
Section IV.6. Other Submission
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Requirements, please delete the
following: ‘‘At the time of submission,
four additional copies of the application
and all appendices must be sent to:
Mary Lerchen, DrPH, Scientific Review
Administrator, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, One West Court
Square, Suite 7000, MS DZ–27, Decatur,
GA 30030, Telephone: 404–371–5277,
Fax: 404–371–5215, E-mail:
Mlerchen@cdc.gov.’’
On page 32627, Third column and on
page 32628, First and Second columns,
Section V.1 Criteria, delete the
following: ‘‘The goals of CDC-supported
research are to advance the
understanding of biological systems,
improve the control and prevention of
disease and injury, and enhance health.
In the written comments, reviewers will
be asked to evaluate the application in
order to judge the likelihood that the
proposed research will have a
substantial impact on the pursuit of the
goals appropriate to this announcement.
The scientific review group will
address and consider each of the
following criteria in assigning the
application’s overall score, weighting
them as appropriate for each
application. The application does not
need to be strong in all categories to be
judged likely to have major scientific
impact and thus deserve a high priority
score. For example, an investigator may
propose to carry out important work
that by its nature is not innovative, but
is essential to move a field forward.
The review criteria are as follows:
Significance: Does this study address
an important problem? If the aims of the
application are achieved, how will
scientific knowledge be advanced? What
will be the effect of these studies on the
concepts or methods that drive this
field? Does the applicant demonstrate
an understanding of the need for and
intent of the research? Does the
applicant provide a description of study
activities that are likely to lead to
meeting the objectives of this project?
Are the proposed study activities likely
to have a positive impact on the field of
HIV prevention for HIV positive women
in the southern U.S.?
Approach: Are the conceptual
framework, design, methods, and
analyses adequately developed, wellintegrated, and appropriate to the aims
of the project? Does the applicant
acknowledge potential problem areas
and consider alternative tactics? Does
the applicant address all of the activities
listed on pages four through eight of this
announcement? Will the applicant
establish a community advisory board to
assist on all aspects of conducting the
study? Does the applicant agency
demonstrate adequate knowledge of the
E:\FR\FM\01JYN1.SGM
01JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 126 / Friday, July 1, 2005 / Notices
epidemic in its geographic area and the
target population? Does the applicant
provide a timeframe for the proposed
project? Does the applicant propose an
adequate plan to recruit the required
minimum number of eligible
participants? Does the applicant
propose an adequate plan to retain at
least 85 percent of the study sample
across the follow-up period? Does the
applicant present an adequate plan for
recruitment and organizational support
of nurses to deliver the intervention?
Does the applicant present an adequate
plan for quality assurance of the
delivery of the intervention? Does the
applicant present an adequate plan for
assuring client and data confidentially?
Innovation: Does the project employ
novel concepts, approaches, or
methods? Are the aims original and
innovative? Does the project challenge
existing paradigms or develop new
methodologies or technologies?
Investigator: Is the investigator
appropriately trained and well suited to
carry out this work? Is the work
proposed appropriate to the experience
level of the principal investigator and
other researchers (if any)? Does the
investigator have and demonstrate an
understanding of the issues relating to
the proposed target population and
experience working with this
population? Does the investigator have
experience recruiting the targeted study
population and retaining this group in
a study? Does the investigator have
experience with delivery and evaluation
of behavioral interventions? Does the
investigator have previous experience
conducting a randomized controlled
trial? Does the key staff have sufficient
time devoted to this project to ensure
success? Does the investigator have
experience collaborating with
community advisory boards? Does the
investigator demonstrate a willingness
to collaborate with CDC and, if
applicable, other health departments, to
adapt the intervention and design the
intervention evaluation and qualitative
interviews?
Environment: Does the scientific
environment in which the work will be
done contribute to the probability of
success? Do the proposed experiments
take advantage of unique features of the
scientific environment or employ useful
collaborative arrangements? Is there
evidence of institutional support? Is the
planned location for the study in an area
with access to adequate numbers of the
target population? Does the applicant
include letters of support demonstrating
a strong partnership with health care
facilities and/or the agencies with
which it proposes collaboration,
including proposed locations of
VerDate jul<14>2003
18:11 Jun 30, 2005
Jkt 205001
intervention delivery? Does the
applicant demonstrate how levels of
administrative support, community
involvement, facilities, and other
resources at the research site(s) will
contribute to the probability of success
of the project?’’; and replace with the
following:
Your application will be evaluated
against the following criteria:
Approach (35 points): Are the
conceptual framework, design, methods,
and analyses adequately developed,
well-integrated, and appropriate to the
aims of the project? Does the applicant
acknowledge potential problem areas
and consider alternative tactics? Does
the applicant address all of the activities
listed in this announcement? Will the
applicant establish a community
advisory board to assist on all aspects of
conducting the study? Does the
applicant agency demonstrate adequate
knowledge of the epidemic in its
geographic area and the target
population? Does the applicant provide
a timeframe for the proposed project?
Does the applicant propose an adequate
plan to recruit the required minimum
number of eligible participants? Does
the applicant propose an adequate plan
to retain at least 85 percent of the study
sample across the follow-up period?
Does the applicant present an adequate
plan for recruitment and organizational
support of nurses to deliver the
intervention? Does the applicant present
an adequate plan for quality assurance
of the delivery of the intervention? Does
the applicant present an adequate plan
for assuring client and data
confidentiality?
Investigator (25 points): Is the
investigator appropriately trained and
well suited to carry out this work? Is the
work proposed appropriate to the
experience level of the principal
investigator and other researchers (if
any)? Does the investigator have and
demonstrate an understanding of the
issue relating to the proposed target
population and experience working
with this population? Does the
investigator have experience recruiting
the targeted study population and
retaining this group in a study? Does the
investigator have experience with
delivery and evaluation of behavioral
interventions? Does the key staff have
sufficient time devoted to this project to
ensure success? Does the investigator
have experience collaborating with
community advisory boards? Does the
investigator demonstrate a willingness
to collaborate with CDC and, if
applicable, other health departments, to
adapt the intervention and design the
intervention evaluation and qualitative
interviews?
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
38151
Significance (20 points): Does this
study address an important problem? If
the aims of the application are achieved,
how will scientific knowledge be
advanced? What will be the effect of
these studies on the concepts or
methods that drive this field? Does the
applicant demonstrate an understanding
of the need for and intent of the
research? Does the applicant provide a
description of study activities that are
likely to lead to meeting the objectives
of this project? Are the proposed study
activities likely to have a positive
impact on the field of HIV prevention
for HIV positive women in the southern
U.S.?
Environment (15 points): Does the
scientific environment in which the
work will be done contribute to the
probability of success? Do the proposed
experiments take advantage of unique
features of the scientific environment or
employ useful collaborative
arrangements? Is there evidence of
institutional support? Is the planned
location for the study in an area which
with access to adequate numbers of the
target population? Does the applicant
include letters of support demonstrating
a strong partnership with health care
facilities and/or the agencies with
which it proposes collaboration,
including proposed locations of
intervention delivery? Does the
applicant demonstrate how levels of
administrative support, community
involvement, facilities, and other
resources at the research site(s) will
contribute to the probability of success
of the project?
Innovation (5 points): Does the project
employ novel concepts, approaches or
methods? Are the aims original and
innovative? Does the project challenge
existing paradigms or develop new
methodologies or technologies?’’
On page 32628, Second column,
Section V.1. Criteria, Additional Review
Criteria, Protection of Human Subjects
from Research Risks, please add in
brackets: ‘‘Reviewed but not scored.’’
On page 32628, Second column,
Section V.1. Criteria, Additional Review
Criteria, Inclusion of Women and
Minorities in Research, please add in
brackets: ‘‘Reviewed but not scored.’’
On page 32628, Third column,
Section V.1. Criteria, Additional Review
Criteria, Budget, please add in brackets
‘‘Reviewed but not scored.’’
On page 32628, Third column,
Section V.2 Review and Selection
Process, second paragraph, please delete
the following: ‘‘Applications that are
complete and responsive to the
announcement will be evaluated for
scientific and technical merit by an
appropriate peer review group or charter
E:\FR\FM\01JYN1.SGM
01JYN1
38152
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 126 / Friday, July 1, 2005 / Notices
study section convened by NCHSTP in
accordance with the review criteria
listed above. As part of the initial merit
review, all applications may:
• Undergo a process in which only
those applications deemed to have the
highest scientific merit by the review
group, generally the top half of the
applications under review, will be
discussed and assigned a priority score.
• Receive a written critique.
• Receive a second programmatic
level review by the NCHSTP.
Award Criteria: Criteria that will be
used to make award decisions during
the programmatic review include:
• Scientific merit (as determined by
peer review)
• Availability of funds
• Programmatic priorities.’’
And replace with: ‘‘An objective
review panel will evaluate complete and
responsive applications according to the
criteria listed in Section V.1. Criteria,
above. The objective review will be
performed by CDC employees, at least
three voting panelists, and a nonvoting
chairperson. All panelists will be from
outside of the funding center. Each
objective reviewer will have expertise in
research, disease prevention behavioral
interventions, or disease prevention
programs. Each application will be
worth 100 points and the panel will
assign your application a score using the
scored evaluation criteria as specified in
the ‘‘V.1. Criteria’’ section above. Your
application will be ranked based on this
score. Applications will be considered
for funding in order of score and rank
as determined by the review panel.’’
On page 32629, Second column,
Section VII. Agency Contacts, please
delete the following: ‘‘For questions
about peer review, contact: Mary
Lerchen, DrPH, Scientific Review
Administrator, Office of Public Health
Research, Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road,
Mailstop D72, Atlanta, GA 30333,
Telephone: 404–371–5277, Fax: 404–
371–5215, E-mail: mlerchen@cdc.gov’’;
and replace with: ‘‘For questions about
the objective review, contact: Beth
Wolfe, CDC, NCHSTP, OD, FASO; 1600
Clifton Road NE. M.S. E–07; Atlanta, GA
30333; Telephone: 404–639–8531; Email: eow1@cdc.gov.
On page number 32629, Second
column, Section VII. Agency Contacts,
please delete the following: ‘‘For
scientific/research issues, contact: Amy
L. Sandul, Extramural Program Official,
Office of the Associate Director for
Science, National Center for HIV, STD,
and TB Prevention, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton
Road, NE., MS E07, Atlanta, Georgia
30333, Telephone: 404–639–6485, Fax:
VerDate jul<14>2003
18:11 Jun 30, 2005
Jkt 205001
404–639–8600, E-mail:
ASandul@cdc.gov’’; and replace with:
‘‘For scientific/research issues, contact
Kim Williams, PhD, Project Officer,
CDC, NCHSTP, DHAP, IRS, PRB; 1600
Clifton Road N.E. M.S. E–37; Atlanta,
GA 30333; Telephone: 404–639–6157;
E-mail: ktw5@cdc.gov..’’
Dated: June 27, 2005.
Alan A. Kotch,
Acting Director, Procurement and Grants
Office, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention.
[FR Doc. 05–13014 Filed 6–30–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163–18–M
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention
Surveillance of HIV/AIDS Related
Events Among Persons Not Receiving
Care
Announcement Type: New.
Funding Opportunity Number: PS05–
085.
Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance Number: 93.944.
Key Dates: Application Deadline:
August 1, 2005.
Executive Summary: HIV/AIDS
surveillance data have been used for
describing the epidemic, planning
prevention and treatment activities,
developing treatment guidelines,
advocating for resources, and allocating
and prioritizing available resources
within communities. The Health
Resources Services Administration
(HRSA) uses HIV/AIDS surveillance
data from states to estimate severity of
need to allocate nearly two billion in
funding for HIV-related ambulatory care
and support services available annually
through the Ryan White Comprehensive
AIDS Resources Emergency (CARE) Act.
A committee from the Institute of
Medicine (IOM) recently reviewed, at
the request of Congress, the status of
HIV/AIDS surveillance. In the resulting
report, three populations of interest
were outlined;
• Persons infected with HIV, who do
not have a diagnosis of HIV and are not
receiving care.
• Persons infected with HIV, who
have a diagnosis of HIV but are not
receiving care.
• Persons infected with HIV, who
have a diagnosis of HIV and are
receiving care.
Understanding how many and which
persons in a community have a
diagnosis of HIV but are not receiving
care is critically important for
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
estimating the community’s resource
needs. Of the estimated 850,000–
950,000 HIV-infected persons in the
United States, an estimated 75 percent
know they are infected. Of these, an
estimated 50 percent do not have
evidence of having received any
medical care for their HIV infection.
One of the goals of CDC’s Advancing
HIV Prevention initiative is to provide
HIV testing outside of traditional
medical settings, and to increase linkage
to HIV care for those whose HIV test
results are positive. Because of
treatment advances, more people with
HIV infection are living longer and
healthier lives. Persons who know they
are infected can benefit from
prophylaxis for opportunistic infections,
monitoring of their immune status, and,
when recommended, treatment with
antiretroviral drugs. Additionally, new
HIV therapies may reduce the degree of
infectiousness by lowering viral load
and thereby reducing HIV transmission.
Therefore, to determine the extent of
medical services and resources that will
be needed for persons who are infected
with HIV, but who have not received
medical care, it is critically important to
quantify and describe the number in
this population. In addition,
determining factors related to not
receiving care will be important in
designing effective interventions for
linking persons to care.
A supplemental surveillance system
designed to produce population-based
estimates of persons who have a
diagnosis of HIV and are receiving care
has been developed. Federal awards
were made to 26 health departments to
collect clinical and behavioral data
among persons who have a diagnosis of
HIV and are receiving care.
Supplemental surveillance systems that
collect data about those persons infected
with HIV who are and are not receiving
care will provide critically needed
information on the quality of care and
severity of need for care; barriers to
receiving care; prevention; and support
services at the local level. This
information will assist local planning
groups (i.e., community planning
groups and local planning councils) in
determining local allocation of CDC and
Ryan White CARE Act funds.
Additionally, this type of supplemental
surveillance data will provide a means
of evaluating new prevention initiatives
(e.g., Advancing HIV Prevention) that
focus on the provision of prevention
services and linkage to care for persons
living with HIV (PLWHA) infection.
E:\FR\FM\01JYN1.SGM
01JYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 126 (Friday, July 1, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38150-38152]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-13014]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
[Request for Application (RFA) PS05-083]
Adaptation and Evaluation of a Brief, Nurse-Delivered Sexual Risk
Reduction Intervention for HIV-Positive Women in the South; Notice of
Availability of Funds--Amendment
A notice announcing the availability of Fiscal year (FY) 2005 funds
to award a Cooperative Agreement for Adaptation and Evaluation of a
Brief, Nurse-Delivered Sexual Risk Reduction Intervention for HIV-
Positive Women in the South published in the Federal Register, on June
3, 2005, Volume 70, Number 106, pages 32624-32629].
The notice is amended as follows: On page 32624, Third column,
please change application deadline date to: July 22, 2005.
On page 32627, First column, Section IV.2 Content and Form of
Application Submission, please delete the following: ``This
announcement uses the modular budgeting as well as non-modular
budgeting formats. See: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/modular/
modular.htm for additional guidance on modular budgets. Specifically,
if you are submitting an application with direct costs in each year of
$250,000 or less, use the modular budget format. Otherwise, follow the
instructions for non-modular budget research grant applications''; and
replace with the following sentence: ``This announcement uses the non-
modular budgeting format.''
On page 32627, First column, Section IV.3. Submission Dates and
Times, please change application deadline date to: July 22, 2005.
On page 32627, Second column, Section IV.6. Other Submission
Requirements, please delete the following: ``Submit you LOI by express
mail or delivery service to: Mary Lerchen, DrPH, Scientific Review
Administrator, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, One West
Court Square, Suite 7000, MS D-72, Decatur, GA 30030, Telephone: 404-
371-5277, Fax: 404-371-5215, Email: Mlerchen@cdc.gov''; and replace
with the following: ``Submit your LOI by express mail or delivery
service to: Kim Williams PhD, Project Officer, 1600 Clifton Road NE.,
M.S. E-37, Atlanta, GA 30333, Telephone: 404-639-6157, Fax: 404-639-
1950, E-mail: ktw5@cdc.gov.''
On page 32627, Third column, Section IV.6. Other Submission
Requirements, please delete the following: ``At the time of submission,
four additional copies of the application and all appendices must be
sent to: Mary Lerchen, DrPH, Scientific Review Administrator, Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, One West Court Square, Suite 7000,
MS DZ-27, Decatur, GA 30030, Telephone: 404-371-5277, Fax: 404-371-
5215, E-mail: Mlerchen@cdc.gov.''
On page 32627, Third column and on page 32628, First and Second
columns, Section V.1 Criteria, delete the following: ``The goals of
CDC-supported research are to advance the understanding of biological
systems, improve the control and prevention of disease and injury, and
enhance health. In the written comments, reviewers will be asked to
evaluate the application in order to judge the likelihood that the
proposed research will have a substantial impact on the pursuit of the
goals appropriate to this announcement.
The scientific review group will address and consider each of the
following criteria in assigning the application's overall score,
weighting them as appropriate for each application. The application
does not need to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to
have major scientific impact and thus deserve a high priority score.
For example, an investigator may propose to carry out important work
that by its nature is not innovative, but is essential to move a field
forward.
The review criteria are as follows:
Significance: Does this study address an important problem? If the
aims of the application are achieved, how will scientific knowledge be
advanced? What will be the effect of these studies on the concepts or
methods that drive this field? Does the applicant demonstrate an
understanding of the need for and intent of the research? Does the
applicant provide a description of study activities that are likely to
lead to meeting the objectives of this project? Are the proposed study
activities likely to have a positive impact on the field of HIV
prevention for HIV positive women in the southern U.S.?
Approach: Are the conceptual framework, design, methods, and
analyses adequately developed, well-integrated, and appropriate to the
aims of the project? Does the applicant acknowledge potential problem
areas and consider alternative tactics? Does the applicant address all
of the activities listed on pages four through eight of this
announcement? Will the applicant establish a community advisory board
to assist on all aspects of conducting the study? Does the applicant
agency demonstrate adequate knowledge of the
[[Page 38151]]
epidemic in its geographic area and the target population? Does the
applicant provide a timeframe for the proposed project? Does the
applicant propose an adequate plan to recruit the required minimum
number of eligible participants? Does the applicant propose an adequate
plan to retain at least 85 percent of the study sample across the
follow-up period? Does the applicant present an adequate plan for
recruitment and organizational support of nurses to deliver the
intervention? Does the applicant present an adequate plan for quality
assurance of the delivery of the intervention? Does the applicant
present an adequate plan for assuring client and data confidentially?
Innovation: Does the project employ novel concepts, approaches, or
methods? Are the aims original and innovative? Does the project
challenge existing paradigms or develop new methodologies or
technologies?
Investigator: Is the investigator appropriately trained and well
suited to carry out this work? Is the work proposed appropriate to the
experience level of the principal investigator and other researchers
(if any)? Does the investigator have and demonstrate an understanding
of the issues relating to the proposed target population and experience
working with this population? Does the investigator have experience
recruiting the targeted study population and retaining this group in a
study? Does the investigator have experience with delivery and
evaluation of behavioral interventions? Does the investigator have
previous experience conducting a randomized controlled trial? Does the
key staff have sufficient time devoted to this project to ensure
success? Does the investigator have experience collaborating with
community advisory boards? Does the investigator demonstrate a
willingness to collaborate with CDC and, if applicable, other health
departments, to adapt the intervention and design the intervention
evaluation and qualitative interviews?
Environment: Does the scientific environment in which the work will
be done contribute to the probability of success? Do the proposed
experiments take advantage of unique features of the scientific
environment or employ useful collaborative arrangements? Is there
evidence of institutional support? Is the planned location for the
study in an area with access to adequate numbers of the target
population? Does the applicant include letters of support demonstrating
a strong partnership with health care facilities and/or the agencies
with which it proposes collaboration, including proposed locations of
intervention delivery? Does the applicant demonstrate how levels of
administrative support, community involvement, facilities, and other
resources at the research site(s) will contribute to the probability of
success of the project?''; and replace with the following:
Your application will be evaluated against the following criteria:
Approach (35 points): Are the conceptual framework, design,
methods, and analyses adequately developed, well-integrated, and
appropriate to the aims of the project? Does the applicant acknowledge
potential problem areas and consider alternative tactics? Does the
applicant address all of the activities listed in this announcement?
Will the applicant establish a community advisory board to assist on
all aspects of conducting the study? Does the applicant agency
demonstrate adequate knowledge of the epidemic in its geographic area
and the target population? Does the applicant provide a timeframe for
the proposed project? Does the applicant propose an adequate plan to
recruit the required minimum number of eligible participants? Does the
applicant propose an adequate plan to retain at least 85 percent of the
study sample across the follow-up period? Does the applicant present an
adequate plan for recruitment and organizational support of nurses to
deliver the intervention? Does the applicant present an adequate plan
for quality assurance of the delivery of the intervention? Does the
applicant present an adequate plan for assuring client and data
confidentiality?
Investigator (25 points): Is the investigator appropriately trained
and well suited to carry out this work? Is the work proposed
appropriate to the experience level of the principal investigator and
other researchers (if any)? Does the investigator have and demonstrate
an understanding of the issue relating to the proposed target
population and experience working with this population? Does the
investigator have experience recruiting the targeted study population
and retaining this group in a study? Does the investigator have
experience with delivery and evaluation of behavioral interventions?
Does the key staff have sufficient time devoted to this project to
ensure success? Does the investigator have experience collaborating
with community advisory boards? Does the investigator demonstrate a
willingness to collaborate with CDC and, if applicable, other health
departments, to adapt the intervention and design the intervention
evaluation and qualitative interviews?
Significance (20 points): Does this study address an important
problem? If the aims of the application are achieved, how will
scientific knowledge be advanced? What will be the effect of these
studies on the concepts or methods that drive this field? Does the
applicant demonstrate an understanding of the need for and intent of
the research? Does the applicant provide a description of study
activities that are likely to lead to meeting the objectives of this
project? Are the proposed study activities likely to have a positive
impact on the field of HIV prevention for HIV positive women in the
southern U.S.?
Environment (15 points): Does the scientific environment in which
the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Do the
proposed experiments take advantage of unique features of the
scientific environment or employ useful collaborative arrangements? Is
there evidence of institutional support? Is the planned location for
the study in an area which with access to adequate numbers of the
target population? Does the applicant include letters of support
demonstrating a strong partnership with health care facilities and/or
the agencies with which it proposes collaboration, including proposed
locations of intervention delivery? Does the applicant demonstrate how
levels of administrative support, community involvement, facilities,
and other resources at the research site(s) will contribute to the
probability of success of the project?
Innovation (5 points): Does the project employ novel concepts,
approaches or methods? Are the aims original and innovative? Does the
project challenge existing paradigms or develop new methodologies or
technologies?''
On page 32628, Second column, Section V.1. Criteria, Additional
Review Criteria, Protection of Human Subjects from Research Risks,
please add in brackets: ``Reviewed but not scored.''
On page 32628, Second column, Section V.1. Criteria, Additional
Review Criteria, Inclusion of Women and Minorities in Research, please
add in brackets: ``Reviewed but not scored.''
On page 32628, Third column, Section V.1. Criteria, Additional
Review Criteria, Budget, please add in brackets ``Reviewed but not
scored.''
On page 32628, Third column, Section V.2 Review and Selection
Process, second paragraph, please delete the following: ``Applications
that are complete and responsive to the announcement will be evaluated
for scientific and technical merit by an appropriate peer review group
or charter
[[Page 38152]]
study section convened by NCHSTP in accordance with the review criteria
listed above. As part of the initial merit review, all applications
may:
Undergo a process in which only those applications deemed
to have the highest scientific merit by the review group, generally the
top half of the applications under review, will be discussed and
assigned a priority score.
Receive a written critique.
Receive a second programmatic level review by the NCHSTP.
Award Criteria: Criteria that will be used to make award decisions
during the programmatic review include:
Scientific merit (as determined by peer review)
Availability of funds
Programmatic priorities.''
And replace with: ``An objective review panel will evaluate
complete and responsive applications according to the criteria listed
in Section V.1. Criteria, above. The objective review will be performed
by CDC employees, at least three voting panelists, and a nonvoting
chairperson. All panelists will be from outside of the funding center.
Each objective reviewer will have expertise in research, disease
prevention behavioral interventions, or disease prevention programs.
Each application will be worth 100 points and the panel will assign
your application a score using the scored evaluation criteria as
specified in the ``V.1. Criteria'' section above. Your application will
be ranked based on this score. Applications will be considered for
funding in order of score and rank as determined by the review panel.''
On page 32629, Second column, Section VII. Agency Contacts, please
delete the following: ``For questions about peer review, contact: Mary
Lerchen, DrPH, Scientific Review Administrator, Office of Public Health
Research, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton
Road, Mailstop D72, Atlanta, GA 30333, Telephone: 404-371-5277, Fax:
404-371-5215, E-mail: mlerchen@cdc.gov''; and replace with: ``For
questions about the objective review, contact: Beth Wolfe, CDC, NCHSTP,
OD, FASO; 1600 Clifton Road NE. M.S. E-07; Atlanta, GA 30333;
Telephone: 404-639-8531; E-mail: eow1@cdc.gov.
On page number 32629, Second column, Section VII. Agency Contacts,
please delete the following: ``For scientific/research issues, contact:
Amy L. Sandul, Extramural Program Official, Office of the Associate
Director for Science, National Center for HIV, STD, and TB Prevention,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road, NE., MS
E07, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, Telephone: 404-639-6485, Fax: 404-639-
8600, E-mail: ASandul@cdc.gov''; and replace with: ``For scientific/
research issues, contact Kim Williams, PhD, Project Officer, CDC,
NCHSTP, DHAP, IRS, PRB; 1600 Clifton Road N.E. M.S. E-37; Atlanta, GA
30333; Telephone: 404-639-6157; E-mail: ktw5@cdc.gov..''
Dated: June 27, 2005.
Alan A. Kotch,
Acting Director, Procurement and Grants Office, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention.
[FR Doc. 05-13014 Filed 6-30-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4163-18-M
