Evaluation of the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Programs Review Process (2016) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
1 Introduction
1 Introduction
Pages 17-30
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 17... ...
This appropriation was in response to a grassroots advocacy effort, coordinated by the National Breast Cancer Coalition, to address the growing need for research on breast cancer that would differ from that currently funded by NIH. In the 1992 Defense Appropriations Act, Congress had already given DoD $25 million for breast cancer research, although this health concern had not previously been considered to be particularly relevant to USAMRDC's mission (IOM, 1993)
|
From page 18... ...
Some of the congressional appropriations for CDMRP have been targeted to medical conditions that predominantly impact the military population, such as the conditions addressed by the Joint Warfighter Medical Research Program, the Gulf War Illness Research Program, the Orthotics and Prosthetics Research Program, and the Military Burn Research Program. Research outcomes from programs that focus on health conditions resulting from military deployment, such as treatment of burns, improved prosthetics, and long-term care for multiple-system trauma, also can have applications to other affected populations, such as first responders and vehicle crash victims.
|
From page 19... ...
PRIOR REPORTS ON CDMRP In response to the 1993 congressional appropriation for breast cancer research, the USAMRDC sought advice from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) on how to best manage a research program aimed at reducing the incidence of breast cancer, increasing survival rates, and improving the quality of life for those diagnosed with the disease.
|
From page 20... ...
The 1997 committee noted that unique aspects of the USAMRMC program included the involvement of consumers at both levels of review -- scientific merit review and programmatic review -- and its ability to quickly change direction and goals on a year-by-year basis. Over the years, BCRP had made changes to the investment strategy and programmatic goals recommended in the 1993 IOM report.
|
From page 21... ...
, of which many, but not all, have been implemented by CDMRP over the years. Some of the early recommendations were directed at CDMRP administrative practices, including those of its support contractors, others focused on the structure and functions of the two review panels, and still others addressed the program's investment strategies themselves.
|
From page 22... ...
• Other recommendations: o Establish measures to ensure the continuation of the current strength of the integration panel; o Spell out in more detail in the broad agency announcements the types of proposals sought, the programmatic evaluation criteria, and exclusion ary parameters; o Lengthen the time between the release of the broad agency announce ment and the deadline for submission of proposals; o ncrease the time between receipt of applications and first-tier peer I review panel meetings; o Communicate detailed information about consumer participation in the Breast Cancer Research Program peer review process to the scientific community; o Move toward establishing standing review panels; o Improve feedback to applicants whose applications were not funded; o Establish a procedure for resubmission of unfunded applications; o Establish a procedure for competitive renewal applications; o Revise the application process to make it less cumbersome; o Reduce the time it takes between the funding recommendation by the integration panel and actual awarding of funds to the investigator's institution; o treamline the annual reporting process and allow awardees more flex S ibility in changing experimental design and methodology; and o llow awardees flexibility in use of funds across spending categories.
|
From page 23... ...
In response to discussions with staff on the Senate Appropriations committee, the National Academies' committee further refined its task to emphasize the evaluation of the review processes for those research programs that receive funding only from the DoD appropriations language. The review process for research programs that are administered by CDMRP on behalf of the DoD joint program committees (JPCs; see Chapter 2 for more information on those programs)
|
From page 24... ...
These latter presentations focused on the interactions between the CDMRP research programs and NIH and VA. During the second open session, the committee arranged for presentations and panels to learn about • liaison activities between CDMRP program managers and CDMRP programmatic panel members from NIH, VA, and advo cacy organizations for the Spinal Cord Injury Research Program and the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Research Program; • CDMRP's approach for holding a stakeholders meeting for a new CDMRP research program, the Tick-Borne Disease Research Program;
|
From page 25... ...
At the request of the DoD contract officer representative, all committee questions were submitted to both the DoD contract officer representative and the director of CDMRP following the committee meetings and written responses were provided by the director of CDMRP or her designate. CDMRP also provided many of the documents requested by the committee that were not publicly available on the CDMRP website such as several vision setting booklets, one landscape document, one programmatic review guideline document, performance work statements for each of its contractors, and internal review process checklists.
|
From page 26... ...
Solicitation of Input The open sessions were very helpful in providing information to the committee on the responsibilities of CDMRP program managers and to a lesser extent, of programmatic panel members. However, the committee lacked an understanding of how both peer and programmatic reviewers saw their experiences with the CDMRP review process.
|
From page 27... ...
4. Please share any other comments or suggestions you have about the CDMRP review process or CDMRP's coordination of research priorities with the National Institutes of Health or the Department of Veterans Affairs (limit 1,000 words)
|
From page 28... ...
and 309 programmatic reviewers from 26 programs (1 program did not list any programmatic reviewers) were identified on the CDMRP website.
|
From page 29... ...
Limitations of the Committee's Information Gathering The committee was constrained in its evaluation of CDMRP by the lack of cooperation on the part of the two CDMRP contractors that provide administrative support for the programmatic panels and peer review panels, respectively. As the contractors are responsible for selecting and obtaining all peer and many programmatic reviewers, for ensuring that the reviewers have no conflicts of interest, and for training and compensating the reviewers, this lack of cooperation made it difficult for the committee to assess some critical aspects of the review process.
|
From page 30... ...
Chapters 4, 5, and 6 then discuss the procedures for and inputs and outputs of the CDMRP review process, beginning with vision setting in Chapter 4, moving to peer review in Chapter 5, and finishing with programmatic review in Chapter 6. In response to its task, in Chapter 7, the committee considers how other organizations, particularly NIH and VA, establish research priorities and how CDMRP might coordinate its funding initiatives and priorities with those and other governmental and nongovernmental medical research organizations.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.