Engagement Award Program: Review Process
Overview
Applying for funding through this PCORI Funding Announcement (PFA) is a two-step process. First you submit a Letter of Intent (LOI). Then you must be invited to submit a full proposal.
LOIs must be submitted by the deadline. LOIs will be screened for responsiveness to the call for applications and fit to program goals based on the LOI review criteria. PCORI will review LOIs within 60 calendar days of the LOI deadline. Only applicants whose LOIs are deemed most responsive to this PFA will be invited to submit a full proposal.
Full proposal submissions are by invitation only, after review and approval of the LOI, and must be submitted by the stated deadline. Full proposals will be reviewed against the full proposal review criteria. PCORI may ask you for more information after it first reviews your full proposal. PCORI will provide a status update on the review of the full proposal within 90 calendar days of the submission deadline. If the full proposal is programmatically approved, a PCORI staff member will contact you about the budget and contract. Contract negotiations are usually completed within eight weeks.
PCORI staff will review all LOIs and full proposals. Conflicts of interest will be assessed and mitigated during the review of the LOI and the full proposal.
Prior acceptance of an LOI or full proposal does not mean future LOIs on the same topic will be accepted. Resubmitted LOIs should include changes related to weaknesses noted in prior review.
See the PCORI Funding Center for open Engagement Award PFAs and the Engagement Award Submission instructions.
Responsiveness Review
PCORI conducts rigorous review of the LOIs and full proposals it receives. PCORI may withdraw LOIs and full proposals from the review process if they:
- Are incomplete, are late or do not meet the criteria in the Engagement Award Submission Instructions, the PCORI templates and PCORI Online.
- Do not follow the requirements in the PFA, include nonresponsive activity or do not meet PCORI’s programmatic criteria.
Categories of Nonresponsiveness
The Engagement Award Program does not fund projects that:
- Do not have a clear focus on patient-centered comparative clinical effectiveness research (CER).
- Include a cost-effectiveness analysis of alternative approaches to providing care.
- Solely intend to increase patient engagement in health care or healthcare systems rather than healthcare research, particularly patient-centered CER.
- Design or test healthcare interventions.
- Involve the use of a drug or medical device.
- Create clinical practice guidelines, care protocols or decision support tools.
- Create coverage, payment or policy recommendations or guidelines.
- Address only quality measures, quality improvement or engagement around quality measures.
- Recruit and enroll patients for clinical trials.
- Involve patients only as subjects.
- Are research studies, such as randomized controlled trials, observational studies, pragmatic clinical studies and systematic reviews.
- Create or maintain a registry or recruit people for a registry.
- Are designed solely to validate tools or instruments not created through a PCORI-funded project.
- Involve writing research proposals, completing grant applications and/or grantmaking.
- Focus solely on social determinants of health, with no focus on patient-centered CER.
- Plan to disseminate research results without including PCORI-funded research or related products.
- Implement PCORI-funded findings in a clinical practice setting. PCORI funds this type of project in a different program.
- Aim to influence, directly or indirectly, any federal, state or local laws, regulations, judicial decisions or the like, including preparation or planning activities, research and other background work related to or in contemplation of lobbying activities.
- Aim to create an independent corporation (nonprofit or for-profit), limited liability company, partnership or other legal entity.
LOI Review Criteria
Letters of Intent (LOI) will be reviewed using the criteria below:
|
Criterion |
Description |
|
Program Fit |
How well does the application demonstrate program fit or how well does the application proffer an innovative idea that supports the organization’s mission? |
|
Proposed Project Plan |
How reasonable is the applicant’s project plan? Are there any concerns that the applicant has not provided a reasonable set of activities to achieve the objectives and outcomes in the project plan? |
|
Project Lead Previous Experience and Organizational Capabilities |
Do the qualifications of the project lead align with the scope of the project? Does the applicant demonstrate sufficient background/organizational capabilities for related projects that are aligned with an emphasis on patient-centered outcomes research/comparative clinical effectiveness research (PCOR/CER)? |
|
Patient and Stakeholder Engagement Plan |
Is there an adequate plan described for engaging patients and other stakeholders in the conduct of the proposed project? Are the proposed collaborators meaningful and appropriate based on aligning the interest, expertise and scope of work of patients and other stakeholders involved in the project? Are there any concerns about the ability of the collaborators to work together? |
|
Budget/Cost Proposal |
How well does the applicant’s budget proposal demonstrate reasonable cost designations? |
Full Proposal Review Criteria
Full proposals will be evaluated using similar criteria and will receive a score based on each criterion to guide reviewer recommendations.
|
Criterion |
Description |
|
Program Fit |
How well does the application demonstrate program fit or how well does the application proffer an innovative idea that supports the organization’s mission? |
|
Project Plan and Timeline |
How reasonable is the application’s project plan and timeline? Are there any concerns that the application has not provided a reasonable amount of time or should consider lessening the amount of time dedicated to some of the activities in the project plan? |
|
Qualifications of the Project Lead, Personnel, and Organizational Capabilities |
Do the qualifications of the project lead align with the scope of the project? Are there adequate and qualified personnel to conduct the project? Is there an adequate amount of human resources involved? Does the applicant demonstrate sufficient organizational capabilities for projects with an emphasis on patient-centered outcomes research/comparative clinical effectiveness research (PCOR/CER)? |
|
Patient and Stakeholder Engagement Plan and Collaborators |
Is there adequate engagement of patients and other stakeholders in the design and conduct of the proposed project? Are collaborations meaningful and appropriate based on aligning the interest, expertise and scope of work of each member of the team and the collaborators involved? Are there any concerns about the collaborators’ ability to work together? |
| Past Performance | Has the application team demonstrated sufficient past performance for related projects? |
|
Budget/Cost Proposal |
How well does the application’s budget/cost proposal demonstrate reasonable cost designations? |
Scoring and Evaluation Scale
LOIs and full proposals are evaluated using the criteria listed above, and each criterion is scored using the four-point scale described below. Reviewers are also asked to provide comments on the proposals’ strengths and weaknesses.
|
Score |
Descriptor |
Characteristics |
|---|---|---|
|
4 |
Outstanding |
The application has demonstrated that there is a high probability of success. |
|
3 |
Good |
The application has demonstrated that there is a good probability of success. |
|
2 |
Fair |
The application has demonstrated that there is a fair probability of success. |
|
1 |
Poor |
The application has demonstrated that there is a poor probability of success. |
Posted: February 2014; Updated: January 2024
