Register for the meeting now
281867
Analysis of impact scores obtained as a function of review cycles (From June 2010 To June 2012 Review Cycles)
To examine the trend of scientific quality of research grant applications submitted to AHRQ with time, we assessed the overall impact scores provided by each of the 5 standing study sections from June 2010 to June 2012.
Study Design
The Scientific Peer Review Committees at AHRQ use 9 points overall impact score system to evaluate the scientific merit of research grant applications submitted to AHRQ for funding opportunity. The data used in this analysis was from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Query View & Report Database (QVR System). Microsoft Excel and SPSS were used for analysis.
Population Studied
Research grant applications submitted to AHRQ were reviewed by one of the 5 standing study section committees or by the Special Emphasis Panel (SEP). The 5 study section review committees at AHRQ are: Healthcare Systems & Value Research, Healthcare Information Technology Research, Healthcare Effectiveness and Outcomes Research, Healthcare Safety and Quality Improvement Research, Healthcare Research Training. AHRQ also has convened many SEPs to evaluate grant applications responding to the RFAs.
Principal Findings
The means impact scores tend to increase with time. For the HCRT, HQER or HSR study section, the means impact scores decrease to about 31-35 with the exception of February 2011 review cycle meeting. The means of overall impact scores gradually increased to higher values at the subsequent review cycles to about 38-53 for all 5 study sections. The means for the June 2010 cycle ranged from 36.26–40.76 and rose upward for the June 2012 cycle at 38.48-53.46. Although the mean values of impact scores implicated an upward trend, there was no statistical significance among these mean values (P-value > .05).
Conclusions
Our analysis of impact scores indicate that the AHRQ peer review process is consistent in terms of quality of the scientific review among study sections.
Conduct evaluation related to programs, research, and other areas of practice
Public health or related research
Learning Objectives:
Discuss future recommendations in the extramural health services research community regarding the scientific peer process for grant applications submitted to AHRQ for funding opportunity.
Keywords: Public Health Research, Public Health Agency Roles
Qualified on the content I am responsible for because: I am the co-prinicpal investigator with Rebecca Trocki, MSHAI regarding the examination of the trend of scientific quality of research grant applications submitted to AHRQ with time, assessing the overall impact scores provided by each of 5 standing study sections. Our findings provide useful information to AHRQ leadership, as well as the extramural health services research community regarding the scientific peer process for grant applications submitted to AHRQ for funding opportunity.
Any relevant financial relationships? No
I agree to comply with the American Public Health Association Conflict of Interest and Commercial Support Guidelines, and to disclose to the participants any off-label or experimental uses of a commercial product or service discussed in my presentation.