Advancing the Science of Geriatric Palliative Care (R03) | Apply Online

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs): Advancing the Science of Geriatric Palliative Care (R03) (PA 13-356)

What is the purpose of the NIH funding opportunity "Advancing the Science of Geriatric Palliative Care (R03)" (PA 13-356)?

This NIH opportunity supported small, short-term research projects intended to strengthen the evidence base for palliative care specifically for older adults. It emphasized focused studies that could be completed relatively quickly and that would help move geriatric palliative care research forward by clarifying what to study, how to study it, and which interventions or approaches might be worth scaling in future, larger grants.

What grant mechanism was used for this announcement?

The announcement used the NIH R03 mechanism, which is typically intended for limited-scope projects such as collecting pilot data, testing feasibility of a research approach, developing or refining methods and measures, or other early-stage work that helps investigators compete for larger awards later.

What types of projects were considered a good fit for this R03 opportunity?

Projects with a limited scope and short duration were a strong fit. Examples included pilot data collection, feasibility testing, methods development or refinement, measure development or refinement, and other early-stage studies that generate actionable preliminary evidence and position a research team for larger future studies.

How did this FOA define the palliative care focus for older adults?

A central theme was studying palliative care for geriatric populations earlier in the course of illness and disability, rather than restricting palliative care research to hospice or end-of-life contexts. The emphasis aligned with palliative care as supportive care that can be integrated alongside disease-directed treatment for older adults with multiple chronic conditions, frailty, or complex care needs.

Were hospice and end-of-life settings included in the scope of this opportunity?

No. The announcement explicitly excluded hospice and end-of-life settings from its scope and noted that those areas were covered by other NIH programs. The focus here was palliative care earlier in illness and functional decline trajectories.

Why did the FOA emphasize palliative care earlier in illness or disability?

The FOA emphasized earlier integration because symptom burden, decision-making needs, and caregiver strain often increase well before a patient is at the end of life. The intent was to support research on palliative approaches during earlier points along disease or functional decline trajectories.

What settings were encouraged for studies involving older adults?

The FOA encouraged research across real-world clinical and community settings where older adults receive care. Examples included ambulatory and outpatient care, hospitals (including specialty wards, intensive care units, and emergency departments), assisted living facilities, and short-term and long-term care facilities.

Did the FOA encourage research in acute care settings like the ICU or emergency department?

Yes. The FOA specifically highlighted hospital settings and specialized locations within hospitals such as intensive care units and emergency departments, reflecting interest in palliative approaches where urgent, high-stakes decisions are often made.

Could studies be conducted in long-term care or assisted living environments?

Yes. Assisted living facilities and both short-term and long-term care facilities were explicitly listed among the example settings encouraged by the FOA.

What study designs were acceptable under this announcement?

NIH signaled flexibility for early-stage work. Acceptable designs included observational studies, quasi-experimental studies, and pilot intervention studies.

Could applicants propose primary data collection?

Yes. The FOA allowed studies based on primary data collection, including examples such as collecting new patient-reported outcomes, caregiver-reported outcomes, clinician assessments, or care process measures.

Were secondary analyses of existing datasets allowed?

Yes. The FOA explicitly allowed secondary analyses, such as analyzing existing datasets, as an appropriate approach for R03-scale projects.

Did NIH encourage leveraging existing infrastructure rather than building new systems?

Yes. The FOA encouraged leveraging existing resources such as ongoing cohorts, existing intervention studies, research networks, data repositories, specimen repositories, and other established infrastructure to efficiently generate preliminary evidence and methodological advances.

What research goals did NIH highlight for these small projects?

The FOA emphasized generating preliminary evidence and/or methodological progress, including work that clarifies what questions to study in geriatric palliative care, how to study them, and which interventions or approaches might be promising for later scaling into larger trials or more definitive research.

What was the maximum award amount (award ceiling) for this opportunity?

The award ceiling listed for this opportunity was $50,000.

Was cost sharing or matching required?

No. The announcement indicated there was no cost sharing or matching requirement, consistent with typical NIH research grant structures described in the provided information.

What CFDA numbers were associated with this funding opportunity?

The opportunity was listed under CFDA 93.393 (Cancer Cause and Prevention Research) and CFDA 93.866 (Aging Research), reflecting palliative care relevance to both oncology-related research and aging research.

What broad subject area did this opportunity fall under?

It was described as a discretionary grant opportunity in the health area, focused on advancing the science of geriatric palliative care.

Who was eligible to apply?

Eligibility was broad and included many types of domestic and non-domestic organizations. Examples included state, county, city/township, and special district governments; public and private institutions of higher education; independent school districts; nonprofits (including 501(c)(3) and certain non-501(c)(3) nonprofits); public housing authorities/Indian housing authorities; for-profit organizations (including small businesses and other for-profits, with distinctions noted); and Native American tribal governments (federally recognized and other tribal organizations).

Were specific institution types such as HBCUs, HSIs, and Tribal Colleges included in eligibility?

Yes. The eligibility list included special categories such as Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Hispanic-serving institutions, Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCUs), Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions, and Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander Serving Institutions (AANAPISIs).

Could foreign organizations apply?

Yes. The FOA allowed foreign organizations and foreign institutions to apply.

Were non-U.S. components of U.S. organizations allowed?

Yes. The FOA permitted non-U.S. components of U.S. organizations and also allowed foreign components as defined in NIH policy.

When was this funding opportunity posted and when did it close?

The opportunity was posted on September 19, 2013. It had an original and final closing date of January 7, 2017. It was archived on February 7, 2017.

What does it mean that the FOA was archived?

Based on the provided dates, the FOA reached its final closing date (January 7, 2017) and was later archived (February 7, 2017), indicating it is no longer an active open opportunity.

What was the creation date listed for this opportunity?

The creation date provided for the opportunity was January 2, 2014.

What was the overall programmatic message of this FOA?

The FOA message was to move geriatric palliative care research upstream from hospice, examine earlier integration across broader delivery contexts, and encourage efficient, infrastructure-aware studies that can lay the groundwork for larger trials and more definitive research later.