ARRAOS Recovery Act Limited Competition Behavioral Economics for Nudging the Implementation of Comparative Effectiveness Research Pilot Research (RC4) | Apply Online

Opportunity Summary:

The grant opportunity titled "ARRAOS Recovery Act Limited Competition Behavioral Economics for Nudging the Implementation of Comparative Effectiveness Research Pilot Research (RC4)" was a National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding announcement supported by American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) funds, with involvement from both NIH and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Its central goal was to fund pilot-scale research testing whether behavioral economics strategies, often described as "nudges," can increase how quickly and consistently health care providers adopt findings from comparative effectiveness research (CER) in real clinical practice. Rather than seeking large definitive clinical trials, the announcement emphasized well-designed preliminary or large pilot studies that could demonstrate feasibility, generate strong early evidence, and set up future, more confirmatory research.

The problem this opportunity was trying to address is that even when CER identifies one treatment, procedure, or approach as superior, real-world clinician and health system behavior does not always change very much. In other words, simply publishing evidence or disseminating guidelines often produces a surprisingly modest shift in practice patterns. This FOA encouraged applicants to tackle that implementation gap by using principles from behavioral economics, an interdisciplinary field that blends economics with insights from psychology, decision science, and related social sciences. Behavioral economics is grounded in the idea that people do not make decisions in purely rational, expected-utility ways; instead, choices are influenced by framing, defaults, mental shortcuts, social norms, present bias, loss aversion, and other predictable patterns documented in classic work such as Prospect Theory. The expectation was that interventions informed by these patterns could be designed to fit the realities of clinical workflow and decision-making, ultimately leading to better uptake of evidence-based care.

Projects under this FOA were expected to examine whether behavioral economics-based approaches could do two related things: first, increase adoption of CER-supported practices by clinicians and provider organizations; and second, help sustain or maintain those improved practices over time within patient populations. The emphasis on maintenance matters because short-lived changes may not translate into meaningful improvements in outcomes or system performance. Another theme built into the announcement was practical value and cost effectiveness. The FOA explicitly noted that some nudges might be far cheaper and more scalable than common alternatives such as pay-for-performance (P4P) programs, while still improving adherence to superior evidence-based options. In that sense, the opportunity positioned behavioral economics as a potentially high-leverage tool for implementation science and health system improvement.

The announcement aligned its definition of comparative effectiveness research with the Federal Coordinating Council for CER, pointing applicants to the federal definition used at the time. That framing underscored that the funded studies were not meant to invent entirely new treatments; instead, they were meant to improve the translation of already-available CER findings into routine care. Applicants would likely have been expected to focus on provider behavior, clinical decision processes, and the health system environments where those decisions are made, rather than only on patient education alone. While the FOA text is broad, the "nudging" language implies interventions such as redesigning choice architecture in clinical settings, adjusting defaults in ordering systems, using peer comparison or social norm feedback, changing how information is framed at the moment of decision, or reducing friction costs that prevent clinicians from acting on the best evidence.

Administratively, this was a discretionary grant opportunity using the NIH RC4 mechanism and categorized under Health, tied to Recovery Act research support. The Funding Opportunity Number was RFA-OD-10-002. It was posted on December 28, 2009, with an application closing date of March 19, 2010, and an archive date of April 19, 2010, reflecting its time-limited ARRA context. The estimated total funding amount was $5,000,000, and the award ceiling was $500,000 per award. There was no cost-sharing or matching requirement, which is typical of many NIH opportunities and lowers barriers for applicants who may not have access to non-federal matching funds.

Eligibility was broad and included many types of organizations across the public, nonprofit, academic, and private sectors. Eligible applicants listed included public and private institutions of higher education; nonprofits with or without 501(c)(3) status (with certain distinctions); for-profit organizations other than small businesses as well as small businesses; state, county, city or township, special district governments; independent school districts; public housing authorities/Indian housing authorities; federally recognized tribal governments and other tribal organizations; and U.S. territories or possessions. Additional categories explicitly mentioned included historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs), Hispanic-serving institutions, tribally controlled colleges and universities (TCCUs), Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-serving institutions, faith-based or community-based organizations, regional organizations, and eligible federal agencies. Overall, the eligibility language signaled a desire to attract a wide range of applicants with access to real clinical environments, data, and implementation settings where provider behavior could be observed and influenced.

In practical terms, the opportunity can be read as a targeted ARRA-era push to improve the return on investment of comparative effectiveness research by ensuring that evidence does not stop at publication, but actually changes care delivery. By funding behavioral economics-informed pilot studies, NIH and AHRQ were effectively encouraging researchers to test scalable, real-world implementation tactics that account for how clinicians actually make decisions under time pressure, uncertainty, and institutional constraints. The intended outcome was a stronger understanding of what drives adoption of CER findings and, ultimately, measurable improvements in the quality of health care in the United States.

Browse more opportunities from the same agency: National Institutes of Health

Browse more opportunities from the same category: Health Recovery Act

Next opportunity: Recovery Act Limited Competition Comparative Effectiveness Research on Upper Endoscopy in Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease, Eradication Methods for Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Dementia Detection and Management Strategies (RC4)

Previous opportunity: ARRAOS Recovery Act Limited Competition Behavioral Economics for Nudging the Implementation of Comparative Effectiveness Research Clinical Trials (RC4)

USGrants.org Applicant Portal:

Are you interested in learning about about how to apply for this government funding opportunity? You can create a free applicant account and receive instant access to our applicant portal that many business owners like you have benefited from.

Apply for RFA OD 10 002

 

[Watch] how do funding administrators access proposals?

Applicants also applied for:

Applicants who have applied for this opportunity (RFA OD 10 002) also looked into and applied for these:

 

Grant application guides and resources

It is always free to apply for government grants. However the process may be very complex depending on the funding opportunity you are applying for. Let us help you!

Apply for Grants

 

 

Premium leads for funding administrators, grant writers, and loan issuers

Thousands of people visit our website for their funding needs every day. When a user creates a grant proposal and files for submission, we pass the information on to funding administrators, grant writers, and government loan issuers.

If you manage government grant programs, provide grant writing services, or issue personal or government loans, we can help you reach your audience.

Subscribe to Leads

 

Request more information:

Would you like to learn more about this funding opportunity, similar opportunities to "RFA OD 10 002", eligibility, application service, and/or application tips? Submit an inquiry below:

Don't forget to subscribe to our grant alerts mailing list to receive weekly alerts on new and updated grant funding opportunities like this one in your email.