DOD FY13 Militarily Relevant Peer Reviewed Alzheimers Disease Quality of Life Research Award | Apply Online

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is the name of this funding opportunity?

The opportunity is the DOD FY13 Militarily Relevant Peer Reviewed Alzheimers Disease Quality of Life Research Award.

What is the Funding Opportunity Number (FON)?

The Funding Opportunity Number is W81XWH-13-MRPRA-QUAL.

Which government organization sponsored this award?

This was a Department of the Army opportunity administered through USAMRAA (U.S. Army Medical Research Acquisition Activity).

What is the main purpose of this award?

The award was designed to improve day-to-day care and outcomes for people affected by traumatic brain injury (TBI) and/or Alzheimers disease, with a clear focus on problems seen in military populations. It emphasized practical, care-delivery oriented research that could measurably improve quality of life.

How is this award different from basic discovery research?

Rather than focusing only on basic discovery research, this award emphasized applied research aimed at changing how patients are treated in real clinical settings, including developing and validating best practices that can be integrated into standards of care.

What military-related problem was this opportunity trying to address?

The rationale highlighted that service members with TBI can face elevated long-term risks and complications, including Alzheimers-like dementia, memory loss, depression, aggression, and other neurologic symptoms. The program aimed to address these issues through improvements in care and quality of life.

What types of care settings were targeted (inpatient vs. outpatient)?

The award sought development and validation of best practices for both inpatient and outpatient care.

Were applicants required to collaborate with other organizations?

Yes. Applicants were required to form a multi-institutional team with up to five partnering organizations.

How many partner organizations could be included?

Teams could include up to five partnering organizations.

What types of organizations could serve as partner sites?

Partner sites could come from multiple sectors, including universities, nonprofits, hospitals, for-profit entities, and even different departments within a larger organization.

Why did the program require a multi-institutional team?

The intent was to build a collaborative network reflecting real-world pathways patients and caregivers move through, and to enable comparisons and coordinated improvements across multiple care settings rather than relying on a single clinic or hospital.

What were the required project components?

Applications had to include three main components: (1) assess and map existing standards of care across all partner sites to establish a baseline and identify variation or gaps; (2) develop, implement, and measure best practices aimed at reducing burden on both patients and caregivers; and (3) provide a dissemination plan describing how validated best practices would be shared and adopted across the partner network as elements of an improved standard of care.

What did "assess and map existing standards of care" mean in this context?

Teams were expected to document how TBI and/or Alzheimers-related conditions were being managed across partner sites, creating a clear baseline and identifying where care differed, where gaps existed, and where improvements could be made.

Was caregiver burden part of the evaluation focus?

Yes. A key feature was the explicit emphasis on reducing burden on both the patient and the caregiver, signaling that projects were expected to address functional outcomes and lived experience, not only clinical metrics.

What was meant by "best practices" in this program?

Based on the announcement description, "best practices" referred to practical care-delivery approaches that could be developed, implemented, measured, and validated across multiple sites, and then adopted as part of a new or improved standard of care.

What endpoints or outcomes were expected from funded projects?

The expected endpoints were explicitly tied to changes in standards of care. The program sought projects that could demonstrate actionable improvements that clinics and hospitals could realistically integrate, leading to better quality of life for patients and reduced strain on caregivers.

Did the opportunity focus only on military beneficiaries?

The research impact was framed as primarily benefiting the military community, but it was also intended to serve a broader public purpose, with findings and improved practices relevant to civilian health systems dealing with long-term effects of TBI and dementia care.

What was the funding mechanism?

The award mechanism was either a cooperative agreement or a grant.

What category of funding opportunity was this?

It was described as a discretionary opportunity in the science and technology/research and development category.

How many awards were anticipated?

The opportunity anticipated a single award.

What was the estimated total funding amount?

The estimated total funding level was $1,450,000.

What CFDA number was associated with this opportunity?

The CFDA number listed was 12.420 (Military Medical Research and Development).

Was cost sharing or matching required?

No. The opportunity did not require cost sharing or matching.

Who was eligible to apply?

Eligibility was listed as unrestricted, meaning a wide range of organization types could apply as long as they met any conditions described in the full announcement.

When was the opportunity posted?

The opportunity was posted on August 21, 2013.

What was the application closing date?

The original and final closing date was December 16, 2013.

When was the opportunity archived?

It was archived on January 15, 2014.

Who should applicants contact for access issues related to the full announcement?

For access issues, the listed point of contact was the TATRC Help Desk at programannouncements@tatrc.org.