Effects of Secondhand Smoke on Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Disease Mechanisms (R01) | Apply Online

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is the title and funding opportunity number for this grant?

The opportunity is titled "Effects of Secondhand Smoke on Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Disease Mechanisms (R01)" and the Funding Opportunity Number is PA 11-244.

Which agencies and institutes led this opportunity?

This was a National Institutes of Health (NIH) discretionary research grant led by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) in partnership with the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS).

What was the main purpose of this funding opportunity?

The core purpose was to fund research that clarifies how secondhand smoke (SHS) contributes to cardiovascular and pulmonary disease. The emphasis was on improving scientific understanding of biological mechanisms and strengthening evidence on the dose-response relationship (how changes in SHS exposure levels relate to measurable harm).

What does "mechanisms" mean in the context of this grant?

In this FOA, "mechanisms" refers to the biological pathways and physiological processes that connect SHS exposure to cardiovascular and pulmonary disease outcomes. The intent was to move beyond showing that SHS is harmful and instead explain how and through which steps exposure translates into disease.

What does "dose-response relationship" mean here?

The FOA highlighted the need to strengthen evidence about how much SHS exposure leads to measurable harm. Dose-response work in this context focuses on linking varying exposure levels (dose) to changes in biomarkers, physiological responses, pathological changes, or disease endpoints (response), including under real-world exposure conditions.

What scientific motivation or report helped drive this initiative?

A key driver was the Institute of Medicine report, "Secondhand Smoke Exposure and Cardiovascular Effects: Making Sense of the Evidence." The report underscored the need to better explain why even low levels of SHS exposure can be linked to cardiovascular effects and to clarify mechanistic steps between exposure and disease outcomes.

What disease areas were targeted by this FOA?

The announcement focused on cardiovascular disease mechanisms (heart, blood vessels, thrombosis-related processes, autonomic effects, etc.) and pulmonary disease mechanisms (airway and lung injury processes and related changes) that are plausibly linked to SHS exposure over time.

What kinds of biological or physiological changes did the FOA encourage applicants to study?

The FOA encouraged studies connecting SHS exposure to specific changes such as vascular dysfunction, inflammatory and oxidative stress responses, thrombosis-related mechanisms, autonomic effects, and airway and lung injury processes, along with other biological changes that could translate into clinical disease.

What research designs were supported under this opportunity?

The FOA supported a broad range of study designs, reflecting the complexity of SHS research. It welcomed controlled studies (including animal studies and human laboratory studies) as well as observational epidemiologic approaches (such as cohort studies and case-control studies). It also highlighted natural experiments based on policy or environmental changes that alter SHS exposure.

Were animal studies allowed?

Yes. The opportunity explicitly welcomed animal studies as a way to isolate and evaluate mechanisms under controlled, carefully measured exposure conditions.

Were human laboratory studies allowed?

Yes. The FOA explicitly welcomed human laboratory studies that could isolate mechanisms under carefully measured SHS exposures.

Were population-based epidemiology studies allowed?

Yes. The FOA encouraged observational epidemiologic approaches, including cohort studies and case-control studies, to link SHS exposure measures with disease endpoints in populations.

What are "natural experiments" in the context of this grant?

"Natural experiments" are studies that take advantage of policy or environmental changes that alter SHS exposure levels in real-world settings (for example, communities, workplaces, or homes). Examples mentioned include smoke-free laws, housing policy shifts, and workplace restrictions.

Why did the FOA emphasize natural experiments?

The FOA noted that natural experiments can be powerful because they allow researchers to examine health changes when SHS exposure drops or rises for reasons not tied to individual health behaviors, which can strengthen causal interpretation.

What funding mechanism was used?

This opportunity used the NIH R01 mechanism, which is intended for substantial, hypothesis-driven research projects with defined aims, strong scientific rationale, and a well-developed approach.

Was cost sharing or matching required?

No. There was no cost sharing or matching requirement stated for this FOA, which aligns with typical NIH research project grant expectations.

What were the relevant CFDA numbers and research categories?

The FOA was categorized under environmental health and cardiovascular and lung disease research, with CFDA numbers 93.113, 93.837, and 93.838.

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

The FOA was posted and created on July 7, 2011. The original and final closing date listed was September 7, 2014, and the archive date was October 8, 2014.

Is this funding opportunity still active?

No. Based on the final closing date and archive date provided (September 7, 2014 and October 8, 2014, respectively), it is no longer active. It remains useful as a reference for the types of SHS research questions and approaches that were priorities at that time.

Who was eligible to apply?

Eligibility was broad and included public and private institutions of higher education; nonprofit organizations (both 501(c)(3) and non-501(c)(3)); for-profit organizations (including small businesses); state and local governments; tribal governments and tribal organizations; public housing authorities/Indian housing authorities; independent school districts; and special district governments.

Did the FOA explicitly include specific institution types such as minority-serving institutions?

Yes. The eligibility language explicitly included categories such as Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-serving institutions, Tribal Colleges and Universities, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-serving institutions, and faith-based or community-based organizations.

Were foreign organizations allowed to participate?

Yes. The FOA allowed participation by non-U.S. entities (foreign organizations) and foreign components of U.S. organizations, reflecting NIH willingness to support strong science in relevant exposure settings worldwide.

What types of settings or exposure scenarios were considered relevant?

The FOA recognized that SHS research often involves both controlled exposure studies and real-world scenarios. It referenced community, workplace, and home settings, and emphasized studies that evaluate exposure changes driven by smoke-free policies, housing policy changes, or workplace restrictions.

What was the overall intended impact of the research funded under this FOA?

The opportunity aimed to deepen the scientific basis for understanding how SHS harms the heart, blood vessels, and lungs, and to refine estimates of risk as exposure levels change. The program sought evidence that could inform clinical understanding, risk assessment, and public health decision-making related to smoke-free environments.

Where can applicants find the original NIH listing for this opportunity?

The FOA referenced an NIH page for additional information: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-11-244.html

Where were technical access issues directed?

Technical access issues were directed to the NIH Office of Extramural Research webmaster contact, as noted in the original NIH listing information provided.