Interventions for SIDS and Other Sleep Related Infant Deaths (R01) | Apply Online

FAQs: Interventions for SIDS and Other Sleep Related Infant Deaths (R01) - PAR-11-242

What is PAR-11-242?

PAR-11-242, titled "Interventions for SIDS and Other Sleep Related Infant Deaths (R01)," was a National Institutes of Health (NIH) discretionary funding opportunity announcement focused on supporting practical, prevention-focused research to reduce Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) and other infant deaths related to unsafe sleep environments.

What was the main goal of this funding opportunity?

The central goal was to fund research that develops, tests, and improves interventions that measurably prevent sleep-related infant deaths. The emphasis was on showing what works in real-world settings by improving intervention effectiveness and strengthening how interventions are implemented, adopted, and sustained.

Was this opportunity focused on identifying risk factors or testing solutions?

It was primarily focused on testing solutions. Rather than only describing risk factors, NIH emphasized building and evaluating interventions that improve how safe-sleep guidance is designed, delivered, adopted, and maintained in real community and healthcare environments.

What types of infant deaths were included under this FOA?

The announcement covered SIDS and unintentional injury infant deaths associated with the sleep environment, including deaths linked to unsafe sleep conditions and practices.

What unsafe sleep hazards and practices were explicitly relevant to the FOA?

The FOA referenced hazards commonly associated with sleep-related infant deaths, including prone or side sleeping, soft bedding, bed-sharing in risky situations, unsafe sleep surfaces, and other conditions that increase risk during infant sleep.

What kind of research approach did NIH want to fund?

NIH sought prevention-oriented research that could demonstrate measurable improvements in outcomes through better intervention design and stronger implementation in real-world settings. The work was expected to directly contribute to reducing mortality by making prevention strategies more impactful, acceptable to families, and consistently applied.

What grant mechanism was used for this opportunity?

This funding opportunity used the NIH R01 mechanism, which is generally used for full-scale, hypothesis-driven research projects with sufficient scope to rigorously develop and evaluate interventions.

What types of study designs were implied as a fit for an R01 under this FOA?

Projects supported under an R01 commonly involve substantial study design elements such as randomized or quasi-experimental trials, implementation research, community-engaged intervention development, and multi-site evaluations, as long as the project directly improves intervention design, implementation quality, and outcomes.

What does "implementation" mean in the context of this FOA?

In this FOA, implementation refers to how safe-sleep interventions and guidance are rolled out and supported in the settings where families receive information and make decisions, including addressing real-world barriers to following safe-sleep recommendations.

Did the FOA focus only on caregiver behavior, or also on broader barriers?

It included both. The FOA supported interventions targeting caregiver behaviors and infant sleep practices, as well as strategies addressing broader, on-the-ground barriers that affect whether safe-sleep recommendations are followed consistently.

What kinds of real-world settings were relevant for proposed interventions?

The FOA pointed to settings where families typically receive guidance and support, such as hospitals, pediatric practices, WIC and home visiting programs, childcare environments, housing contexts, and community-based organizations.

Did this opportunity encourage research aimed at reducing disparities?

While the summary emphasized intervention design and implementation, it also implied interest in work that translates into real improvements for populations experiencing higher risks and persistent disparities, especially when interventions are built to fit caregiver constraints, cultural norms, and system-level limitations.

What was the activity category associated with this opportunity?

The activity category was Health, Income Security, and Social Services.

What CFDA number was associated with this grant opportunity?

This opportunity was tied to CFDA 93.865, identified as Child Health and Human Development Extramural Research.

Was cost sharing or matching required?

No. The FOA did not require cost sharing or matching, allowing applicants to propose budgets without mandatory non-federal financial contributions.

When was the funding opportunity posted?

The announcement was posted on June 22, 2011.

What were the closing dates for applications?

The FOA listed an original closing date and a final closing date of September 13, 2013.

Is this funding opportunity still open?

No. The opportunity is archived and is no longer accepting applications. It was archived on October 14, 2013.

Why does an archived FOA still matter?

Even though it no longer accepts applications, the FOA is useful for understanding NIH priorities and for shaping proposals under newer or related announcements addressing infant safe sleep, injury prevention, maternal-child health, and implementation science.

Who was eligible to apply?

Eligibility was broad and included many public and private entities, such as state, county, city/township, special district, and independent school district governments; federally recognized Native American tribal governments and other tribal organizations; public housing authorities/Indian housing authorities; public and state-controlled institutions of higher education; private institutions of higher education; nonprofit organizations (with or without 501(c)(3) status); small businesses; and for-profit organizations other than small businesses.

Were specific institution types and community organizations included as eligible applicants?

Yes. The FOA listed additional eligible categories including Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions, Hispanic-serving Institutions, Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCUs), faith-based or community-based organizations, regional organizations, and U.S. territories or possessions.

Could foreign organizations apply?

Yes. The announcement allowed non-U.S. entities (foreign organizations) to apply.

Were foreign components of U.S. organizations allowed?

Yes. The FOA permitted foreign components of U.S. organizations as defined by the NIH Grants Policy Statement.

What did allowing foreign applicants and components signal about the FOA?

It signaled NIH interest in a wide range of settings and populations, and it left room for cross-national learning where infant sleep practices and intervention strategies may differ.

What kind of outcomes would a competitive project be expected to demonstrate?

Based on the FOA emphasis, competitive projects would be expected to show measurable improvements in the effectiveness of prevention strategies and the quality of implementation, with a clear connection to improved caregiver behavior and safer sleep environments that can reduce mortality.

How could applicants align projects with the FOA's real-world emphasis?

The FOA suggested aligning evidence-based safe-sleep recommendations with practical realities such as caregiver constraints, cultural norms, communication challenges, and system-level limitations, then testing solutions in ways that produce results others can replicate.

Where could applicants access the full announcement?

The FOA referenced an NIH electronic access point via a grants.nih.gov link for the full announcement.

Who could be contacted for technical issues accessing or linking to the announcement?

For issues accessing or linking to the announcement, the FOA referenced contact support through the NIH Office of Extramural Research (OER) Webmaster.