Pilot Health Services and Economic Research on the Treatment of Drug, Alcohol, and Tobacco Abuse (R34) | Apply Online

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is the purpose of the Pilot Health Services and Economic Research on the Treatment of Drug, Alcohol, and Tobacco Abuse (R34) opportunity?

This NIH discretionary grant opportunity (Funding Opportunity Number PA 12-130) was designed to support early-stage, real-world research focused on improving how substance use treatment services are organized, delivered, and sustained. The emphasis was on practical service delivery and system-level changes that can increase access to care, improve quality, boost utilization, and/or reduce costs for treatment related to drug, alcohol, or tobacco abuse or dependence.

What kind of research did this R34 program prioritize?

The program prioritized pilot and preliminary studies that test feasible, implementation-relevant service delivery approaches in real treatment settings. The intent was to strengthen routine care by improving uptake and consistent delivery of scientifically supported (evidence-based) practices through operational, organizational, and systems-focused strategies.

Was this funding meant to develop brand-new clinical treatments or therapies?

No. This FOA was not intended to fund the development of brand-new preventive interventions or clinical therapies, nor to support controlled efficacy studies aimed at proving new treatments. The focus stayed on service delivery research and system/organizational changes that help evidence-based practices work better in routine care.

What substance areas did the FOA address?

The opportunity targeted treatment services related to drug, alcohol, and tobacco abuse or dependence, with NIH program alignment to alcohol research and drug abuse/addiction research.

What were the three main types of projects the FOA encouraged?

The FOA encouraged: (1) organizational and systems-level interventions that optimize treatment services using evidence-based practices, (2) organizational or systems-specific adaptations to existing evidence-based practices to fit a new delivery context, and (3) pilot testing of novel service delivery models that were promising but not yet ready for large trials.

What is meant by an "organizational and systems-level intervention" in this FOA?

In this context, organizational and systems-level interventions are changes to how clinics, programs, or broader treatment systems function (for example, workflows, staffing approaches, referral structures, financing arrangements, or service coordination) with the goal of improving patient reach, access, and outcomes by making evidence-based practices more effectively delivered in routine care.

What does the FOA mean by "adaptations" to evidence-based practices?

Adaptations referred to adjusting an existing evidence-based practice so it can be implemented successfully in a different service delivery context. Examples of a new context could include a different setting, workflow, staffing model, or funding and referral structure, where the original practice would otherwise be difficult to implement as-is.

Did the FOA support adapting interventions for entirely new client populations?

No. The FOA specifically did not support efficacy studies of adapting existing interventions for entirely new client populations. The emphasis was on service delivery and implementation-relevant changes in organizations or systems.

What does "pilot testing of novel service delivery models" mean here?

It refers to testing new approaches to delivering or organizing services that have enough promise to justify feasibility and preliminary evaluation, but are not yet mature enough for large-scale trials. The expectation was that successful pilots would lead to later, larger effectiveness studies.

What role did economic research play in this opportunity?

The FOA emphasized generating early evidence on economic considerations alongside service delivery research, including approaches aimed at reducing costs and understanding whether models can be sustained within real treatment system constraints such as financing and organizational capacity.

What kinds of questions was the R34 mechanism intended to help applicants answer?

The R34 was positioned as a practical stepping stone to assess whether a service approach is feasible, acceptable, useful, and sustainable in real treatment settings. This includes questions such as whether it can be implemented with available staff and infrastructure, whether providers and clients accept it, whether it improves service processes or outcomes, and whether it can be maintained over time given organizational and financing realities.

How did the FOA define the overall goal of the funded pilots?

The overall goal was to accelerate the uptake of evidence-based clinical practices in routine care by addressing operational barriers that often prevent proven interventions from being delivered consistently and at scale, and to build a foundation for future, larger effectiveness trials.

What types of studies were explicitly not supported by this FOA?

The FOA did not support developmental or efficacy studies for brand-new preventive interventions or clinical therapies. It also did not support efficacy studies focused on adapting existing interventions for entirely new client populations.

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

The award ceiling was $225,000.

Was cost-sharing or matching required?

No. The FOA stated there was no cost-sharing or matching requirement.

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

The opportunity was posted on March 19, 2012. The final closing date was May 7, 2015, after which it was archived on June 7, 2015.

Is this FOA still open for applications?

No. The final closing date was May 7, 2015, and the FOA was archived on June 7, 2015.

Which organizations were eligible to apply?

Eligible applicants included a broad range of entities such as state, county, city or township governments; special district governments; independent school districts; public housing authorities/Indian housing authorities; public and private institutions of higher education; nonprofits (both 501(c)(3) and non-501(c)(3)); small businesses; and other for-profit organizations.

Did the eligibility list include faith-based and community-based organizations?

Yes. The eligibility list explicitly included faith-based and community-based organizations.

Were minority-serving institutions and tribal organizations eligible?

Yes. The FOA explicitly included a range of minority-serving institutions and organizations, including Hispanic-serving institutions, Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities (TCCUs), Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions, and tribal governments (both federally recognized and other than federally recognized).

Could non-U.S. (foreign) entities apply?

Yes. Non-U.S. entities (foreign institutions) were eligible to apply, and foreign components of U.S. organizations were allowed consistent with the NIH Grants Policy Statement.

What NIH program areas or CFDA numbers were associated with this FOA?

The FOA was associated with NIH program areas for alcohol research and drug abuse/addiction research, with CFDA numbers 93.273 and 93.279.

What is the main difference between this FOA and a traditional clinical efficacy trial?

Based on the FOA description, this program emphasized real-world service delivery research and system/organizational strategies to improve implementation and sustainment of evidence-based practices, rather than testing brand-new therapies or running controlled efficacy studies focused on proving clinical effects under ideal conditions.

What did NIH expect after a successful R34 pilot under this FOA?

The FOA indicated an expectation that successful pilot projects, especially novel service delivery models, would lead to larger-scale effectiveness studies later.