Technologies To Assess Sleep Health Status in Populations (R43/R44) | Apply Online

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What is the purpose of the "Technologies To Assess Sleep Health Status in Populations (R43/R44)" funding opportunity?

The purpose was to spur small businesses to create practical, point-of-care technologies that objectively measure sleep health and sleep-related impairment. The focus was on real-world tools that can support quick, reliable decisions based on measurable biological signals, not just self-reported sleepiness or testing limited to specialized sleep labs.

What is the Funding Opportunity Number (FOA) for this program?

The Funding Opportunity Number is RFA-HL-14-013.

Which agency offered this opportunity?

This was offered by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

What type of applicants were eligible to apply?

The eligible applicant pool was limited to small businesses, consistent with NIH Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) rules.

What funding mechanism did this opportunity use?

The opportunity used the SBIR R43/R44 mechanism, corresponding to Phase I (R43) and Phase II (R44) small business research and development funding.

What is the difference between Phase I (R43) and Phase II (R44) under this announcement?

Phase I (R43) was typically intended for feasibility, proof-of-concept, and early validation work. Phase II (R44) supported more advanced development, refinement, and work aimed at moving the technology toward commercialization.

What kinds of technologies or approaches was NIH looking for?

NIH was looking for deployable, point-of-care measurement systems built around biomarker panels that can objectively assess sleep health status and sleep-related impairment in practical settings.

What is meant by "point-of-care" in the context of this opportunity?

"Point-of-care" refers to tools that can be used in real-world environments where decisions need to be made quickly and reliably, rather than requiring specialized sleep laboratories or complex lab-only testing.

What were the main scientific and development goals emphasized in the FOA?

The FOA emphasized identifying, validating, and translating combinations of biomarkers into deployable technologies. The framing also emphasized development-oriented work that could lead to usable products and early commercialization, not discovery alone.

Why did the FOA emphasize biomarker panels instead of a single biomarker?

The FOA highlighted biomarker panels because sleep loss and sleep disorders affect multiple physiological pathways at once, making a combination of biomarkers more realistic for objective assessment than relying on a single marker.

What sleep-related conditions or states were biomarker panels expected to assess?

The FOA described biomarker panels that could assess acute sleep deprivation, chronic sleep deficiency, sleep disorders, and circadian rhythm abnormalities. It also referenced biomarkers that could indicate recent sleep loss, longer-term insufficient sleep, circadian misalignment, and the presence and severity of sleep disorders.

Was the FOA focused on individual assessment, population assessment, or both?

Both. The central goal included assessing a person or a group (population) for sleep deprivation, sleep deficiency, sleep disorders, and circadian rhythm abnormalities.

What are some real-world use cases the FOA pointed to?

The FOA explicitly referenced risk assessment for health or safety, including settings where fatigue-related errors can have serious consequences. Examples mentioned or implied included transportation, shift-based work, military or emergency services, and clinical settings.

Did the FOA allow biomarker tools to be used for treatment monitoring or intervention tracking?

Yes. The FOA allowed biomarker tools to be used as intermediate indicators of how well a sleep disorder intervention is working, supporting treatment monitoring or evaluating biological improvement before long-term outcomes are observed.

Was this opportunity aimed at replacing self-reported sleepiness measures?

The opportunity specifically sought tools that move beyond self-reported sleepiness by providing objective, measurable biological signals suitable for real-world decision-making.

What was the funding instrument type and general activity category?

The funding instrument type was a grant, and it fell under the broader health research activity category.

Was this considered discretionary funding?

Yes. The opportunity was categorized as discretionary funding.

Was cost sharing or matching required?

No. The opportunity carried no cost sharing or matching requirement.

When was the opportunity posted and created?

It was posted on September 13, 2013, and the creation date listed was September 26, 2013.

What was the application closing date?

The original and final application closing date listed was November 13, 2015.

Is this funding opportunity still accepting applications?

No. The opportunity was archived on December 14, 2015, meaning it is no longer active for new submissions under that specific announcement.

What CFDA numbers were associated with this opportunity?

The CFDA numbers listed were 93.213 (Research and Training in Complementary and Integrative Health) and 93.233 (National Center on Sleep Disorders Research).

Where could applicants find the full official announcement?

The full announcement was hosted on the NIH grants site at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-HL-14-013.html.

Who was listed as the contact for access or linking problems with the announcement?

The listed contact was the NIH Office of Extramural Research (OER) Webmaster at FBOWebmaster@OD.NIH.GOV.

What was the practical takeaway for applicants when this FOA was active?

NIH was looking for SBIR proposals that could turn sleep and circadian biology into actionable measurement systems that are scalable, relatively easy to deploy, and useful for screening, operational readiness decisions, clinical triage, or intervention tracking outside specialized sleep laboratories.