TABLE 2.
Challenges | Strategies for Addressing Challenges | Lessons Learned |
---|---|---|
Notice of award received 3 months into Year 1 | Developed a mini-pilot research project option for Y1 Released Y1 pilot and Y2 pilot RFPs concurrently |
Anticipate a shortened Y1 and recognize the need to be flexible and creative |
Extended NIH review time | Spoke with the NIH project officer about optimal times for reviewing projects Identified options for no cost extensions Started the proposal process as early as possible |
Reach out to project officers early and often and meet in person when possible Advocate on behalf of pilot project awardees |
Lack of qualified applications | Conducted active recruitment Challenged TREE Center leadership to identify, encourage, and cultivate applicants Maintained contact with unsuccessful applicants and encouraged them to reapply |
Strategize with colleagues on mechanisms for identifying and fostering applicants |
Limited experience engaging with community health practitioners | Connected researchers with public health practitioners and facilitated codevelopment of research | Establish an environment where researchers and practitioners interact and colearn together |
Lack of grant writing skills | Provided detailed templates for applicants to use as a guide Encouraged applicants to work with mentors to write applications Conducted research roundtables focused on grant writing and critiquing applications |
Establish processes that support and encourage new investigators |
Insufficient mentoring by mentors postaward | Provided materials and expectations to mentors following awards Actively engaged mentors in the TREE Center and the mentoring process |
Delineate mentor expectations at the outset Do not depend on new investigators to engage sufficiently with mentors on their own Contact mentors and remind them of their roles |
Limited number of URM mentors | Actively identified, engaged and recruited potential mentors | Anticipate that many URM mentors may be overextended Recognize that mentors do not need to identify as URM to provide high quality, supportive mentorship to new URM investigators |
Institutional barriers to working across multiple campus | Learned processes across both campuses (e.g., IRB applications; faculty salary buy-out) Worked with TREE Center leadership to recruit new investigators across both campuses Held meetings on both campuses |
Collaborate with individuals at multiple levels of the institution Anticipate differences and establish strong communication across campuses |
Multilevel, community-engaged, intervention research is difficult to accomplish in 1-year time frame | Connected potential researchers with communities with established relationships Provided PIs with technical assistance and guidance |
Look for opportunities to build on current relationships and work Provide training on concepts of multilevel, community-engaged and intervention research |
Time for PIs to devote to pilot research projects | Provided clear information about time commitments and expectations Reminded researchers of obligations |
Assist researchers with time management Develop systems to reduce administrative load on PIs Provide new PIs with realistic expectations regarding research |
Difficulty integrating pilot research projects into other TREE Center activities | Invited awardees to present on their work at TREE Center meetings Provided awardees with opportunities to network with other TREE Center personnel Invited awardees to attend all TREE Center meetings |
Provide value-added activities so that new investigators want to participate and engage Disseminate information on pilot projects to TREE Center members and communities |
NOTE: NIH = National Institutes of Health; TREE = Transdisciplinary Research, Equity and Engagement Center; URM = underrepresented minority populations; IRB = institutional review board; PI = principal investigator.