2013 Call for Applications
Key Changes in 2013Grant Budget Changes
New funding source – The California Cancer Research Fund
Research Priorities
XT/ Pilot CARA/Pilot SARA Application Requirements
ST – Research Infrastructure Awards
Re-submission Policy
CONTENTSPurpose The purpose of this TRDRP Call for Applications is to stimulate research on tobacco control and tobacco-related disease that is of highest priority and potential benefit to the State of California. The program anticipates that this will be achieved by supporting research that will inform and strengthen tobacco control efforts at the local, state and national levels; lead to the early detection and secondary prevention of tobacco-related diseases; and advance the prevention and cessation of nicotine and tobacco products, particularly among the most heavily affected of California's diverse populations. From Tobacco to Nicotine In our Call for Applications last year we stated that, "The science and practice of tobacco control is a dynamic, rapidly evolving, and radically different field from that of just a few years ago." This actively changing landscape has continued unabated, both in the science and the practice of tobacco control. With the announcement by Philip Morris International at its shareholder meeting June of 2012 that they planned to introduce a low-risk cigarette by 2017, the vaporizing e-cigarette movement has gone mainstream with eyes on transforming the world. Louis Camilleri, PMI's Chief Executive Officer made this clear: "We are on the eve of what we all believe could be a paradigm shift for our industry, [these new products have] "the very real potential to not only be a game-changer, but also be the key to unlock several hitherto virgin territories, most notably the huge Chinese market." Indeed, tobacco may be an artifact of the 20th century; nicotine addiction in the 21st century will increasingly be through a host of new products, including orbs, sticks, lozenges, inhalers and e-cigarettes. All have crashed onto the market and there is little research on the immediate or long-term health effects of these products. The Affordable Care Act Another new development on the tobacco research and control landscape is the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ACA new rules on preventative care will add over 30 million new people to the health care roles and can provide counseling and smoking cessation services to most. However, people on Medicaid who are not pregnant are not guaranteed coverage of cessation treatments. Hence, it will fall to the States to guarantee this potential benefit. What will California do; will the ACA actually expand cessation services; will the ACA save Californian lives and health care cost? These questions among others are new and important research questions that we are confronting in the new tobacco control landscape. The FDA The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) authority to regulate tobacco products, while not new, is just a few years old and it (the FDA) is still determining its limits and extent of its authority. Following the TPSAC Menthol Report, the FDA has spent the past year doing its own investigation of menthol; one might argue that no other substance has been scrutinized so widely. But, as the issue of menthol languishes, the FDA is taking the first tentative steps to regulate cigars, including small cigars and cigarillos. This latter move could have a tremendous impact on urban inner city smokers, many of whom use small cigars. Tobacco Industry Influence One thing that hasn't changed in the tobacco control and tobacco research landscape is the influence of the tobacco industry. Case in point is the defeat of Proposition 29, which would have raised taxes on tobacco products by $1 dollar. The tobacco industry poured over $50 million dollars into the defeat of Proposition 29, the California Cancer Research Act, in an attempt to ensure that California remains the largest consumer of tobacco products in the United States. Since 1988, California has dropped from 1st to 33rd in the U.S. in tobacco taxes per pack and ranks only 23rd in tobacco prevention spending.1 As a result, key tobacco control indicators foreshadow significant slippage in both health and economic benefits to the State.2 Tobacco interests continue to maintain a strong presence in California policymaking through spending millions of dollars on campaign contributions and lobbying expenditures.3 The industry also continues to recruit and retain smokers through price manipulation, artificially lowering the price of cigarettes and particularly targeting price-sensitive groups like youth and low-income individuals. Once the nation's leader in protecting workers from the toxic effects of secondhand smoke, California has fallen behind the national standard set by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). California is not considered a 100% smoke-free state by the CDC. Meanwhile, 24 other states and the District of Columbia provide greater secondhand smoke protection in the workplace than California.4 The current status of tobacco control within the State challenges TRDRP to focus its limited resources in areas that will result in the evidence to develop, implement, and enforce the public policies and programs necessary to halt and reverse such trends. It calls for an intensified effort across a range of scientific disciplines focused on informing a new generation of California public policies and tobacco control initiatives. Early Disease Diagnosis As with the science and practice of tobacco control, the science of tobacco-related disease is also undergoing fundamental changes. Biomedical research has been and will continue to be a cornerstone of TRDRP's mission and portfolio. The program has strategically shifted its focus to the early detection and secondary prevention of tobacco-related disease. One example is lung cancer which, given its strong association with smoking and high mortality when diagnosed in its later stages, remains an area of particular interest to the TRDRP. Over 160,000 people in the US will die of lung cancer in 2012.5 Most are still diagnosed late in disease progression – as a result the current 5-year overall survival rate is only 16%. 6Computerized tomography (CT) screening offers hope for detecting lung cancer early enough to improve lung cancer prognosis at least in high-risk patients. After years of uncertainty and controversy the results are in: low-dose computerized tomography (CT) screening saves lives. A 20% reduction in mortality has been observed when smokers at high risk of lung cancer were diagnosed using CT as compared to those who underwent chest X-ray.7 Medical professionals now recommend that current or former smokers at high risk of lung cancer undergo routine CT screening. The American College of Chest Physicians, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology for example recommend that CT screening be offered to current and former smokers aged 55 to 74 who have smoked for 30 pack years or more and either are still smoking or have quit in the past 15 years. The American Association for Thoracic Surgery guidelines extend that age range to 79 years and furthermore recommend that long-term lung cancer survivors be screened to detect second primary lung cancer8 while the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends screening starting at age 50 with no upper limit to the age range.9 These recommendations, while a tremendous diagnostic advance, beg the question of how to diagnose lung cancer in never smokers, those who stopped smoking more than 15 years prior to diagnosis or smokers who have not accumulated more than 30 pack years. Furthermore, as with any medical procedure, CT carries its own risks including a high probability of a false positive diagnosis which in turn may lead to unnecessary and potentially injurious follow-up.10 Damage from repeated radiation exposure is also a concern. Given the risks associated with CT screening, a non-invasive test or imaging technology using molecular biomarkers to either selectively target those patients most at risk or to confirm CT screening results and reduce the number of false positives is one area of interest to the TRDRP. Disproportionately Affected Populations While significant advances in the science and practice of tobacco control have been evident over the past 20 years, it is also clear that certain populations, including military personnel, specific ethnic and racial groups, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals, and those in the lowest socioeconomic strata, continue to bear a disproportionate burden of tobacco-related illness and death.11,12 California is composed of a sizable majority of these populations, including the largest "minority" population in the United States (57% of the state population) and an estimated 1,079,000 lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals (2.96% of the population).13 Despite the significance of health disparities within tobacco control and tobacco-related disease, a greater understanding of societal, cultural and behavioral factors driving these differences is still needed.14 TRDRP is committed to prioritizing and supporting the scientific investigation needed to identify optimal strategies to address health inequities and to understand how to interrupt increasing disparities among certain populations. With this Call for Applications, TRDRP encourages a concerted effort by scientists, health professionals, policymakers, and community activists across the state towards eliminating tobacco-related health disparities. topOur research priorities for 2013 are an elaboration and particularization of our first strategic goal, "to fund high priority areas of research." Consequently all research applications submitted in response to this Call must be responsive to at least one of the following 5 research priorities: Research Priority 1: Advance policies to reduce environmental exposure to the toxic effects of tobacco smoke, tobacco smoke residue, cigarette butts, and other tobacco products. Cigarette Butt Pollution - Cigarettes and butts are the leading littered item on US roadways. 360 billion cigarettes were consumed in the US alone in 2007. Over 1 million cigarettes and filters, 16,000 lighters, 73,000 cigar tips and almost 37,000 tobacco packages or wrappers were removed from US waterways in 2010. Ingested cigarettes are poisonous to children and adults as well as animals and butt leachates are toxic to marine life. Over $5.6 million is spent annually to clean up tobacco litter in San Francisco. The impact on the environment and the risks to human health of this material are unknown and largely unexplored. For example, research is needed on:
Third hand Smoke - "THS consists of residual tobacco smoke pollutants that remain on surfaces and in dust after tobacco has been smoked; or are re-emitted back into the gas phase; or react with oxidants and other compounds in the environment to yield secondary pollutants". Toxic compounds so far identified in THS include many that are also present in SHS and mainstream smoke, as well as novel tobacco-specific nitrosamines. If and how involuntary inhalation or dermal uptake of THS affects human health is unknown. Research on third hand smoke has just begun; there are still many unknowns and numerous research opportunities. For example, research is needed on:
Indoor Air - Since the inception of the TRDRP much of its funding has been devoted to secondhand smoke (SHS) measurement, exposure and health effects. SHS causes premature death and disease in children including SIDS, acute respiratory infections, ear problems, asthma exacerbations and slowed lung growth and causes immediate adverse cardiovascular effects. As a result of these efforts and others across the country, SHS was classified by the US EPA as a Class A carcinogen and the 2006 Surgeon General's Report on the health consequences of involuntary SHS exposure concluded that there is no risk-free exposure to SHS. The only way to fully protect non-smokers from exposure to SHS is to eliminate smoking in indoor spaces. As a result laws have been passed in many states banning smoking in restaurants, bars and certain outdoor areas. However many municipalities and local businesses have been resistant to such measures. Research is needed to understand SHS exposure and health risks in multi-unit housing, health risks associated with SHS exposure in casinos and the social-behavioral, economic and legal barriers to adoption of smoking bans in these areas. For example, research is needed on:
Outdoor Air - Air pollution consists of natural and manmade (anthropogenic) gaseous and particulate components that have adverse effects on cardiovascular and respiratory health. One of these manmade toxic air contaminants is tobacco smoke. Exposures to tobacco smoke in outdoor environments can be significant. Nicotine concentrations in several outdoor environments such as schools, amusement parks and airports, outside of office buildings can reach levels comparable to those found in smokers' homes.17 Air pollution is often concentrated in areas where the most vulnerable populations live – near refineries, freeways and industrial areas and tobacco smoke is no exception: retail tobacco outlets, targeted and intense tobacco advertising and under-priced tobacco products are concentrated in under-served communities and communities of color.18, 19 Recent evidence has shown that secondhand smoke can react with other common airborne pollutants to form carcinogenic nitrosamines not present in freshly emitted tobacco smoke. The health impact of thirdhand smoke exposure in enclosed environments is an area of active investigation. The interaction of tobacco smoke with outdoor air pollutants and its health effects, if any, is largely unexplored. For example, research is needed on:
Research Priority 2: Advance innovative research in the early diagnosis of tobacco-related diseases. Cancer and Pulmonary Disease - Substantial resources are spent by the federal government and the commercial sector on tobacco-related disease therapeutics. Many advances have been made and TRDRP has played a key role in supporting the efforts of California researchers in this and related endeavors since its inception. The next generation of TRDRP disease research support will focus solely on early diagnosis and secondary prevention of tobacco-related cancers and COPD. For example, research is needed on:
Early detection of lung cancer in California's disproportionately impacted populations - TRDRP administers contributions to the California Cancer Research Fund (CCRF), box number 413 on California state income taxes. CCRF contributions are to be allocated as grant awards to support research on the causes and treatments for cancer, expanding community-based education on cancer, and providing culturally sensitive and appropriate prevention and awareness activities targeted toward communities that are disproportionately at risk or afflicted by cancer. Based on recommendations by a TRDRP-convened Strategic Visioning Committee, CCRF funds have been allocated to support a limited number of pilot or exploratory study proposals into the early detection of lung cancer and the early detection of lung cancer in disproportionately impacted California groups that will be submitted in response to this Call for Applications. Groups Disproportionately Impacted by Lung Cancer Lung cancer incidence is higher for Vietnamese men in California than the incidence of other cancers.20 Lung cancer is the second leading cancer for African Americans, American Indians, and Caucasian men and women and Chinese, Filipino, Pacific Islander, and Laotian men in California.21 Lung cancer continues to be the leading cause of cancer deaths for African Americans.22, 23 Individuals living in low socioeconomic status (SES) communities in California are at particularly high risk of death from lung cancer.24 Barriers to Lung Cancer Early Detection and Cancer Prevention Barriers to lung cancer screening and cancer prevention in underserved communities include fatalistic thinking and fear, fears about radiation exposure, screening cost, low access to and availability of health care services, competing priorities, lack of knowledge of cancer prevention and screening recommendations, culturally inappropriate or insensitive cancer control measures, low health literacy, and mistrust of the health care system.25 Factors associated with delayed diagnosis of lung cancer include health professionals' lack of or inadequate awareness of the nature and variation of lung cancer symptoms, quality of health services, health professionals' knowledge of patient referral criteria, social and cultural factors.26 African Americans are less likely than Caucasians to receive treatment after a lung cancer diagnosis, making early detection particularly important in this group.14 Disparities in cancer screening are also associated with social, behavioral, and economic factors such as unequal access to care, language barriers, unhealthy environments, and racial discrimination.14 Innovative interventions are needed to overcome financial, cultural, geographic and educational barriers to screening. Healthcare related-research is needed to address the following barriers and issues27: Synchronization of CT technique and scan interpretations; value of the diagnostic work-up techniques for positive screening findings and establishing standards for follow-up; optimal surgical management of detected nodules in patients; and optimal screening interval for both screen-negative and screen-positive patients. Research is needed for African Americans, Hispanic, and Asian American ethnic groups on:
NOTE: Funds accruing to the California Cancer Research Fund must be used to support research on cancer and TRDRP must adhere to the intent of the legislation regarding allocation of these funds. While TRDRP is soliciting applications for lung cancer screening in disproportionately impacted California groups in 2013, any application proposing research on cancer early detection is eligible to receive California Cancer Research funds, contingent upon a scientific merit score that falls within the funding range. Cardiovascular Disease - Tobacco smoking and SHS exposure have long been recognized as prominent risk factors for cardiovascular disease. The mechanism by which known and as-yet-unidentified toxicants in smoked and smokeless tobacco products increase the risk of CVD is still a promising area of research particularly in light of the FDA's new responsibility to evaluate and regulate existing and emerging tobacco products.28 For example, research is needed on:
Research Priority 3: Expand the scientific basis to inform the regulation of nicotine and tobacco products at the local, state and national level. Since the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act of 2009 granted the FDA the power to require appropriate testing of and evaluation of tobacco products, many new challenges have arisen and old questions persist. Increasingly nicotine delivery systems are produced in non-tobacco forms. Whether oral nicotine delivery devices (orbs and lozenges) or vaporized nicotine (e-cigarettes), all these products require scientific scrutiny to determine both their short and long-term health impact. The FDA has asserted that these nicotine containing products can be regulated like other tobacco products under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Studies and findings about the toxicity and health effects of these products is not only essential at the federal regulatory level but will also be very useful to state and local tobacco control programs to educate consumers and inform regulatory policy. These new research challenges take their place alongside old questions still confronting the FDA, foremost among them is what to do with menthol in tobacco products. There has been ample research linking menthol to youth initiation, especially among African Americans, Native Hawaiians, Filipinos and Puerto Ricans among others. Simply, candy flavorings promote tobacco initiation. The Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee of the FDA agrees and states in their report of 2011 that "removal of menthol cigarettes from the market place would benefit the public health." TPSAC Menthol Report. Research in this area should be focused on the consequences of removing mentholated cigarettes from the market place. Research is needed on all putative modified risk products; products used to treat tobacco addiction; and e-cigarettes. Research is also needed to inform the creation of tobacco product standards and to assess consumer perceptions of tobacco product labeling and advertising. FDA's scientific framework for regulation of tobacco products includes 1) Toxicity: constituents, formulation and product design including in vitro, in vivo and human laboratory and clinical trial analyses; 2) Pharmacological addiction potential; 3) Abuse liability, i.e., use intensity and factors affecting use intensity in humans including product appeal, consumer perception, marketing and social influences; 4) After-market prevalence of use and health outcomes; and 5) Price and availability. For example, research is needed on:
We encourage all applicants interested in tobacco regulatory sciences to visit the Center for Tobacco Products, Food and Drug Administration Research Priorities; many of their areas of interest and concern, mirror those of the TRDRP. Research Priority 4: Prevent and treat tobacco use and promote equity among disproportionately impacted groups. Studies on the basic neuroscience of nicotine addiction. Tobacco related diseases are not proportionately distributed, with the greatest incidence and mortality falling on communities of color and other specific sub-populations throughout the state. African Americans have the highest lung cancer rates in the state; Latino’s have the greatest exposure to secondhand smoke while at work; Vietnamese, Koreans and American Indians have some of the highest smoking rates in the state; 40% of cigarettes are purchased by persons with mental illness; LGBT smoking rates are significantly higher than the general population; and women and girls of low socioeconomic status (SES) are at increased risk for lung cancer. Understanding how and why different sub-populations of Californians use tobacco products and whether there are discernible differences in the health consequences of their use are critical steps towards reducing tobacco-related health disparities. With the constant migration of people from the Pacific Basin and Rim, South and Central America and Mexico, coupled with in-migration from other states, California presents tobacco control researchers with an extremely rich and heterogeneous population. The TRDRP encourages all investigators to capitalize on this population diversity to craft research proposals that seek to understand and mitigate tobacco related health disparities. Geography, occupation, ethnicity, race, gender, sexual or gender orientation, culture, military background, age, SES, and/or disability can define populations experiencing tobacco-related health disparities. Consistent with this priority, all investigators should focus their studies on one or more specific disproportionately impacted group or sub-population rather than on generally diverse samples of participants. For example, research is needed on:
Focus on African American Health Disparities - One compelling example of an area in which tobacco-related health disparities research is needed is that of smoking in the African-American community. To meet this need TRDRP launched a research initiative aimed at understanding and mitigating the health disparities faced by African Americans in California. African American men and women have the highest adult smoking prevalence in California, 21 percent and 17 percent, respectively (California Tobacco Control Program, 2010). There is anecdotal evidence that the prevalence is even higher. An innovative and rigorous methodological approach is needed to accurately assess the smoking prevalence of African Americans in California. In California, deaths from lung cancer among African American women are 41 per 100,000 compared to 35 per 100,000 among white women. In California, 92 out of every 100,000 African American men were diagnosed with lung cancer compared to 62 out of every 100,000 white men. African American men are 37 percent more likely to develop lung cancer than white men, even though their overall exposure to cigarette smoke – the primary risk factor for lung cancer – is lower. African Americans are more likely to be diagnosed later, when cancer is more advanced. African Americans are more likely to wait longer after diagnosis to receive treatment, more likely to refuse treatment, and more likely to die in the hospital after surgery.29 Moreover, while African Americans comprise only 6.2 percent of the population of California, they account for 7.6% of the smoking attributable deaths in the state. African Americans lose more years of life per death (16.3 years) than all other groups (12.0 years) due to smoking attributable causes.30 Given these sobering statistics and with the input from numerous stakeholders and advisors, the TRDRP is prioritizing the following research questions/areas for support as part of this initiative.
Social and Behavioral Interventions to Treat Tobacco Dependence – Evidence based tobacco dependence treatments do not reach some groups of smokers. There has been discussion in the field as to whether tailored smoking cessation interventions are more useful for priority groups than treatments developed for the general population. For example, research is needed on the pros and cons of tailored vs. non-tailored tobacco interventions in priority groups. Tobacco use has shifted over the years to light and non-daily smoking yet the evidence supporting tobacco treatments came from pack-a-day smokers. Research is needed on appropriate interventions for light and nondaily smokers. Provider-initiated cessation and relapse prevention advice is on the decline. Research is needed on addressing the barriers to provider-driven tobacco interventions. Basic Neuroscience of Nicotine Addiction - Understanding and blunting nicotine addiction remains critical to tobacco cessation efforts. Over 30 million people remain addicted to tobacco products generally and nicotine in particular. While advances in understanding how nicotine affects the brain and subsequently leads to dependence have been made, the key mechanisms and pathways that can blunt nicotine’s addictive properties are still to be identified. Moreover, focused research on what therapeutic agents and processes can be identified to stem the tide of nicotine addiction is needed. For example, research is needed on:
Research Priority 5: Advance the ability of communities throughout California to assess and limit the influence of the tobacco industry. The tobacco industry invested over $50 million dollars into the defeat of Proposition 29, the California Cancer Research Act to ensure that California remains the largest consumer of tobacco products in the United States. Research pinpointing and documenting what part of the industry’s message resonated with voters will be very important to understanding the nature of the influence of the tobacco industry on the California public in such matters. Indeed, the tobacco industry remains a fixture in Sacramento, where just in the first six months of 2012, The Center for Tobacco Policy & Organizing of the American Lung Association in California documented that the industry spent more than $4 million on lobbying and campaign contributions to influence legislative policy and elections in California. Research that documents how and when the tobacco industry affects state and local policies can be very helpful to tobacco control advocates. Policy research that demonstrates the health impact of smoke free policies and regulation can give local tobacco control advocates the necessary evidence for establishing smoke free multi-unit housing. For example, research is needed on:
MECHANISMS OF SUPPORT
NOTE: Principal Investigators may submit more than one proposal per funding cycle; however only one grant in a given award mechanism will be awarded to any one individual. Research Project Award (RT) Maximum Award: Average annual direct costs cannot exceed $125,000. Allowable expenses include salaries, fringe benefits, supplies, equipment, and travel. Travel to scientific meetings is restricted to $2,000 per year (excluding travel to the TRDRP Conference). All applicants must budget a maximum of $500 for mandatory travel to the TRDRP Conference in the first year. Full indirect costs are allowed to non-UC institutions. Indirect costs to UC campuses are capped at 25%. Maximum Duration: Up to 3 years Review Criteria:
Exploratory/Developmental Research Award (XT) Purpose: The purpose of these grants is to gather preliminary data or demonstrate proof-of-principle. The ultimate goal of these awards is to provide the foundation for proposals for fully-developed research project awards from other funding programs or TRDRP. Maximum Award: Average annual direct costs cannot exceed $100,000. Allowable expenses include salaries, fringe benefits, supplies, equipment, and travel. Travel to scientific meetings is restricted to $2,000 per year (excluding travel to the TRDRP Conference). All applicants must budget a maximum of $500 for mandatory travel to the TRDRP Conference in the first year. Full indirect costs are allowed to non-UC institutions. Indirect costs to UC campuses are capped at 25%. Maximum Duration: 2 years. Review Criteria:
Participatory Research Awards (CARA/SARA) Purpose: The purpose of the Community Academic Research Awards (CARA) and the School Academic Research Awards (SARA) is to stimulate and support collaborations between community-based organizations/schools with academic investigators. These awards support a collaborative partnership to perform scientific research into tobacco control issues that are identified as important and meaningful to specific communities/schools in California. The roles and responsibilities for each of the partners must be clearly described. The applicant partners must demonstrate the use of methods that are relevant, culturally sensitive, and appropriate in terms defined and accepted by the participating community members/schools. Establishing a high level of contact and communication between community or school staff and the researchers is imperative and must be described. Efforts to mitigate power differences in decision making and control at all stages of the research process should be described. All partners must be involved in each stage of the project, i.e., identifying the problem, formulating the research questions, designing the intervention, writing the grant application, carrying out the research, and interpreting project outcomes. TRDRP encourages applications that represent the breadth of community participatory research approaches. For example, one project may focus on developing new research methods for a particular community/school while another project could focus on tailoring empirically-based methods to an underserved group or community not included in the literature. The process of building trust and a working relationship among partners is part of the spirit of participatory research and should be described in the application. Applicants should include a plan to provide information related to the project back to the target community/school. Community is broadly defined as any group of individuals sharing a common characteristic, such as culture, language, race, ethnicity, gender, age, sexual orientation, or other attribute that might impact the effectiveness of tobacco control programs. Schools can be any public elementary, middle and high schools, continuation high schools, alternative, juvenile court or community schools. Supplemental Funding to defray school-site costs related to participating in a SARA is available for schools that are operated by a local educational agency. Local educational agencies are school districts, county offices of education or direct-funded charter schools that have a valid County-District-School Code in the California Public School Directory. Additionally, to be eligible for these contracted supplemental funds, the participating local educational agency must be certified by CDE as having met tobacco-free school district criteria on or before July 1, 2012. A list, by county, of certified local educational agencies that meet the California Health and Safety Code Tobacco Free Schools requirements can be found at: http://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/he/at/tobaccofreecert.asp. Beginning with this Call for Applications, the budget for these costs is submitted as part of the application to TRDRP. CDE Research Priority Areas for Pilot/Full SARA Awards The CDE has identified the following research questions/topic areas as responsive to their current school-based tobacco control priorities. However, applicants may also submit applications addressing other school-based research gaps and research questions/topics identified as important and meaningful by schools in California.
CARA/SARA Pilot Awards A pilot award supports the initial phases of a CARA or SARA project, including solidifying the collaborations, identifying research questions, negotiating roles and responsibilities, and detailing the research plan and methods . An expected outcome from these awards is the building of a strong working relationship between academic and community partners, the building of trust between partners and the community served and the sharing of power and decision making, which will establish a foundation and capacity for research. Maximum Award Pilot CARA: $100,000 average annual direct costs. Indirect costs are allowed in accordance with TRDRP policy. Maximum Duration: 2 years Review Criteria:
CARA/SARA Full Awards These awards are to support fully developed CARA and SARA projects. These awards support a collaborative partnership to perform scientifically rigorous research into tobacco control issues that are identified as important and meaningful to specific communities/schools in the state. Ideas from community and academic partners should be integrated and recognizable in the application. There must be a systematic plan developed by the partners for communicating the work and/or findings back to the community. A few examples include disseminating the relationship building process or study results to community/school programs engaged in similar work or to the target community. Although it is advantageous for the researcher to have a history of involvement with the specific community or school, lack of such experience is not a disqualifying factor.
Maximum Duration: 3 years Review Criteria:
POSTDOCTORAL FELLOWSHIP AWARD (FT) Purpose: These are awards for individuals to obtain postdoctoral research training under a designated mentor. The application must be prepared and submitted exclusively by the fellow and must outline an original research project (separate from the project of a mentor). Letters of support addressing the candidate’s training, potential, and the commitment of the mentor and the department to the candidate’s career development are essential. To be eligible, the candidate must be recognized by the applicant institution as a postdoctoral fellow no later than August 1, 2013. U.S. citizenship is not a requirement. The fellow must commit a minimum of 75 percent time to the research project. Maximum Award: $45,000 annual direct costs per year averaged over the duration of the award. Indirect costs are not allowed. Maximum Duration: 3 years Review Criteria:
DISSERTATION RESEARCH AWARDS (DT) This award is intended to support the dissertation research of a doctoral candidate pursuing tobacco-related research. Applications in all relevant research areas are welcomed, but applications in the social/behavioral sciences and in public policy are encouraged. The award is designed for students advanced to candidacy no later than August 1, 2013, and initiating their dissertation research. The applicant and principal mentor must be affiliated with an academic research institution. U.S. citizenship is not a requirement. The candidate must commit a minimum of 80 percent time to the research project. Maximum Award: $20,000 annual direct costs averaged over the duration of the award for stipend, supplies, and domestic travel. An additional maximum of $10,000 per year is allowed for tuition/enrollment fee remission, fringe benefits, and health insurance. No equipment purchases are allowed. Indirect costs are not allowed. Maximum Duration: 2 years Review Criteria:
REVIEW CRITERIA FOR ALL RESEARCH AWARD MECHANISMS
SPECIAL PROJECTS – CONFERENCE SUPPORT (ST) Support can be requested for scientific conferences to assess tobacco's impact on California populations; or to allow tobacco investigators to evaluate, in a timely manner, new and breaking trends in tobacco control or tobacco-related disease research. In order to qualify for funding, the planned activities must be directly related to one or more of TRDRP's Research Priorities. The activity must primarily take place in California, involve California investigators, and include, where applicable, discussants and speakers funded by TRDRP. Proposals may be submitted at any time and should be submitted on proposalCENTRAL. Applications for Conference Awards will go through a separate review process. The TRDRP Scientific Advisory Committee will make recommendations regarding funding. Conference grants will be limited in number, scope, cost, and duration. Please contact a TRDRP Program officer regarding the appropriateness of your proposal prior to submission. Cornelius Hopper Diversity Award Supplement (CHDAS) This supplement is for the training of promising individuals who are or who want to pursue careers in the field of tobacco-related disease research or in tobacco control. Supplements may be requested only for trainees living in California and include those: (a) from socioeconomic, cultural, ethnic, racial, linguistic, and geographic backgrounds who are and/or have been underrepresented in tobacco research; or (b) pursuing a research interest focusing on cultural, societal, or educational problems as they affect underserved segments of society. Investigators must have at least one year left on their TRDRP award to ensure the best conditions and results for prospective trainees. Therefore, the CHDAS is available only after the first year of the grant application. Eligible Principal Investigators The CHDAS is available to current principal investigators of:
Eligible Trainees:
The supplement cannot be transferred from one person to another; the award can be used only for the originally identified trainee. CHDAS trainees must live and be trained in California. Overall, trainees should demonstrate high potential and promise for a career in tobacco control or tobacco-related disease research. Principal investigators should encourage trainees from socioeconomic, cultural, ethnic, racial, linguistic, and geographic backgrounds who would otherwise not be adequately represented in their field or who are from underserved communities. However, in accordance with state law, preference will not be given to applicants based on race, color, ethnicity, gender, or national origin. Maximum Supplement Amount: $15,000 annual direct costs. Indirect costs are allowed for the TRDRP portion in accordance with TRDRP policy. Allowable Expenditures: Salary, fringe benefits, tuition, and enrollment fees for the trainee, domestic travel, and indirect costs, where appropriate. Award funding cannot be used for equipment. Maximum Duration: 2 years Review Criteria:
Investigators from California not-for-profit organizations are eligible for TRDRP funding, including but not limited to colleges, universities, hospitals, laboratories, research institutions, local health departments, community-based organizations, voluntary health agencies, health maintenance organizations, and other tobacco control groups. The Principal Investigator should be designated by the sponsoring institution in accordance with its own policies and procedures. The Principal Investigator must supervise the research project and then trainee directly and in person. Although the research undertaken with TRDRP funds must be conducted primarily in California, part of the work may be done outside California if the need to do so is well-justified (e.g., it is integral to the achievements of a specific aim), and the results of such work may be applied to understanding the causes and/or improving the prevention and treatment of tobacco-related diseases in California. In accordance with University of California policy, Principal Investigators who are University employees and who receive any part of their salary through the University must submit grant proposals through their UC campus contracts and grants office (see “Policy on the Requirement to Submit Proposals and to Receive Award for Grants and Contracts through the University,” University of California Office of the President, December 15, 1994). Exceptions must be approved by the UC campus where the Principal Investigator is employed. US citizenship is not a requirement for eligibility. Submission of a Letter of Intent (LOI) is required to apply for all research awards except for Special Projects and Cornelius Hopper Diversity Award Supplements. You will have access to the application web pages when the LOI is approved in proposalCENTRAL, at which time you will receive a notification e-mail. To be accepted for a full application a Letter of Intent (LOI) must address one or more of TRDRP’s five research priorities. LOIs and proposals must be submitted using the online system, proposalCENTRAL at https://proposalCENTRAL.altum.com. To submit an LOI:
For technical help with proposalCENTRAL, please email pcsupport@altum.com or call 800-875-2562 (Toll-free U.S. and Canada). ProposalCENTRAL customer support is available Monday – Friday from 8:30am - 5:00pm (EST).
Questions regarding scientific issues or TRDRP policies should be directed to the appropriate TRDRP Program Officer: Biomedical Sciences Environmental Science/Public Health & Policy/Neuroscience: Social Behavioral Sciences/Participatory Research Biomedical and Environmental Sciences Bart Aoki, Ph.D. - Director Inquiries regarding application forms and instructions may be directed to the Research Grants Program Office (RGPO): RGPOGrants@ucop.edu or (510) 987-9386 For technical help with online grant submission contact the proposalCENTRAL Help Desk: pcsupport@altum.com or (800) 875-2562 (Monday-Friday from 8:30am - 5:00pm EST 1. Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids. Key State-Specific Tobacco-Related Data & Rankings. 2. Max, W., Sung, H., & Lightwood, J., The Impact of Changes in California Tobacco Control Expenditures on Healthcare Expenditures, 2012 – 2016, Final Report to the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program. 2011. Lightwood, J. & Glantz, S., Predicted Effect of California Tobacco Control Educational Funding on Smoking Prevalence, Cigarette Consumption, and Healthcare Costs, 2012-2016. Final Report to the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program, 2011. Pierce, J., Messer, K., White, M.M., Kealey, S., & Cowling, D.W., (2010) California's Leadership in Tobacco Control Results in Lower Lung Cancer Rate, Cancer, Epidemiology, Biomarkers, and Prevention, 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-0563, 2010 3. California's Center for tobacco Policy & Organizing. Campaign Contributions and Lobbying of Tobacco Interests in California: January 2009-June 2010. Available at: http://www.center4tobaccopolicy.org/tobaccomoney 4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Press Release, New CDC Report Says Increased Efforts, High-Impact Strategies Needed to Reduce Smoking and Save Lives. April 23, 2010. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/media/pressrel/2010/r100423.htm 6. Howlader N. et al. (eds) SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2009 (Vintage 2009 Populations), National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD, http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2009_pops09/, based on November 2011 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site, 2012. 7. The National Lung Screening Trial Research Team. 2011. Reduced lung cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N. Engl. J. Med. 365: 395-409 8. Jacobson F.L. et al. 2012 Development of The American Association for Thoracic Surgery guidelines for low-dose computed tomography scans to screen for lung cancer in North America: Recommendations of The American Association for Thoracic Surgery Task Force for Lung Cancer Screening and Surveillance. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 144:25-32. 9. NCCN Guidelines for Detection, Prevention, and Risk Reduction. Lung Cancer Screening - Version 1.2013 https://subscriptions.nccn.org/gl_login.aspx?ReturnURL=http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/lung_screening.pdf 10. Bach, P.B. et al., 2012. Benefits and harms of CT screening for lung cancer A Systematic Review. JAMA 307: 2418-2429. 11. Fagan P. et al. Eliminating tobacco-related health disparities: directions for future research. Am J Public Health 2004; 94: 211–17. 12. Conway T.L. 1998 Tobacco use and the United States military: a longstanding problem. Tobacco Control, 7: 219 - 221. 13. Minority population growing in the United States, census estimates show. Los Angeles Times, June 20, 2010 Available at: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/10/nation/la-na-census-20100611 14. Fagan P. et al. 2007 Identifying health disparities across the tobacco continuum. Addiction 102 (Suppl. 2), 5–29. 15. Matt G.E. et al. 2011 When smokers move out and non-smokers move in: residential thirdhand smoke pollution and exposure. Tobacco Control 2011:20:e1 doi:10.1136/tc.2010.037382 17. "Environmental Tobacco Smoke: A Toxic Air Contaminant." California Air Resources Board California Environmental Protection Agency. October 18, 2006. http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/ets/factsheetets.pdf 18. Lipton R et al. 2008. The spatial distribution of underage tobacco sales in Los Angeles Substance Use and Misuse. 43(11): 1597-1617. 19. Hendriksen L. et al. 2012. Targeted advertising, promotion, and price for menthol cigarettes in California high school neighborhoods. Nicotine Tob. Res. 14:116-121. 20. American Cancer Society. 2009. Cancer disparities: A chart book. http://action.acscan.org/site/DocServer/cancer-disparities-chartbook.pdf?docID=15341 21. American Cancer Society. Sept. 2011. California Cancer Facts and Figures 2012. California Department of Public Health. California Cancer Registry. Oakland, CA: American Cancer Society, California Division. http://www.ccrcal.org/pdf/Reports/ACS_2012.pdf 22. American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts & Figures for African Americans 2011-2012. Atlanta: American Cancer Society, 2011. 23. U.S. National Institutes of Health. National Cancer Institute: Seer Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2009. http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2009_pops09/. 24. Ou, S.H. et al. 2008. "Low socioeconomic status is a poor prognostic factor for survival in stage I nonsmall cell lung cancer and is independent of surgical treatment, race, and marital status." Cancer 112(9): 2011-2020. 25. Jonnalagadda S. et al. 2012. "Beliefs and attitudes about lung cancer screening among smokers." Lung Cancer. Jun 6. [Epub ahead of print] 26. Tod A.M. & Craven, J. 2006. Diagnostic delay in lung cancer: Barriers and facilitators in delay. http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/prod_consump/groups/cr_common//@nre/@hea/documents/generalcontent/cr_043178.pdf 27. Lok B. 2012. What are the barriers to using low dose CT screen for lung cancer? Clinical Correlations: The NYU Langone Internal Medicine Blog-A Daily Dose of Medicine. http://www.clinicalcorrelations.org/?p=5238 28. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. How Tobacco Smoke Causes Disease: The Biology and Behavioral Basis for Smoking-Attributable Disease: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2010. 29. African Americans and Lung Cancer, American Lung Association available at: http://www.lungusa.org/about-us/our-impact/top-stories/african-americans-and-lung-cancer.html |