National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Military Nursing Research
Suggested Citation:"Program Execution." Institute of Medicine. 1996. The Program for Research in Military Nursing: Progress and Future Direction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5257.
×

4
Program Execution

The TriService Nursing Research Program (TSNR Program) is established at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS), as recently mandated by Congress in the fiscal year (FY) 1996 Department of Defense Authorization Act (Chapter 104, title 10, U.S. Code as amended, see Chapter 1). The legislation further mandates that a TriService Nursing Research Group (TSNR Group) administer the program. The purpose of the TSNR Program is to facilitate research on the furnishing of care and services by nurses in the armed forces by expanding the body of scientific knowledge upon which military nursing practice is based. Background information about the TSNR Program was provided by the program or is based on data provided by the program. Supplementary information was provided by a small sample of funded and unfunded applicants.

In 1996, the chief of the Army Nurse Corps and the directors of the Navy and Air Force Nurse Corps agreed on the following goals for the TSNR Program (TriService Nursing Brief to the Institute of Medicine Committee on Military Nursing Research, January 27, 1996):

  • continue its growth and improvement;
  • identify, reduce, and eliminate barriers to research process and progress;
  • strengthen existing bonds and create new bonds with civilian universities;
  • maximize collaboration with triservice nurses who have research, doctoral backgrounds; and
Suggested Citation:"Program Execution." Institute of Medicine. 1996. The Program for Research in Military Nursing: Progress and Future Direction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5257.
×
  • ensure ongoing, predictable levels of resource support (dollars and staff) for its researchers and for the TSNR Program itself.

The full text of these joint goals appears in Appendix C.

General Program Administration

The TSNR Group consists of six doctorally prepared military nurses, two each from the Army, Navy, and Air Force, representing both the active and the reserve components. Members are appointed by the chief and directors of the respective Nurse Corps. Length of experience as a TSNR Group member varies; however, continuity has been achieved through staggered terms. The position of chair of the TSNR Group rotates among the three services, and the intent is to have it rotate across the active and reserve components as well. To serve as chair, an individual must have served on the TSNR Group for at least 1 year prior to assuming leadership.

The TSNR Program currently fulfills its mandate to expand the body of knowledge upon which military nursing practice is based in two ways: first, by funding research proposals of active, reserve, and National Guard Nurse Corps officers, and second, by sponsoring grants-writing workshops for military nurse researchers.

Administration of the TSNR Program at Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences

Daily administration of the program is handled by the director of the USUHS Office of Research Administration. This is consistent with the mission of USUHS, which ''. . . serve[s] the uniformed services and the Nation as an outstanding academic health sciences center with a worldwide perspective for education, research, service, and consultation. . . .'' The university is ". . . unique in relating these activities to military medicine, disaster medicine, and military medical readiness" (USUHS, 1996). The university is authorized to grant appropriate advanced degrees, to establish post-doctoral and postgraduate programs and technological institutes, to conduct medical readiness training and continuing education for uniformed members of the health professions, to prepare individuals for careers in the health professions in the uniformed services, and to award grants. USUHS serves all three military services as does the TSNR Program.

Administrative support of the TSNR Program within the Office of Research Administration currently consists of one full-time equivalent (FTE) clerk typist/administrative assistant, 0.3 FTE GS-11 grants management specialist,

Suggested Citation:"Program Execution." Institute of Medicine. 1996. The Program for Research in Military Nursing: Progress and Future Direction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5257.
×

and 0.4 FTE overall program administrator. Administration costs were reported to be approximately $120 thousand annually for the first 4 years of operation, exclusive of the salary of the program administrator, who is a military officer. Space and certain other indirect costs were contributed by USUHS.

The director of the Office of Research Administration handles overall administration of the program, directs and oversees all grant actions, acts as executive secretary at meetings and teleconferences of the Scientific Review Panel, and prepares and disseminates executive summaries.

At the end of FY 1995, the Office of USUHS Research Administration subcontracted specific tasks in support of the TSNR Program. This $305,000 subcontract provides for a number of activities (see Box 4-1), including some not previously implemented by the TSNR Program. These new activities appear to be directed mainly toward improved program monitoring and dissemination.

Administration of Grants

The USUHS Office of Research Administration receives congressionally mandated funds for the TSNR Program from the Department of Defense (DOD) and channels them to an institution with which the principal investigator is affiliated or, at the principal investigator's request, to a not-for-profit foundation that provides grants administration. Many TSNR Program grants have been administered through nonprofit foundations, principally the Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine—a private, not-for-profit organization chartered by Congress in 1983 to support medical research and education at USUHS and throughout the military medical community (Henry M. Jackson Foundation, 1996). The indirect costs of using the foundations have been approximately 14 to 16 percent.

The use of a foundation for grant administration by active-duty military personnel makes it possible for the investigator to spend grant funds for the study beyond the end date of the award. According to several grant recipients, it also allows the investigator to complete hiring actions and acquisition of materials in a timely manner and facilitates the hiring of the most qualified candidates for conducting research. The ability to hire personnel to aid in the research may be especially valuable for active-duty military nurse researchers for whom primary work responsibilities are clinical or administrative rather than research.

Suggested Citation:"Program Execution." Institute of Medicine. 1996. The Program for Research in Military Nursing: Progress and Future Direction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5257.
×

Box 4-1 Subcontractor Services for the TriService Nursing Research Program, FY 1996

Support for Peer Review of Proposals

  • Assists in the selection of members of the peer review panel to provide scientific review of all proposals. Assists selection of primary and secondary reviewers for all proposals.
  • Categorizes proposals submitted for funding consideration by subject area to facilitate identification of scientific expertise required for peer review.
  • Provides two notetakers at each peer review panel discussion (approximately 3 days) to record comments. Using written reviews from primary and secondary reviewers, and the salient features of the written comments of the panel discussions from the notetakers, prepares summary reviews of proposals to be returned to each respective applicant.
  • Composes positive and negative award letters and prepares them for mailing through the USUHS office.
  • Develops a database log to track the status of all submitted proposals.
  • Develops a file/database of all active and reserve nurses who are master's or doctorally prepared or who are currently in an advanced degree program; lists clinical specialty/practice and area of research interest.

Support for Program Management

  • Develops and prepares presentation slides and viewgraphs for program briefings.
  • Prepares program reports and information papers.
  • Prepares program budgets and summaries.
  • Provides written review of semiannual and annual reports of funded research.
  • Provides support for site visits to funded institutions.
  • Develops, prepares, publishes, and disseminates a newsletter to provide program status and updates to program staff and awardees.

Support for Grants-Writing Workshops

  • Schedules and reserves meeting sites.
  • Prepares packets of read-ahead materials for attendees.
  • Prepares travel orders for program staff and attendees. Most are government travel requests executed by staff at USUHS.
  • Provides on-site support in the form of two staff for meetings.


  • NOTE: Activities that are new to the TSNR Program are shown in bold.


Suggested Citation:"Program Execution." Institute of Medicine. 1996. The Program for Research in Military Nursing: Progress and Future Direction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5257.
×

Requests for Proposals

Dissemination

Requests for Proposals (RFPs) are disseminated by the USUHS Office of Research Administration. Deadlines for submission of applications have varied, depending on the availability of congressionally appropriated funds. In FY 1995, the $5 million appropriated and mandated by Congress for the TSNR Program was withheld by the DOD comptroller until May 4, 1995—seven months into the fiscal year—and the money had to be obligated by September 30, 1995, the end of the fiscal year. According to the 1995 chair of the TSNR Group, the late call for proposals severely limited the time for potential applicants to learn of the availability of funding and to prepare meritorious proposals that met deadlines mandated by the need to encumber funds. It also hampered the TSNR Program's ability to execute the mechanisms for peer review and to obligate the money most efficiently.

In FY 1996, the TSNR Program issued its call for proposals in December 1995, with the caveat: "It is anticipated that five million dollars will be available for military nursing research in FY 96." The Institute of Medicine (IOM) committee commends the TSNR Program for making the announcement well before funds were made available.

Current dissemination activity consists of distribution of the RFP to the offices of the Nurse Corps chief and directors, all commanders of military medical units, reserve nurse units, and all deans of graduate programs in civilian schools of nursing that have graduate programs. Anecdotal evidence from a small sample of grantees and unfunded applicants suggests that information about the TSNR Program funds has been received late.

Proposal Format

In this young competitive grants program, the format of proposal applications has evolved steadily, as shown in Table 4-1.

In 1994, for the first time, the RFP stated the primary goal of the program as "to improve nursing care for DOD beneficiaries by expanding the body of scientific knowledge upon which military nursing practice is based." The change in the award categories introduced stricter eligibility requirements. The RFP strongly encouraged new investigators to have a sponsor with research experience assist them with proposal development. Contact information for TSNR Group members was provided to assist new investigators in locating sponsors.

The RFP for FY 1996 introduces a notable change: funding support for up to 2 years for new investigators and up to 3 years for experienced investigators.

Suggested Citation:"Program Execution." Institute of Medicine. 1996. The Program for Research in Military Nursing: Progress and Future Direction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5257.
×

TABLE 4-1 Evolution of TriService Nursing Research Program Eligibilities and Requirements, FY 1992–1996

 

Requirements

Eligibility

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

Military status

 

 

 

 

Minimum education

R.N.

R.N., Baccalaureate degree, PHS Form 398

R.N., Baccalaureate degree (depends on award category)

R.N., Baccalaureate degree (depends on award category)

R.N., Baccalaureate degree (depends on award category)

Application form

No form required

PHS Form 398

PHS Form 398

PHS Form 398, plus triservice application cover page

PHS Form 398, plus cover page with key words, and an additional pagea

IRB approval required

 

 

 

 

American Association for Accreditation of Lab Animal Control facilityb

Not specified

 

 

 

Disbursement of funds

Military installations and universities

Same as 1992

Use of a nonprofit foundation for grants administration or project work orders allowed for military installations

Same as 1994

Same as 1994 and 1995, plus universities and other nonprofit entities may receive grants directly from USUHSc

Suggested Citation:"Program Execution." Institute of Medicine. 1996. The Program for Research in Military Nursing: Progress and Future Direction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5257.
×

 

Requirements

Eligibility

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

Award categories and funding caps, if any

 

Junior investigators,d cap of $75,000; senior investigatorse

New investigators,f experienced investigatorsg

New investigators, experienced investigators

New investigators, $40,000/year; experienced investigators, $100,000/year

Period of award

1 year

1 year

1 year

1 year

2 years for new investigators; 3 years for experienced investigators

NOTE: PHS = Public Health Service

a Page requires a statement of relevance of the proposed research to military nursing and the way in which the research will expand the body of scientific knowledge upon which military nursing practice in based.

b Applicable only for animal studies.

c Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences.

d Junior investigator: an applicant who has never been a designated principal investigator on any federal or privately supported research project for more than 3 years.

e Senior investigator: not defined.

f New investigator (FY 1994–1995): a licensed registered nurse with a minimum of a baccalaureate degree in nursing or a baccalaureate degree in another discipline and a graduate degree or candidacy in nursing.

g Experienced investigator: a licensed registered nurse who has previously received competitive research grants of at least $5,000 (excluding recipients of a National Research Service Award).

Suggested Citation:"Program Execution." Institute of Medicine. 1996. The Program for Research in Military Nursing: Progress and Future Direction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5257.
×

Budget proposals are required on a per annum basis for the number of years of support requested.

Grant Review Process

The TSNR Program uses a three-level grant review process: In level 1, the Scientific Review Panel reviews proposals for scientific and technical merit. In level 2, the TSNR Group reviews recommendations of the Scientific Review Panel and considers programmatic issues, and in level 3, the corps chief and directors approve or disapprove recommendations from the TSNR Group based on service-specific priorities and relevance to military nursing. More specific information about each level follows.

Scientific Review Panel (Peer Review, Level 1)

Peer review is defined as the making of substantive evaluative judgments about scientific merit and the quality of scholarship and scholarly productivity. Peer review helps ensure that the conduct and reporting of research meet accepted scientific standards. The approaches to such assurance include the practice of peer review by study sections and advisory councils, the work of journal editors and referees, mock reviews by colleagues, and the process of collegial discourse. Because peer review is the primary mechanism for evaluating science and scientists, the committee closely examined the detailed information received about the peer review process used by the TSNR Program. The TSNR Program provided the following information about 1995 scientific peer review practices and procedures to the committee.

Proposals and Review Materials

The RFP instructs researchers to send a proposal plus a specified number of copies of the proposal to the USUHS Office of Research Administration by a specified date. Proposal packages are reviewed for format, checked for Institutional Review Board (IRB) submission, and processed for distribution to appropriate members of the Scientific Review Panel. This is an ad hoc committee of 18 persons, distributed among the three armed services with representation from the active and reserve components. Each member of the Scientific Review Panel receives a set of materials including the following:

  • copies of all proposals;
Suggested Citation:"Program Execution." Institute of Medicine. 1996. The Program for Research in Military Nursing: Progress and Future Direction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5257.
×
  • master list indicating the proposal number, title of the proposal, name and service affiliation of the principal investigator, and amount of funding requested;
  • review criteria;
  • outline of "review summaries" to be prepared by each primary and secondary reviewer for each proposal;
  • listing of expected contents of review summaries (a brief description of the study, strengths of the proposal, weaknesses of the proposal, relevance to military nursing research, recommendations [including approval, modification, or disapproval and a priority score);
  • a copy of the current RFP; and
  • a list of proposals funded in previous years.
Selection of Scientific Review Panel Members

Each TSNR Group member identifies 6 candidates for the Scientific Review Panel from his or her respective service and component to form a pool of 36 triservice candidates. To be eligible for consideration, the individual must be an active member of the service and component represented by the TSNR Group member, have research knowledge demonstrated by an earned doctorate and research experience, and be available to review grant applications in advance and at the time of the deliberations. Current members of the TSNR Group and individuals who are submitting grants during the current funding cycle are excluded from consideration. An attempt is made to achieve diversity in terms of subject matter, knowledge of research methods, and position (administrative or clinical). Those candidates who can be available are asked for a curriculum vita.

Names, contact information, and curriculum vitae are provided to the program administrator who makes the final decisions regarding the match of proposal content and method with reviewer qualifications and with the stipulation that primary reviewers may not be from the same service as the individual submitting the proposal. The IOM committee notes that the pool of available reviewers is limited by the number of military nurses who meet the qualifications (see Chapter 3, Table 3–1).

In 1992, the decision was made to select only military active-duty and reserve nurses to serve on the annual Scientific Review Panel.

Chair of the Scientific Review Panel

The chair of the Scientific Review Panel is selected by the members of the TSNR Group, based upon service, rank, availability, and capability to manage

Suggested Citation:"Program Execution." Institute of Medicine. 1996. The Program for Research in Military Nursing: Progress and Future Direction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5257.
×

the panel. The chair reviews a smaller number of proposals than other panel members because of additional responsibilities that include ensuring adequate discussion of each proposal; accepting motions; counting votes; and assisting with the preparation of the final report, the vote tally, the "After Action Report" (an analysis of the process with recommendations for future improvements), and summaries for presentation to the corps chief and directors.

Orientation of the Scientific Review Panel

An orientation is held to facilitate group process since the panel members have never before worked as a group. As an ad hoc group, some panelists are first-time reviewers; a few have served on the panel for several years. Some will have attended one or more TSNR Group grants-writing workshops; some will not.

Deliberations and Priority Scoring System

In 1995, the stated purpose of the TSNR Program Scientific Review Panel was to review new and competitive renewal applications requesting funding. Under the direction of the chair, the Scientific Review Panel is expected to judge scientific merit in a manner whereby the integrity of individuals is preserved, proposals are rated, and summary statements cover the assessment of each proposal's scientific and technical merit. All meetings are held at USUHS. Since 1993, reviews have been completed in 3 days.

Meeting content includes

  • discussion regarding conflict of interest and procedures to avoid conflict of interest,
  • a review of the scoring system (see below), and
  • closed-door deliberation of submitted proposals.

During deliberations, the primary and secondary reviewers present an oral review of the proposal. Members are expected to have read and become familiar with each application so that all can enter into the general discussion after written reviews have been presented. Discussion by all members of the Scientific Review Panel is followed by one of three motions (approval, approval with modifications, disapproval), and a voice vote by the entire Scientific Review Panel is recorded by the chair.

The category approval indicates that the application is of sufficient merit to be worthy of support. A vote for approval recommends that an award be made if sufficient funds are available. Reviewers may recommend accepting the

Suggested Citation:"Program Execution." Institute of Medicine. 1996. The Program for Research in Military Nursing: Progress and Future Direction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5257.
×

application as submitted or with adjustments in time, funding, or scope. Budgetary considerations are not be used in determining if an application is to be approved. The category disapproval is to be used for applications that are judged of insufficient merit to be worthy of support.

In 1995, the category approval with modification was used for applications that the Scientific Review Panel considered worthy of funding but judged to require either a minor change, clarification, or more information. These applications were to be managed in one of two ways:

  1. While the Scientific Review Panel was in session, the principal investigator was contacted for the additional information. The panel postponed discussion until the information was received.
  2. The Scientific Review Panel deferred the application because the principal investigator could not be reached or because it needed specific written information.

Three members of the Scientific Review Panel, at least one of whom was the primary or secondary reviewer, were assigned to a rereview panel for each application that was approved with modification. Each rereview panel was convened by teleconference for the discussion of and vote on the approval status of the application.

For approved proposals, each Scientific Review Panel member individually, and privately, records a numerical rating that reflects his or her own opinion of the scientific merit relative to the quality of the proposed research. The numerical rating is based on a scale from 1.0 (best) to 5.0 (the least acceptable rating) with increments of 0.1. If two or more members of the Scientific Review Panel vote against the majority recommendation, a minority critique must be provided.

The executive secretary gives each reviewed proposal a final three-digit score by averaging all reviewer ratings for each recommended application and multiplying each result by 100.

After the Scientific Review Panel meeting, the executive secretary prepares a summary statement of each application by combining written comments, minority critiques, and general Scientific Review Panel discussion notes. These statements become the official documents describing the deliberations of the panel.

Observations, comments, and recommendations are incorporated into After Action Reports after each Scientific Review Panel. These reports are intended to provide a basis for the maturing of the process of review. Generally, findings reported to the committee indicate that the critiques provided by assigned reviewers were through and complete; panel discussions were full, unbiased, and uninhibited; and the Scientific Review Panel had the requisite expertise.

Suggested Citation:"Program Execution." Institute of Medicine. 1996. The Program for Research in Military Nursing: Progress and Future Direction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5257.
×

Recurring observations in After Action Reports may lead to recommendations for consideration by the TSNR Group. Some of the most recent recommendations made by the executive secretary are listed below:

  • Provide more discussion and advance information packets on roles, responsibilities, review criteria, and other issues related to proposal evaluation.
  • Abandon the approval with modification in favor of the critique and a score that reflects the level of enthusiasm for the proposal.
  • Establish and maintain mechanisms to ensure reviewer confidence in her or his scientific judgment of technical and scientific merit.
  • Require a statement of a recommended score range by the primary and secondary reviewers, followed by independent scoring by individual reviewers at the end of the discussion.
  • Use government observers who are independent of the peer review process to help ensure that every proposal receives an adequate, fair, and unbiased review.
  • Review applications from new and experienced investigators separately.
  • Establish multiyear awards.
  • Reaffirm the confidentiality of the proceedings.
  • Identify review panel trainees and invite them to attend the review cycle orientation and to observe the Scientific Review Panel deliberations.

Programmatic Review (Level 2)

Programmatic review is the second level of review, which is conducted by the TSNR Group. Information about programmatic review was provided primarily by the chair of the TSNR Group for 1995. Each TSNR Group member receives the complete set of grant application packets at least by the time they are sent to the Scientific Review Panel. To the extent possible, TSNR Group members observe Scientific Review Panel deliberations.

The 1995 chair of the TSNR Group stated that programmatic review is largely a qualitative endeavor in that the TSNR Group has not ranked the priorities, does not have established rules about funding levels for new and experienced investigators, and does not plan to apportion funding evenly across all services and components. The process used has changed each year.

In 1995, the TSNR Group reviewed each grant individually for the study's purpose, value to military nursing, preliminary Scientific Review Panel summary statement, and budget. The group sometimes overrode budgetary recommendations made by the Scientific Review Panel—most often changing funding for computers and travel. The budget recommended by the TSNR Group was

Suggested Citation:"Program Execution." Institute of Medicine. 1996. The Program for Research in Military Nursing: Progress and Future Direction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5257.
×

approved by consensus for each grant approved by the Scientific Review Panel. Proposals were grouped into thirds using the criteria of military relevance and Scientific Review Panel priority score. Proposals in the first and second tiers were recommended for programmatic approval. Those in the third tier were reviewed again, the scope of work was examined to determine if the aims and thus the budget could be reduced, and they were prioritized for approval until there were no more remaining funds.

Approval by the Nurse Corps Chief and Directors (Level 3)

According to information provided by the 1995 chair of the TSNR Group, final funding approval rests with the Nurse Corps chief and directors. At the annual meeting of the TSNR Group with the chief and directors, the TSNR Group provides updates about the status of the TSNR Program, funds spent or encumbered, funds available, recommendations for grant funding and for dispersal of remaining funds, and various other TSNR Group activities. Recommendations for awarding grants listed applications in order of merit using three categories ranging from the highest level of enthusiasm to a low level of enthusiasm.

Committee Recommendations Concerning the Grant Review Process

The committee commends the TSNR Program for its efforts to establish a process that emphasizes scientific merit as the basis for funding decisions. The committee notes that the intent of the TSNR Program is to model the peer review process after that used by the National Institutes of Health. Nonetheless, the committee has identified a number of ways in which the grant review process can be strengthened. The major recommendations appear below. Further detail is provided in Chapter 5.

  • Appoint a Scientific Review Panel chair who has experience in outside grant reviews and who shows evidence of being a seasoned leader in bringing about consensus and decision making in groups. A chair who has served on outside scientific review panels would help to ensure fair and rigorous review, including the solicitation of critiques by outside experts for topic areas not adequately represented on the panel.
  • Include at least three nonmilitary scientists with experience on outside scientific review panels on the TSNR Program Scientific Review Panel. This action would expand the pool of potential reviewers and make it possible for military panel members to benefit from exposure to scientists with experience on civilian research review panels. This action is consistent with
Suggested Citation:"Program Execution." Institute of Medicine. 1996. The Program for Research in Military Nursing: Progress and Future Direction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5257.
×
  • Major Werley's action to obtain consultation from R. Louise McManus in the early days of Walter Reed Army Medical Center (see Chapter 1).
  • Assign panelists to 3- to 4-year staggered terms. Multiyear terms allow for the building of understanding and trust relationships; optimize the various strengths and expertise of the members; decrease the time required for learning the system and the review process; and facilitate the use of time for making good decisions. Since the panel meets only once yearly, a minimum of a 3-year term is necessary to have a majority of seasoned reviewers on the panel.
  • Discontinue the use of the recommendations to approve, approve with modification, or disapprove as suggested in the 1995 TSNR Program After Action Report. Instead, the panel is encouraged to use a full rating scale to evaluate proposals and establish a pay line to fund meritorious proposals. The committee is especially concerned about the process of approving with modification, which allows deferred review of selected grants by a small number of reviewers.
  • During the annual grant review meeting, review proposals within the same award category as a group, using established criteria for each category, also as recommended in the 1995 After Action Report. This process will help to ensure fair treatment since expectations vary widely for different types of grants. Explicit criteria need to be established in advance for each award category.
  • Conduct Scientific Review Panel meetings privately, with attendance only by the panel, ad hoc members, and the executive secretary. Privacy ensures fairness and mitigates against possible intimidation or the impression of undue influence. It also ensures the separation of peer review for scientific merit from policy decisions related to such issues as program priorities and management.
  • Continue levels 2 and 3 of the review process, always using scientific excellence as the basic requirement for funding.

Research Training

Description

Research training under the TSNR Program is reported to consist of formal and informal mentoring and grants-writing workshops held in 1993, 1994, and 1995. The committee had access to notebooks containing materials for two workshops held in 1995. Review of these notebooks reveals carefully prepared materials, not limited to grants-writing, but also covering training in the research process. The workshops were in essence research tutorials provided over a period of 3 days. Content included the research process, research concepts,

Suggested Citation:"Program Execution." Institute of Medicine. 1996. The Program for Research in Military Nursing: Progress and Future Direction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5257.
×

research design, statistics, sampling techniques, instruments and measurement methods, data processing and analysis, and the formation of science networks. The workshops appear to have offered an opportunity to develop additional methodological skills and cognitive insights and to become part of the community of science, apparently in recognition that some potential applicants may have limited research experience.

Based on attendance lists provided by the TSNR Program, four 3-day grants-writing workshops held in 1994 had attendance ranging from 25 to 37 persons at each workshop. The committee matched names of attendees with names of grantees and unfunded applicants for TSNR Program grants in 1995. Of the 113 nonfaculty persons attending these workshops, 12 (11 percent) subsequently applied for TSNR Program grants. Of the 12 who submitted grant proposals, 5 (42 percent) were funded. The attendees who applied for grants represented 15 percent of all 1995 applicants and 22 percent of grant recipients for that year.

Anecdotal evidence from a small sample of grantees and unfunded applicants indicated that grants-writing workshop dissemination needs to occur more quickly and be planned to reach a broader audience.

Analysis and Recommendations for Improving Research Training

The workshops probably present too much material to absorb over 3 days and, if the participants are relatively inexperienced, not enough attention to first-time grants-writing, preparation of proposals and manuscripts, administration of funded projects, research counseling, and all the maze of details that can easily overwhelm the researcher. Nor is it apparent that there is attention to theoretical orientation, lifelong commitment to the development of knowledge in military nursing by programs of research, or the universal bases for making evaluative judgments about scholarly productivity (publication record, continuing research identity, etc.) that result in guidelines for practice.

A grant proposal sets forth both the exact nature of the matter to be investigated and a detailed account of the methods to be employed. In addition, the proposal usually contains material supporting the importance of the research topic and the appropriateness of the research methods to be employed. Thus, at the very least, more workshop time could be used to explore some common problems in developing proposals and wrestling with the parameters of the problematic nature of research, the search for serviceable hypotheses, the selection of sensitive means of analyzing data, and the creative tasks of study design necessary to produce a high quality proposal. The primary purpose of grants-writing workshops should be to polish skills already possessed.

Suggested Citation:"Program Execution." Institute of Medicine. 1996. The Program for Research in Military Nursing: Progress and Future Direction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5257.
×

The committee recommends that the TSNR Program develop comprehensive mechanisms for research training. This recommendation presumes continued support by the military Nurse Corps for doctoral education and the addition of post-doctoral fellowships for research training. Suggested mechanisms include the following.

Mechanisms for formal and informal mentoring of junior researchers. Several of the grant award categories recommended in Chapter 5 would foster mentoring, but additional mechanisms should be pursued as well.

Workshops on scientific writing. This focus would help military nurse researchers to publish their work in peer-reviewed journals and could also be beneficial in the preparation of future proposals.

Addition of the solicitation of advice and criticism for proposals and the use of mock reviews during the grants-writing workshops. Mock reviews are used widely to assist investigators in improving the quality of their proposals. They are critical analyses patterned after the National Institutes of Health review process but provided by local colleagues and other experts from inside and outside the military. Reviewers serving as knowledgeable skeptics offer commentary, support, coaching, and encouragement. There is precedent in this approach in that some schools of nursing use mock reviews for all extramural research applications. Mock reviews by colleagues help improve research design and interpretation and thus enhance the researcher's ability to develop a high-quality proposal.

Workshops in research methods. The purpose of these workshops would be to help refine the various research skills of junior nurse researchers.

Program Monitoring and Evaluation

Adequate and useful evaluation of programs allows those administering them to know the status of all activities at any point in time and to forecast the program's accomplishments and needs over reasonable time periods. Such capability requires systematic assembly of data and information concerning four aspects of the program: input, process, outcome, and impact. As is common with many new programs, systems for monitoring and evaluating the TSNR Program appear to be in the early stages of development.

Suggested Citation:"Program Execution." Institute of Medicine. 1996. The Program for Research in Military Nursing: Progress and Future Direction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5257.
×

Input Evaluation

Input evaluation requires knowledge of the monetary costs of administering various aspects of the program, personnel time commitments, space and equipment costs, time taken from other activities, etc. Detailed information of this type was not provided to the committee for review.

Process Evaluation

According to information provided to the committee, the TSNR Program has a number of mechanisms in place for evaluating the processes involved in program implementation.

Peer Review Process Evaluation

As described earlier in the discussion of scientific peer review, After Action Reports are written to describe the functioning of the panel and make recommendations to improve the process. Records indicate that many of the recommendations from 1994 and earlier were implemented in 1995. Additional recommendations were made after the 1995 review, but procedures for the 1996 Scientific Review Panel have not yet been announced.

Relevance of Past Grant Awards to Priority Areas

Beginning in FY 1995, the TSNR Program prepared a summary of the number of funded proposals in each of the stated research priorities for that year; the dollar amounts allocated to each priority area were not identified. Chapter 3 presents the committee's examination of this aspect of the program.

Relevance of Past Grant Awards to Military Nursing

Statements of the relevance of the research to military nursing have been required in awardees' final reports and are now being required in the application. Statements from the final reports appear in research monographs that summarize the portfolio of completed projects; however, the committee received no other materials that summarize the results. Review of the statements revealed that the following types of relevance to military nursing were cited frequently by the grantees:

  • increased mission readiness and deployability;
  • improved job satisfaction, reduced turnover;
Suggested Citation:"Program Execution." Institute of Medicine. 1996. The Program for Research in Military Nursing: Progress and Future Direction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5257.
×
  • improved productivity;
  • reduced manpower costs and health care costs;
  • improved patient outcomes;
  • reduced stress for active-duty personnel resulting from improved care of their dependents; and
  • reduced loss of time from work resulting from pregnancy or health problems.

Documentation was not available to describe the production and dissemination of such benefits.

Distribution of Funds

In FY 1992–1995, $9.7 million (88 percent) of the $11 million appropriated for the TSNR Program was distributed to applicants. In 1995, approximately 80 percent of funds were awarded to applicants. The remainder was allocated for conduct of the scientific review panels, grant-writing workshops, and associated travel; subcontracted administrative support (see Box 4-1); this Institute of Medicine study; equipment and supplies; and civilian personnel (<1 percent).

Tables provided by the program suggest that close attention was paid to distribution of awards by service and component. Slightly revised presentations of the available data on the distribution of awards and funds appear in Tables 4-2 and 4-3, respectively.

The committee tabulated the following descriptive statistics about funding levels for the 1-year grants:

  • For the 77 grants funded, the funding level ranged from $3,680 to $750,000.
  • The mean level of funding was $125,654; the median was $74,232.
  • The funding level for 23 of the 77 awards was less than $50,000.
  • The funding level for 21 of the 77 awards was greater than the $125,000 mean.

The committee notes that the 1996 Request for Proposals gives upper limits on funding for experienced investigators as well as for new investigators, which would be expected to reduce the range of the funding levels.

Suggested Citation:"Program Execution." Institute of Medicine. 1996. The Program for Research in Military Nursing: Progress and Future Direction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5257.
×

TABLE 4-2 Number of Proposals Funded by and Submitted to the TriService Nursing Research Program, FY 1992–1995, by Service and Component

 

 

Number

 

 

1992

1993

1994

1995

Total

Service

Component

F

S

F

S

F

S

F

S

F

S

Army

Active

4

19

11

20

13

19

9

36

37

94

 

Reserve

1

9

1

3

5

6

3

15

10

33

 

Guard

0

1

1

2

1

2

0

0

2

5

 

Subtotal

5

29

13

25

19

27

12

51

49

132

Navy

Active

2

15

3

8

3

8

2

4

10

35

 

Reserve

0

2

1

8

0

2

5

11

6

23

 

Subtotal

2

17

4

16

3

10

7

15

16

58

Air Force

Active

0

14

3

12

0

0

1

6

4

32

 

Reserve

1

6

2

6

2

3

3

6

8

21

 

Guard

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

 

Subtotal

1

20

5

18

2

3

4

12

12

53

 

Total

8

66

22

59

24

40

23

78

77

243

Percentage funded

12

 

37

 

60

 

29

 

32

 

NOTE: F = funded; S = submitted.

TABLE 4-3 Proposals Submitted and Awarded, and Funding Requested and Awarded, for the TriService Nursing Research Program, FY 1992–1995

 

Proposals

 

Funds ($ million)

Year

Submitted

Awarded

Requested

Available

Awarded

1992

66

8

4.49

1.0

0.97

1993

59

22

4.17

2.0

1.70

1994

40

24

4.86

3.0

3.07a

1995

78

23

13.71

5.0

3.93

Total

243

77

27.23

11.0

9.67

a Funds had been carried over from FY 1993.

Suggested Citation:"Program Execution." Institute of Medicine. 1996. The Program for Research in Military Nursing: Progress and Future Direction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5257.
×
Academic Preparation of Awardees

The committee examined the academic preparation of the grant recipients across the 4 years of funding (Table 4-4). More than half of the successful applicants were prepared at the master's level only. Although available data were not conclusive, it appeared that a minimum of 9 and up to 11 of these master's-prepared grantees were enrolled in doctoral programs. One of the three awardees with only baccalaureate-level preparation was a predoctoral candidate, and the other two were students, but their course of study was not clearly identified. A majority of the awardees who were students were active-duty service members.

Reporting Requirements

To monitor the progress of research, the TSNR Program has instituted a number of reporting requirements, which include the following:

  • The recipient must report any proposed changes in the principal investigator or continuation of the project in excess of 3 months without the participation of the principal investigator.
  • A progress report must be submitted within 6 months of receipt of award contract.
  • The progress report must include a summary of scientific and technical progress; a copy of the original budget; and information on disbursements, obligations, and commitments relative to personnel, supplies, and equipment.

TABLE 4-4 Academic Achievement of Grant Recipients in the TriService Nursing Research Program, FY 1992–1995a

 

Doctoral Degree

Master's Degree

Bachelor's/Other

Year

Ph.D.

D.N.Sc.

Ed.D.

M.S.N.

M.S.

M.A.

M.B.A.

B.S.

Unspecified

1992

1

2

0

3

1

0

0

0

1

1993

7

2

0

12

0

0

0

1

0

1994

8

2

1

10

0

1

0

2

0

1995

6

4

1

9

0

0

1

1

1

Total

22

10

2

34

1

1

1

4

2

a Table indicates the highest degree level achieved by the grant recipients at the time of application.

Suggested Citation:"Program Execution." Institute of Medicine. 1996. The Program for Research in Military Nursing: Progress and Future Direction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5257.
×
  • The final report must be submitted within 90 days of contract expiration.
  • The final report must include a summary of scientific and technical results; any publications or presentations resulting from the grant; specific aims accomplished and their significance to military nursing; a financial status report (form SF 269); a Grantee's Release Form; and a Grantee's Assignment of Refunds, Rebates, and Credits Form.

Institute of Medicine staff had access to selected information in TSNR Program files at USUHS. Using standardized data collection forms, project staff abstracted data from files of 76 funded applicants (one was missing at the time of data collection). Data abstraction was conducted to obtain documented evidence about transfers of the principal investigator, requests for no-cost extensions, completed studies, self-reports of publications and presentations, and other matters relevant to process and outcome evaluation. Data were compiled, and results covering transfers, no-cost extensions, interim reports, and study completion for FY 1992–1994 are summarized in Table 4-5.

Data in Table 4-5 clearly indicate the common use of no-cost extensions by grantees. The grantees' files contain documentation of the need for additional time to complete projects. In at least one instance, the study was interrupted while the principal investigator was deployed to another country. Transfers and deployment are factors that may hamper study completion by military nurse

TABLE 4-5 Summary of Key Parameters of Grant Recipients and Their Studies for the TriService Nursing Research Groupa

 

PIb Transferred During Study

No-Cost Extension

Interim Report Filed

Study Completed

 

Year

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yesc

Nod

Unknowne

1992

0

8

1

7

8

0

8

0

0

1993

3

18

17

5

11

11

6

5

11

1994

3

21

25

9

19

5

1

13

10

a At the time of this writing, 1995 data are not yet available. The total number of grant recipients for FY 1992–1994 was 54.

b PI = principal investigator.

c Verifiable completion of the grant agreement, including submission of a final report.

d All 18 in this category have been granted extensions and are pending at the time of this writing.

e The termination date for theses studies has passed, but there is no record of closure.

Suggested Citation:"Program Execution." Institute of Medicine. 1996. The Program for Research in Military Nursing: Progress and Future Direction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5257.
×

researchers. Principal investigators responded to transfers by making arrangements for continuation of the projects by a different principal investigator or, if feasible, requesting no-cost extensions to allow completion of the project when time could be made available.

The committee concluded that TSNR Program records showed evidence of a need for additional monitoring. Interim reports were missing for 30 percent of the completed studies although reminder letters had been sent. The available documentation made it impossible to determine whether or not 21 of the studies had been completed even though their termination dates had passed. The newly subcontracted services (see Box 4-1) appear to be intended to improve program monitoring.

Outcome Evaluation

Publications and Presentations

Listings of publications and presentations are included in monographs compiled by staff of the TSNR Program. Although the results of many studies have been reported in poster sessions and research symposia, program files provided the title of only one journal publication that appears to have resulted from TSNR Program grants. However, because of the need for no-cost extensions, few studies had been completed before the end of FY 1994, and several were said to be in preparation or submitted.

A small amount of anecdotal evidence of outcomes was provided by a randomly selected group of nine grantees, only three of whom had completed their studies before 1995 (see Appendix A).

Value of Past Efforts in Mentoring New Investigators

Since the only information available about the mentoring of new investigators was provided in anecdotal form by grantees and by the chief of the Army Nurse Corps, the committee concludes that additional efforts are needed to develop relationships between new investigators and experienced investigators in nursing research and related disciplines.

Impact Evaluation

No impact evaluation has been conducted. This part of the evaluation process must evolve as part of the overall implementation of a comprehensive evaluation plan.

Suggested Citation:"Program Execution." Institute of Medicine. 1996. The Program for Research in Military Nursing: Progress and Future Direction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5257.
×

Conclusions and Recommendations Concerning Program Monitoring and Evaluation

The committee recognizes that the TSNR Program has implemented several forms of process evaluation, the most highly developed of which is the After Action Report that follows the Scientific Review Panel. However, it is clear that a comprehensive evaluation plan has not yet been implemented.

  • The committee recommends the early development and implementation of a plan for ongoing monitoring and evaluation of the TriService Nursing Research Program. Recommended basic elements of such a plan are presented in Chapter 5. Data files should be established to facilitate analysis and reporting.
  • In addition, the committee strongly urges the TSNR Group to monitor and report on the progress and outcomes of the program within 3 years and at regular intervals thereafter, as documented by systematic criteria that include evidence of peer-reviewed research publications and applications to practice.

Summary

The committee recognizes that substantial progress has been made in managing the TSNR Program under very tight deadlines with limited resources. This chapter describes the administration of the program, the dissemination and evolution of Requests for Proposals, the grant review process, research training offered by the program, and program monitoring and evaluation. It also includes recommendations for improving scientific peer review, research training, and program evaluation and monitoring.

In addition, this chapter provides the basis for the following recommendations.

  • Appoint a full-time director for the TSNR Program, preferably a doctorally prepared military nurse researcher, to be housed at USUHS with adequate support staff. To be done properly, research program administration requires the commitment of time and resources, scientific oversight, and the creation of partnerships that foster an environment that is conducive to maintaining and nurturing productive interactions among colleagues and the use of information and communication technologies. Ideally, the director would continue conducting research on a part-time basis.
  • Establish a consistent date for grant submission. The committee believes that military nursing research would be best served if the TSNR
Suggested Citation:"Program Execution." Institute of Medicine. 1996. The Program for Research in Military Nursing: Progress and Future Direction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5257.
×
  • Program were treated as an ongoing program. It applauds early announcement of the possible availability of TSNR Program grant funds in FY 1996. It is easier to postpone starting dates than to postpone dates for submission and review of proposals.
  • Continue to enhance the distribution and timeliness of information about the program, the availability of program money for grants, and the schedule of grants-writing workshops or other research training mechanisms. The use of electronic means for more widespread distribution should be considered, along with the preparation of notices for selected nursing and other journals.
  • Explore ways for the three services to standardize, to the fullest extent possible, the Institutional Review Board process across military installations to facilitate multisite nursing research and proposal submission.

With regard to the delayed completion of many of the funded studies, the committee makes the following observations:

1.  

Negotiated assignments for active-duty funded researchers would be a positive step toward supporting a productive military nursing research effort. With some exceptions, the work of nursing research in the military is done in conjunction with other job responsibilities. It appears that the commitment of military nurses to research has been a key factor in conducting research while also fulfilling other demanding job expectations. Some grantees stated that they had been able to negotiate time reserved for research activities. Some have used grant money to support a staff that could complete the study under the grantee's supervision. The chief of the Army Nurse Corps states that Army nurse investigators typically have approximately a 10 percent release time from their official jobs to conduct research (B.H. Simmons, Army Nurse Corps, Falls Church, Va., memorandum dated February 15, 1996). Stabilization of assignments is not a new issue in the military, and protocols have been developed to address this matter. Therefore, the needs of specific researchers should be addressed under such protocols.

2.  

A firmly established multiyear funding base would encourage and enhance focused research and development efforts that transcend any one corps. Such a base is essential for effective forward planning, efficient operation, and highest return on DOD investment.

The following chapter presents the committee's conclusions and recommendations.

Suggested Citation:"Program Execution." Institute of Medicine. 1996. The Program for Research in Military Nursing: Progress and Future Direction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5257.
×

References

Henry M. Jackson Foundation. 1996. Homepage at http://www.hjf.org/, 24 April.


USUHS (Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences). 1996. USUHS Mission Statement at http://www.usuhs.mil/, 8 April.

Suggested Citation:"Program Execution." Institute of Medicine. 1996. The Program for Research in Military Nursing: Progress and Future Direction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5257.
×
This page in the original is blank.
Suggested Citation:"Program Execution." Institute of Medicine. 1996. The Program for Research in Military Nursing: Progress and Future Direction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5257.
×
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"Program Execution." Institute of Medicine. 1996. The Program for Research in Military Nursing: Progress and Future Direction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5257.
×
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"Program Execution." Institute of Medicine. 1996. The Program for Research in Military Nursing: Progress and Future Direction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5257.
×
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"Program Execution." Institute of Medicine. 1996. The Program for Research in Military Nursing: Progress and Future Direction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5257.
×
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"Program Execution." Institute of Medicine. 1996. The Program for Research in Military Nursing: Progress and Future Direction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5257.
×
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"Program Execution." Institute of Medicine. 1996. The Program for Research in Military Nursing: Progress and Future Direction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5257.
×
Page 56
Suggested Citation:"Program Execution." Institute of Medicine. 1996. The Program for Research in Military Nursing: Progress and Future Direction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5257.
×
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"Program Execution." Institute of Medicine. 1996. The Program for Research in Military Nursing: Progress and Future Direction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5257.
×
Page 58
Suggested Citation:"Program Execution." Institute of Medicine. 1996. The Program for Research in Military Nursing: Progress and Future Direction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5257.
×
Page 59
Suggested Citation:"Program Execution." Institute of Medicine. 1996. The Program for Research in Military Nursing: Progress and Future Direction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5257.
×
Page 60
Suggested Citation:"Program Execution." Institute of Medicine. 1996. The Program for Research in Military Nursing: Progress and Future Direction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5257.
×
Page 61
Suggested Citation:"Program Execution." Institute of Medicine. 1996. The Program for Research in Military Nursing: Progress and Future Direction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5257.
×
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"Program Execution." Institute of Medicine. 1996. The Program for Research in Military Nursing: Progress and Future Direction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5257.
×
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"Program Execution." Institute of Medicine. 1996. The Program for Research in Military Nursing: Progress and Future Direction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5257.
×
Page 64
Suggested Citation:"Program Execution." Institute of Medicine. 1996. The Program for Research in Military Nursing: Progress and Future Direction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5257.
×
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"Program Execution." Institute of Medicine. 1996. The Program for Research in Military Nursing: Progress and Future Direction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5257.
×
Page 66
Suggested Citation:"Program Execution." Institute of Medicine. 1996. The Program for Research in Military Nursing: Progress and Future Direction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5257.
×
Page 67
Suggested Citation:"Program Execution." Institute of Medicine. 1996. The Program for Research in Military Nursing: Progress and Future Direction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5257.
×
Page 68
Suggested Citation:"Program Execution." Institute of Medicine. 1996. The Program for Research in Military Nursing: Progress and Future Direction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5257.
×
Page 69
Suggested Citation:"Program Execution." Institute of Medicine. 1996. The Program for Research in Military Nursing: Progress and Future Direction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5257.
×
Page 70
Suggested Citation:"Program Execution." Institute of Medicine. 1996. The Program for Research in Military Nursing: Progress and Future Direction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5257.
×
Page 71
Suggested Citation:"Program Execution." Institute of Medicine. 1996. The Program for Research in Military Nursing: Progress and Future Direction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5257.
×
Page 72
Suggested Citation:"Program Execution." Institute of Medicine. 1996. The Program for Research in Military Nursing: Progress and Future Direction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5257.
×
Page 73
Suggested Citation:"Program Execution." Institute of Medicine. 1996. The Program for Research in Military Nursing: Progress and Future Direction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5257.
×
Page 74
Suggested Citation:"Program Execution." Institute of Medicine. 1996. The Program for Research in Military Nursing: Progress and Future Direction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5257.
×
Page 75
Suggested Citation:"Program Execution." Institute of Medicine. 1996. The Program for Research in Military Nursing: Progress and Future Direction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5257.
×
Page 76
Next: Conclusions and Recommendations »
The Program for Research in Military Nursing: Progress and Future Direction Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $45.00 Buy Ebook | $36.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

High-quality nursing care is essential to obtaining favorable patient outcomes, no less so in military than in civilian settings. Military nursing research focuses on enhancing health care delivery systems and processes to improve clinical outcomes, to advance the practice of military nursing in support of mission readiness and deployment, and to improve the health status and quality of life of military personnel and their beneficiaries.

This volume reviews the military nursing research program of the TriService Nursing Research Program in terms of its management, funding, allocation of resources, and identification of program goals. The book also contains the results of that study and the committee's recommendations.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!