National Academy of Sciences | 150 Year Anniversary

Questions? Call 800-624-6242

| Items in cart [0]

The National Academies Press

PAPERBACK
price:$41.25
add to cart

Rights & Permissions

topleft topright

Linking Research and Public Health Practice: A Review of CDC's Program of Centers for Research and Demonstration of Health Promotion and Disease Prevention (1997)
Institute of Medicine (IOM)

Citation Manager

. "Appendix C Protocol for Site Visits and Telephone Interviews, June 1996." Linking Research and Public Health Practice: A Review of CDC's Program of Centers for Research and Demonstration of Health Promotion and Disease Prevention. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 1997.

Please select a format:

BibTeX EndNote RefMan


Page
86
bottomleft bottomright

The following HTML text is provided to enhance online readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML. Please use the page image as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.


Linking Research and Public Health Practice: A Review of CDC's Program of Centers for Research and Demonstration of Health Promotion and Disease Prevention

SIP Funding

  1. How did you become involved in funding a SIP?

  2. Please describe the topic, development of the RFA, the type of proposals you received, and the selection process. (PROBE: Was the project “wired” for a specific center? Did centers play a role in crafting the RFA?)

  3. Which center was awarded the SIP? What was your experience with the project?

  4. Have you been involved in other SIP projects? Would you consider working with the centers program again?

  5. From the perspective, what are the opportunities and limitations of SIPs relative to other funding mechanisms?

  6. How could the SIP process be improved to better serve your purpose and to foster the centers work and mission?

(PROBE: Could there be more lead time?—Perhaps a list of “tentative” project areas could be distributed early for discussion.

Could there be more “network” SIPs, which seem to work well for centers in that they allow the topic to be framed with input from centers?

Could the reviews be improved?—Centers have stated that the reviews are very general and do not provide useful feedback.

At times, the quality of the review is lacking—erroneous comments supplied. Some centers think specific SIPs are “wired” and this information is not communicated to all centers, leading to wasted efforts in proposal development.)

CDC Atlanta, July 2, 1996

Participants included the following staff from CDC: James Barrow, Don Benken, Barbara Bewerse, Sarah Kuester, Dan Miller, David McQueen, Kate McQueen, Michael Pratt, Patricia Riley, and Jean Smith.

Page
86