Top Ten: Things to Remember in Planning Imaging Informatics-Related Research - SIIM News Winter 2010

Nancy Knight, PhD

The recent whirlwind of federal funding efforts as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided numerous proposal solicitations with short deadlines and sometimes ill-defined specifications. Many, particularly those from agencies associated with the Department of Health and Human Services, include elements that call for the skills of imaging and informatics specialists. Others require a good bit of creative tweaking in the grantwriting process to make medical imaging relevant to the solicitation. The key to responding successfully has been speed and preparedness (often referred to as being “shovel ready”).

For many in imaging informatics, however, the result has been a feeling that promising funding possibilities appear and disappear before appropriate responses can be prepared. The following top 10 things to remember are applicable in planning for any funding submission but are particularly handy to have as references in imaging informatics to ensure that promising mechanisms are identified and that fast responses are well prepared.

1. Have questions ready that are meaningful to funders. It is important to connect informatics skills with outcomes that are significant to the funding agency. Even the most extraordinary IT innovation, for example, will do little to impress National Institutes of Health review boards if the proposal does not make a convincing argument that its use will illuminate a specific aspect of health and disease and yield quantifiable patient outcomes. Every imaging informatics specialist should cultivate an area of medical expertise in which he or she has a genuine interest in pursuing research questions that are important to advances in the field.

2. Nurture truly collegial multi-disciplinary partnerships that include a place at the table. Perhaps the biggest danger for imaging informaticists in grant participation is finding themselves marginalized as glorified tech support. If data management and manipulation are all that is being supplied in support of a multidisciplinary partnership, the imaging informaticist loses on 3 counts: (a) he or she does not receive PI or co-PI credit; (b) the department loses out on overhead that would otherwise come with the funding; and (c) he or she is not participating in the academic aspects of the research, advancing as a knowledge leader, or showcasing informatics to best advantage.

3. Think outside the box. Opportunities for imaging informatics funding are often “hidden” in funding announcements -- experienced researchers know that part of the grantwriting task lies in convincing reviewers that the proposed project may not be exactly what was envisioned when the solicitation was written but will, in fact, serve to advance knowledge and enhance future research. A solicitation that calls for research on injuries in elderly individuals, for example, might not explicitly include anything on imaging OR informatics, but a well-prepared researcher could propose the creation of an open access multi-institutional database of images of elderly trauma patients that could be mined to illuminate various aspects of trauma, treatment, and recovery.

4. Think outside the vendor stack. Make sure that proposed research has relevance outside of the proprietary configuration in which the study will be conducted. Differences in vendor systems, requirements, algorithms, and interfaces were for many years the rate-limiting factors for imaging informatics funding efforts. Although a number of activities are underway to bridge these differences, the most appealing funding proposals offer some assurance that any positive results will have relevance across the widest range of users.

5. Plan for institutional review board (IRB) hurdles. Most solicitations do not require IRB approval in place at the time of proposal submission. However, it is wise to write the initial proposal with the known challenges of specific institutional IRBs in mind. (A top 10+ list of IRB challenges probably springs automatically to the minds of imaging informaticists who regularly submit research plans for review.) If, for example, an institution has previously barred the transfer of even deidentified and anonymized studies to commercial entities, it is unwise to promise this capability in a proposal and then be unable to go forward with the funded work.

6. Have knowledgeable statistical support available -- and use it. Many imaging informaticists have long and productive relationships with statisticians who are familiar with the specific requirements of the field and understand that statistical variables associated with imaging studies are quite different from those in other research. These statisticians participate from the outset in proposal planning and preparation. This not only strengthens proposals but also provides continuity throughout studies.

7. Identify a source or sources for qualified grant personnel. Some medical schools have a ready pool of scientist colleagues, graduate research assistants, research managers, and other support personnel at nearby universities. Most funding initiatives do not require that all support personnel be named in the initial proposal (TBD is the most frequent filler), but well-prepared researchers cultivate these contacts so that a new and qualified project team can be pulled together quickly.

8. Cultivate knowledgeable and helpful administrative support throughout the institution. Department research administrators, deans’ office personnel, and research and development administrators know the answers to all the nuts-and-bolts questions about budgets, electronic formats, and successfully getting proposals out the door and appropriately filed with funding agencies. Active communication, advance notice of intentions to file, and reliance on their expertise can streamline the submission process and provide vital contacts for those inevitable last-minute filing bottlenecks.

9. Work with department and institutional leadership to identify incentives for clinical participation in research. This is a difficult task, but essential to ongoing partnerships that use imaging informatics to yield clinical results. Although a few universities have tangible incentives (discretionary funds, for example) for clinicians who participate in research, most do not. The result, particularly in the current financial climate in imaging, is that most radiologists have little or no reason to suspend the most lucrative effort (interpreting images) to pursue the less predictable and more time-consuming quest for research support.

10. Take the long view. The time constraints of completing proposal preparation -- particularly for some of the short-notice solicitations of 2009 and that we anticipate for 2010 -- often result in a series of either repetitive (the same idea in different guises) or disconnected research proposals. It is helpful even in the hectic process of getting together biosketches, letters of support, budgets, research narratives, and other materials to pause and ask whether the proposal at hand is part of a bigger research picture. Is the research congruent with other projects in the department? If the proposal is successful, what direction will/should future studies and expansions take? For the individual researcher, is it part of a coherent career path of growing discovery?

Nancy Knight, PhD, is an assistant professor in the Department of Diagnostic Radiology and Nuclear Medicine at the University of Maryland School of Medicine, where she is the director of academic and research development.

Return to Top