Health Equity Research Network (HERN) on Improving Access to Care and other Health Inequities in Rural America

GENERAL OVERVIEW – The HERN on Rural Health will be a single network that will include multiple projects. An overall project plan will be developed by self-identified sites and submitted to the AHA as a coordinated submission. Proposed projects are expected to have a common fundamental theme that will assess intervention(s) and/or approaches that address rural health disparities. All aspects of the network application (each project and the Coordinating Center) will be reviewed as a collective program. The successful network application will be one wherein each project and the Coordinating Center are judged to be exemplary, and thus all components will be funded -- either the entire network (with some possible budgetary adjustments) will be funded, or the entire network will not be funded.

PROJECTS - Each network application will include five projects. Each project will be at a distinct institution, and each will be led by a project principal investigator (PI). Each project must have the necessary research team, required infrastructure and ability to recruit and retain a diverse group of study participants, if applicable.

COORDINATING CENTER – During development of the network application, the project PIs will designate one individual as the HERN Coordinating Center PI. The Coordinating Center PI is not required to also be a Project PI, but this individual will be at one of the institutions submitting a project application and will have some scientific role in a project. The Coordinating Center PI will have an additional set of responsibilities to coordinate the efforts of the funded projects, facilitate and manage communication among the HERN project awardees, and establish collaborations and resource sharing as appropriate. The Coordinating Center PI will coordinate the dissemination of all findings resulting from this award mechanism. And whereas each site will have its own budget (see Award Details section below) and be separately awarded a grant from the AHA, the Coordinating Center PI will be responsible for collation and submission of annual progress reports to the AHA (see Interim Assessment section below).

• Research on the effectiveness of digital medicine or other technological approaches in different rural areas and/or populations
• Studies to understand the most effective types and configurations of clinicians and community-based practitioners to support the needs of one or more distinct rural populations
• Development and assessment of rural-specific quality and outcome measures to inform value-based reimbursement models
• Development and assessment of a ‘Levels of Care’ (similar to Levels of Maternal Care) or other care regionalization approach to identify the best location for patient care based on individual risk level

A network may address a single research approach using one or more study populations or study targets with possible inclusion of comparator study arms. Alternatively, a network may propose to address multiple approaches that are closely aligned thematically. Regardless of the study approach, successful applications will clearly convey the ability to address rural health disparities.

Additional Expectations and Opportunities

• Each network  must include at least one project that incorporates the use of community-based participatory research (CBPR) into its research design.

• The use of technology in at least one of the projects (e.g., health applications, wearables/sensors, telehealth, or telemedicine solutions) is strongly encouraged.

• In keeping with the AHA’s commitment to supporting diverse researchers and institutions, each network  must meet at least one of the following conditions. A letter will be required as part of the required pre-proposal confirming that the institution meets these conditions:

A. Academic institutions that primarily educate/train individuals from groups who are under-represented in the sciences (e.g., Historically Black Colleges and Universities [HBCUs], Tribal Colleges and Universities [TCUs], institutions who serve Hispanic students as a majority of their population) or from investigators at a non-research-intensive institution as defined by NIH (an average of less than $7.5M in total NIH funding over the past three fiscal years)

OR

B. Other non-federal, non-profit institutions that primarily provide services to historically under-served populations (e.g., a Federally Qualified Health Center [FQHC] and/or a Rural Health Clinic [RCH])

OR

C. If not originating from one of the categories noted in A or B, networks must partner with an institution from one of the categories noted in the preceding paragraphs. Investigators from these partnering institutions must be included in a substantive manner (see Projects section below).

• At least 25% of research team key personnel must be from a group or groups under-represented in science and medicine (Black/African American; Hispanic/Latino; Native American or Alaska Native; Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander; LGBTQ+; women, military veterans, and/or individuals with disabilities). Projects with principal investigators who are under-represented in science and medicine are strongly encouraged.

• Each project MUST name at least two full-time (≥75% FTE) pre- or postdoctoral trainees during the award term.

a. At least 50% of the trainees named to each project must be from a racial or ethnic group that is under-represented in science (Black/African American; Hispanic/Latino; American Indian or Alaska Native; and/or Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander), an LGBTQ+ person, or a woman).

b. There is no salary cap for trainees; however, the minimum salary of $65,000/year for post-doctoral trainees and $32,036/year for pre-doctoral trainees (including fringe) must be met. The institution may supplement funding, if desired.

• Additionally, at least one early-career faculty member (assistant professor or equivalent) must be included in a substantive manner during the award period.

Duration: Four years

Number of Awards: The AHA will fund one HERN comprised of five projects and one Coordinating Center. Each institution that has a funded project will receive an award directly from the American Heart Association. The HERN awardees will be selected based on scientific merit and how each proposal aligns with the AHA’s mission and goals.

Award Amount: The maximum budget amount that may be awarded to the network is $20 million, including funds to support the Coordinating Center responsibilities, and indirect costs of 10% maximum for all projects and the Coordinating Center. The AHA reserves the right to determine the final award amount for competitive projects based on need and potential impact.
There is no requirement that all sites receive an equal allocation of the total available budget. However, all sites must meaningfully contribute to the overall network outcomes. As such, it is expected that all sites will have a reasonable portion of the total funds available to the network.

Appropriate Budget Items:
All budgeted items must be justified explicitly in the application. Broad categories of allowable costs for both the Project Sites and the Coordinating Center include the following:

• Salary and fringe benefits for the Project PIs, collaborating investigator(s), and other participating research staff or trainees.
  • Each Project PI is expected to commit a minimum of 10% time.
  • There is no salary cap; however, salary must be commensurate with experience and level of effort.
  • Naming of Project Co-PIs is acceptable for this funding mechanism; however, one person must be named in the application in ProposalCentral as PI and take full responsibility for the role, including committing the requisite minimum percent effort.
• Non-salary project-related expenses, such as study medication (if proposed), supplies and consumables, funds to offset costs incurred by study participants, equipment, travel, and publication costs in accordance with institutional and AHA policies.
• Travel/meetings: PIs will use award dollars to pay for required face-to-face (as feasible), network-wide meetings and other meetings where HERN research is presented. It is anticipated that one or two face-to-face meetings will be held each year at which awardees will share results, discuss best practices, challenges to progress, developing opportunities, etc. Project PIs should anticipate hosting these meetings on a rotating basis; alternatively, a network may propose all meetings be held at the Coordinating Center. In that event, costs related to hosting should be included in the Coordinating Center’s budget. More information about planned face-to-face meetings will be provided upon award. (Note that in addition to these face-to-face meetings, the Coordinating Center plan should include frequently recurring virtual meetings).
• Maximum of 10% institutional indirect costs may be claimed on the award.

Coordinating Center

• Salary and fringe benefits for the Coordinating Center PI, collaborating investigator(s), and other participating research staff or trainees.
  • The Coordinating Center PI is expected to commit a minimum of 10% effort for responsibilities specifically associated with the Coordinating Center.
  • NOTE: If one individual serves as both a Project PI and the Coordinating Center PI, that individual will be expected to devote at least 20% effort to these responsibilities (i.e., at least 10% for role as the Project PI and at least 10% for role as Coordinating Site/Center PI).
• Non-salary expenses related to the activities of the Coordinating Center, such as supplies and consumables, tele- and web-based communications costs, equipment, travel, and publication costs in accordance with institutional and AHA policies.

Each PI will be responsible for overseeing the total budget for their award. The PIs and the institution assume an obligation to expend grant funds for the research purposes set forth in the application and in accordance with all regulations and policies governing the research programs of the AHA.

In the event of potential performance issues at a particular site, the Coordinating Center PI, in consultation with the Oversight Advisory Committee and AHA staff, may request to rebudget across sites to ensure optimal progress of the network. Any potential rebudgeting would only occur with explicit, written approval of the AHA.

RELEVANT POLICIES AND REQUIREMENTS

Applicants should review the Characteristics of All AHA Awards for answers to commonly asked questions about eligibility and award details.

Eligibility of Coordinating Center PI

• Must hold a doctoral-level degree.
• Must hold a faculty-rank position of any level. This award is not intended for trainees.

Eligibility of Project PIs 

• Must hold a doctoral-level degree, or comparable credentials and experience documenting the ability to effectively lead the proposed project.
• Must hold a faculty-rank position of any level, or comparable research-related position from any project application originating from a non-academic institution. 

Other: The projects described can have no scientific or budgetary overlap with other funded work. Any inventions, intellectual property, and patents resulting from this funding are governed by the AHA Intellectual Property Policy for Research Funding EXCEPT to the extent modified by specific Intellectual Property terms for this award mechanism, including financial terms, which will be communicated to awardees following the review process. The applicant/awardee and institution are responsible for compliance with all AHA research award policies and guidelines for the duration of any awards they may receive. Visit the Research Programs Awards Policies page for more information on this topic: AHA Policies Governing All Research Awards.

Refer to Format/Type Requirements for All Documents below

Project Grant Applicant

• Applicant/PI Biosketch (5 pages)
• Template for Budget Justification (DOC) (2 pages)
• Template for Research Project Environment (DOC) (2 pages)
• Research Plan (12 pages) – See Peer Review Phase I below for the criteria against which the proposal will be evaluated
• Literature Cited in Proposal (4 pages)
• Summary for Non-scientists/Lay Summary - The lay summary is not a document to be uploaded, rather it is entered through form fields in ProposalCentral. We list it here so the applicant may be aware that this is required.
• All project professionals listed in third party (i.e., Co-PIs, Co-Is, Collaborators) personnel must submit a biosketch

Please note for ANY Biosketch: The AHA will accept biosketches with or without the NIH’s changes that took effect on January 25, 2022. Use your NIH biosketch NIH OMB No. 0925-0001 and 0925-0002 (Rev. 03/2020 approved through 02/28/2023). It is not necessary to reformat to AHA page specifications.

Coordinating Center Applicant

• Applicant/PI Biosketch (5 pages)
• Template for Budget Justification (DOC) (2 pages)
• Infrastructure to Support Coordinating Center (2 pages)
• Coordinating Center Vision and Approach to Foster Synergy and Collaboration (8 pages)  
• Coordinating Center PI Qualifications (2 pages)
• Literature Cited in Proposal (4 pages)
• All project professionals listed in third party (i.e., Project PIs, Collaborating Investigators, Consultants) personnel must submit a biosketch
• Submitted Pre-Proposal Form and Institutional Letter (4 pages)
• Summary for Non-scientists/Lay Summary - The lay summary is not a document to be uploaded, rather it is entered through form fields in ProposalCentral. We list it here so the applicant may be aware that this is required.

Please note for ANY Biosketch: The AHA will accept biosketches with or without the NIH’s changes that took effect on January 25, 2022. Use your NIH biosketch NIH OMB No. 0925-0001 and 0925-0002 (Rev. 03/2020 approved through 02/28/2023). It is not necessary to reformat to AHA page specifications.

• Only Portable Document Format (PDF) files will be accepted.
• File must be single-spaced.
• No more than 15 characters per inch (cpi) or an average of no more than 15 cpi (cpi includes symbols, punctuation and spaces).
• No less than ¾" margins allowed.
• Sixty lines per page is the maximum allowed.
• Arial Font style, 12 point font size for Windows users; Helvetica Font style, 12 point font size for Macintosh users

Figures, charts, tables, graphics and legends may be smaller in size but must be clear and legible

Users of other word processing programs must adjust settings appropriately and should measure text after saving and printing as a PDF. Type requirements should be checked using a standard measuring device (such as a ruler), rather than relying on the font selected for a particular word processing/printer combination. Type size specifications must be observed in the text of your research plan or the application will not be reviewed and will be withdrawn. Adherence to font and margin requirements is necessary. No applicant should have an advantage over other applicants by providing more content in his/her application by using smaller, denser type. The AHA has the responsibility to make the final determination of conformance to format requirements and the authority to withdraw applications. This decision is final and not subject to appeal.

Internet Web site addresses (URLs) may not be used to provide information necessary to the review because reviewers are under no obligation to view the Internet sites. Moreover, the reviewers are cautioned not to directly access an Internet site as it could compromise their anonymity.

The only place a URL may be used is in the biographical sketch as described in the instructions for that form. Provide a URL to a full list of your published work as found in a publicly available digital database such as SciENcv or My Bibliography, which are maintained by the US National Library of Medicine.

Type the research plan specifically following the outline given below, in the same sequence. All items should be addressed. Indicate N/A or None if not applicable to this application. The entire proposed research plan must not exceed the 12-page limit.

Specific Aims 
Provide a clear, concise summary of the aims of the work proposed. State the hypothesis to be tested.

Background and Significance
Sketch the background leading to this application. Summarize important results outlined by others in the same field, critically evaluating existing knowledge. Literature referenced will be included in the Literature Cited upload (4-page limit).

Identify gaps which this project is intended to fill. If the aims of the application are achieved, how will scientific knowledge or clinical practice be advanced?

State concisely the importance on advancing the understanding of approaches and factors underlying the crisis of health inequities in rural America. How will the studies improve this area?

Previous Work of Applicant 
Concisely describe previous work related to the proposed research by the applicant that will help to establish the experience and competence of the investigator to pursue the proposed project. If applicable, include pilot studies showing the work is feasible.

Research Design and Methods 
Description of proposed tests, methods or procedures should be explicit, sufficiently detailed, and well defined to allow adequate evaluation of the approach to the problem. Describe any new methodology and its advantage over existing methodologies.

Clearly describe overall design of the study, with careful consideration to statistical aspects of the approach, the adequacy of controls, and number of observations, as well as how results will be analyzed. Include any collaborative arrangements that have been made.

Discuss the potential difficulties and limitations of the proposed procedures and alternative approaches to achieve the aims.

All proposed projects must include human subjects who are underrepresented and/or underserved regarding healthcare delivery.  The proportion of subjects should be reflective of their representation in the community and must focus on bringing forward possible solutions for the disparity in health of rural populations. 

Ethical Aspects of the Proposed Research 
Describe any special consideration you have given to all ethical issues involved in your proposed investigations (biohazards or human subjects, etc.), identifying risks and management. Be sure to address this topic. Discuss the nature of the informed consent that will be obtained if the research involves human subjects. If the proposed project involves no ethical questions, indicate "none."

Notice: A document that exceeds the page limit or file type will be rejected by ProposalCentral.

Literature Cited (4-page maximum)

List all literature citations for your Project Plan. Citation references should be limited to relevant and current literature; be concise and select only those references cited in the Project Plan. This section is intended ONLY for your citations, and no other materials.

Literature citations should be marked in the text of the Proposed Project Plan. The mark may be a number or letter. You may use superscript, such as1 or a bracket [1]. When citing specific sections or page numbers, you may indicate these with superscript, such as 1, pp. 345-361 or within the bracket [1, pp. 345-361]. The works cited should not be listed in the Proposed Project Plan. Full and complete citations with marks that correspond to those in the Proposed Project Plan are to be listed in this “Literature Cited” upload of up to four pages.

Standard abbreviations are acceptable with two exceptions: full titles and full paging must be provided. 

Each reference must list:

• Corresponding mark in the Proposed Project Plan
• Authors in the same order as they appear on the paper (list all or up to 15)
• Full Title
• Name of the book or journal
• Volume number
• Page numbers
• Year of publication

Upload your completed document within ProposalCentral as a PDF.

Note: In the Personal Statement section of your Biosketch, you may cite up to four publications or research products that highlight your experience and qualifications for this project.

Infrastructure to Support Coordinating Center (2-page maximum)

Provide information on the administrative structure of the proposed Coordinating Center. Describe coordination and integration of activities, lines of accountability regarding management and oversight for use of funds, and evaluation of the program.
Convert your document to Adobe PDF and upload into ProposalCentral.

Coordinating Center Vision and Approach to Foster Synergy and Collaboration (8-page maximum)  
This document will be uploaded in the Coordinating Center PI’s applications and it should be sent to each Project PI applicant for uploading into their proposals, as well . 

Summary of Proposed Center 
Provide a very brief summary of what this proposed Coordinating Center has to offer. Describe current research programs related to the topic of the network, and any history of successes in this research. Illustrate any events that led to the current application, and other projects not included in this application that would contribute to the intellectual environment. Describe unique strengths in faculty, student programs or the institution that would make a flagship Coordinating Center feasible.

Synergy among individual projects 
High-level summary only. Each project proposal should describe this in greater detail.
Provide a clear vision of the scientific direction. A Health Equity Research Network should be viewed as a group of interrelated projects, each of which is individually scientifically meritorious, and also complementary to the other projects and contributes to an integrating theme. Describe the rationale for the total program. Explain the strategy to achieve the objectives of the overall program and how each individual project relates to the strategy. 

The peer review group must be convinced that exciting and significant research directions are being realistically planned. The proposal will be reviewed by experts who can judge, collectively, all areas represented in the proposal but who may not be familiar, individually, with each area of research. This description should be concise, yet explicit enough to enable experts in related areas to understand the main goal of each project. 

Describe the synergies and interactions among projects and their investigators. What collaborations do you envision between investigators working on individual projects?

Coordinating Center PI Qualifications (2-page maximum)

• Describe the Coordinating Center PI’s experience/expertise in clinical or population research related to the topic on advancing the understanding of the factors underlying health inequities in rural communities.
• Provide the PI’s administrative experience in program direction.
• Address the PI’s history and/or abilities in building collaborative groups and collaborating with various disciplines.
• Emphasize strengths not reflected in the PI’s Biographical Sketch, which is to be uploaded in a different section of the application. 

Convert your document to Adobe PDF and upload to ProposalCentral.

Applicants are prohibited from contacting AHA peer reviewers. This is a form of scientific misconduct and will result in removal of the application from funding consideration and institutional notification of misconduct.

Peer Review will be a two-phase process. In Phase I, individual projects and the broad approach to coordination of the network will be assessed by a convened panel of experts, based on the criteria described below.

Network applications that advance past Phase I will undergo a separate Phase II review. In this review, invited network teams will present either virtually or in-person to a convened expert panel. Phase II review will focus predominantly on the overall network as a whole, and how the various projects can collectively enhance the likelihood of significantly advancing the health of rural populations.

Phase I Review

Each project within a network application and the Coordinating Center plan will be scored individually according to the criteria below. An overall composite score will be derived based on the individual scores.

Projects – Potential impact of the project on research in the field of the rural health disparities; strengths of applicant investigators (qualifications, expertise and productivity); potential for collaboration or synergy of projects; scientific content; background; preliminary studies; detailed specific aims; approach detail; analytical plan; sample size; data management; significance; innovation; individual project scientific merit; and total project coordination (within and among projects). Projects will be rated on the following areas:

• Approach: Are the conceptual framework, design, methods, and analyses adequately developed, well-integrated, well-reasoned and feasible (as determined by preliminary data) and appropriate to the aims of the project? Does the applicant acknowledge potential problem areas and consider alternative tactics?

As all proposals will include human subject participants, applicants must explain how relevant biological variables, such as sex, are factored into the research design, analysis, and reporting. Furthermore, strong justification from the scientific literature, preliminary data, or other relevant considerations, must be provided for applications proposing to study only one sex.

• Innovation: Is the project original and innovative? For example: Does the project challenge existing paradigms and address an innovative hypothesis or critical barrier to progress in the field? Does the project develop or employ novel concepts, approaches, methodologies, tools, or technologies for this area?

• Investigator(s): Is the investigator(s) appropriately trained and well-suited to carry out this work? Is the work proposed appropriate to the experience level of the principal investigator and other researchers? Does the investigative team bring complementary and integrated expertise to the project (if applicable)?

• Significance: Does this study address an important problem related to rural health disparities? If the aims of the application are achieved, how will scientific knowledge or clinical practice be advanced? What will be the effect of these studies on the concepts, methods and technologies that drive this field?

• Environment: Does the scientific environment in which the work will be done contribute to the probability of success? Do the proposed studies benefit from unique features of the scientific environment, or subject populations, or employ useful collaborative arrangements? Is there evidence of institutional support?

• Impact: How does the project relate to and support the mission of the AHA, to be a relentless force for a world of longer, healthier lives, and AHA’s 2024 Impact Goal, to advance cardiovascular health for all, including identifying and removing barriers to health care access and quality by 2024?

• Synergy: How does this project enhance the entire network application? i.e., does this project enhance the likelihood that the collective network outcomes will exceed outcomes of the individual sum of its distinct components?

• Summary for Non-Scientists: How well does this lay summary convey to a non-scientific audience the purpose and importance of the research? The following attributes will be assessed:
  • How well written is the lay summary in explaining to a non-scientist audience the research proposed and its importance?
  • Does the Lay Summary adequately explain the major health problem being addressed by this study?
  • Does it provide specific questions and how the projects will address them?
  • Does it provide information on the overall impact of this work and the potential advances in the field?
  • Does it relay how the proposal supports the mission of the AHA?

Coordinating Center - A detailed and cohesive plan for coordination among the projects will be critical for success of the network. This plan will be assessed based on the following criteria:

• Approach: Has the Coordinating Center PI developed a plan that will optimize the synergies and collaborative opportunities across the network? Will the delineated plan ensure clear, consistent, and frequent communication with and between the project sites? Does the applicant acknowledge potential problem areas and have a plan to mitigate those should they arise?
  
  
• Innovation: In addition to the expectation of innovation in the proposed projects, is the Coordinating Center PI proposing to utilize innovative approaches and tools to ensure effective engagement with and optimal performance of project sites? Does the project develop or employ novel concepts, approaches, methodologies, tools, or technologies for this area?
  
  
• Investigator(s): Is the Coordinating Center PI experienced in leading collaborative initiatives, or has he/she/they demonstrated strong potential to do so? Has he/she/they demonstrated the ability to manage large-scale, multi-site initiatives? Does he/she/they demonstrate the ability to foster communications between distinct teams of investigators? AHA is committed to facilitating diversity in the biomedical research enterprise. Consistent with this, AHA anticipates successful applicant teams will be those that are diverse with regard to gender and/or race and ethnicity.
• Significance: Does this study address an important problem related to rural health disparities? If the aims of the network are achieved, what is the likelihood of advances in clinical practice or policies regarding the health of rural Americans? What will be the effect of these studies on the concepts, methods and technologies that drive this field?
  
  
• Environment and Infrastructure: Does the scientific environment and available infrastructure contribute to the probability of success? Is there evidence of institutional support?
  
  
• Summary for Non-Scientists: How well does this lay summary convey to a non-scientific audience the purpose and importance of the research? The following attributes will be assessed:

• How well written is the lay summary in explaining to a non-scientist audience the research proposed and its importance?
  • Does the Lay Summary adequately explain the major health problem being addressed by this study?
  • Does it provide specific questions and how the projects will address them?
  • Does it provide information on the overall impact of this work and the potential advances in the field?
  • Does it relay how the proposal supports the mission of the AHA?

Only projects that demonstrate synergy and a strong coordination plan, in addition to exemplary science, will move forward to Phase II.

Phase II Review

As noted above, Phase II review will have as a particular focus assessment of how the projects will work together to achieve optimal outcomes. As such, the plan for coordination and collaboration across the network will be a key aspect of this review, and application scoring will be based on the following criteria:

• Synergy – A clear vision of scientific direction is expected. A HERN should be viewed as a group of interrelated research projects, each of which is not only individually scientifically meritorious, but also complements the other projects and contributes to an integrating theme. Describe the rationale for the total program. Explain the strategy of achieving the objectives of the overall program and how each individual project relates to the strategy. Describe the synergies and interactions among projects and their investigators.,
  
  
• Collaboration – History of collaboration, as well as the ability and commitment to collaborate with other institutions, investigators and within the applicant institution as well as within the awarded network. Defined and detailed process for collaboration with other sites in addition to within and among the proposed projects; plans to actively participate in a collaborative and diverse network. Evidence of formal training in leadership skills with an emphasis on collaborative leadership of diverse teams will be favorably reviewed. What collaborations do you envision between investigators working on individual projects?
  
  
• Network Team (Coordinating Center PI and Project PIs and Co-Is) – Qualifications of the Coordinating Center PI to provide scientific and administrative leadership for the network; experience leading complex multi-site, collaborative and inclusive initiatives; documented evidence of willingness to collaborate with others outside their institution to share ideas, science, etc. to progress the field of research as outlined in the RFA; qualifications of Project PIs and Co-investigators; diversity of the research team; experience in the field of study outlined by the RFA; training experience. 
  
  
• Project Teams – Qualifications of each PI to provide scientific and administrative leadership for their respective projects; demonstrated commitment of each Project PI, and experience with studies in the field outlined by the RFA; qualifications and experience of named co-investigators and project team members; diversity of the project research teams.
  
  
• Diversity of the Research Team – In keeping with AHA’s core values of diversity and inclusivity, AHA is committee to broadening the diversity of investigators supported by programmatic, multi-investigator initiatives it offers. As such at least 25% of key personnel of the research team must be from a group or groups under-represented in science and medicine. Applicants must be able to document the diverse composition of the proposed research team and should comment on steps their institution(s) has taken/is taking to expand and support diverse investigators. 
  
  
• Environment - Institutional commitment, resources, and facilities to sustain the network; institutional resources available to complete the project; analytical resources available to the project.

Timeline for Peer Review Phases
The two phases of Peer Review will be conducted separately, 1-2 weeks apart. Network teams will not be present for Phase 1 reviews but will be required to participate in Phase II. Applicant teams should be prepared to be available via videoconference for Phase II review during a TBD week in June 2023. AHA will share exact times with network teams as soon as is feasible.
Please direct inquiries to [email protected]

References Cited
1. Harrington et al., Circulation, 141:e615-644, 2020 
2. Parker et al., What Unites and Divides Urban, Suburban, and Rural Communities. Pew Research Center, 2018
3. Cosby et al. .Am J Public Health, 109:155–162, 2019
4. Singh et al., .Int J MCH AIDS, 6:139–164, 2017
5. Indian Health Disparities, Rockville, MD: Indian Health Service, 2018.
6. Summary Health Statistics: National Health Interview Survey, 2017, Rockville, MD: CDC, National Center for Health Statistics, 2018
7. Garcia et al, .MMWR Surveill Summ., 66:1–7, 2017
8. Kulshreshtha et al, .Public Health Rep., 129:19–29, 2014
9. Singh et al., Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes, 12(suppl 1):A135, 2019
10. Howard et al., .Stroke,  48:1773–1778, 2017
11. Lundeen et al., MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep, 67:653–658, 2018
12. Matthews et al., MMWR Surveill Summ, 66:1–8, 2017
13. Patterson et al., J Rural Health, 20:151–159, 2004
14. Carpenter-Song et al., Psychiatr Serv, 68:503–506, 2017
15. Ivey-Stephenson et al., MMWR Surveill Summ, 66:1–16, 2017
16. Monnat and Rigg, The Opioid Crisis in Rural and Small Town America, University of New Hampshire, Carsey School of Public Policy, 2018