tions sufficient, or is the impact factor important? Is the total amount of extramural support sufficient, or is the source critical?
Should one maintain applicant or awardee contact information or try to locate investigators later?
What is an acceptable response rate? How can response bias be avoided when comparing awardees to unfunded applicants?
Are successful outcomes a function of good peer review at the beginning or of the funding?
How does one evaluate the impact of the program on public health?
Comroe, J. H., and R. D. Dripps. 1978. The Top Ten Clinical Advances in Cardiovascular-Pulmonary Medicine and Surgery, 1945–1975. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Hinton, P. C., and S. Read. 1994. AHA Research Program Evaluation Guide. American Heart Association.
Hinton, P. C. 1998. American Heart Association-Bugher Foundation Centers for Molecular Biology in the Cardiovascular System, Update on Progress. American Heart Association.
Morgan, H. E., and S. R. Paul. 1995. American Heart Association-Bugher Foundation Centers for Molecular Biology in the Cardiovascular System. Circulation 91(2):487–493.
Stryer, D. 2004. Program Evaluation Fundamentals and Best Practices. Invited presentation, Partnering to Advance Health Research: Philanthropy’s Role, March 4.