FR 2021-02295

The document in question is a notice from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), as published in the Federal Register. It outlines a request for approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to collect information as part of a project by the National Cancer Institute (NCI). This effort aims to improve NCI's programs by conducting formative research, pre-testing strategies, and gathering feedback from stakeholders involved in cancer research and related fields.

General Summary

The notice articulates the NIH's intent to undertake activities that will facilitate the enhancement of NCI programs. Specifically, these activities include polling for input from various parties, such as cancer research advocates, healthcare professionals, and the broader public, to better align NCI initiatives with stakeholder expectations. The notice provides procedural information regarding public comments, which are invited to be submitted within a 30-day period following publication.

Significant Issues and Concerns

Several notable concerns arise from this document:

• Lack of Budget Details: The document does not provide specifics regarding the budget or the allocation of funds for the proposed research. This omission makes it challenging to evaluate whether resources will be used efficiently without unnecessary expenditure.

• Ambiguity in Feedback Loop Implementation: Although the initiative involves collecting feedback to refine strategies, the document lacks specifics on how this feedback loop will be precisely implemented and assessed. The absence of these details may lead to questions about the potential effectiveness of the feedback in actually improving NCI programs.

• Complex Language: The description of the collection's purpose and method is somewhat technical. Simplified language would help ensure that members of the public, especially those with a general high school education, can fully grasp the intent and scope of the project.

• Unclear Burden Hour Estimation: It mentions an estimated 18 annual burden hours but fails to explain how this figure was determined. This lack of clarity could lead to doubts regarding the accuracy of this estimation and whether it truly reflects the time commitment expected from respondents.

Broad Impacts on the Public

This initiative could broadly affect the public by seeking to enhance cancer-related programs and outreach. If implemented successfully, these activities might lead to more targeted and impactful cancer research and prevention efforts, ultimately benefiting public health. Conversely, any inefficiencies in the project could lead to wasted resources, insufficient public engagement, or missed opportunities for advancement in cancer research.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

For specific stakeholders like healthcare professionals and cancer research advocates, the project offers a platform for their voices to be heard in shaping NCI initiatives. Ideally, their involvement could lead to more relevant and effective policies and programs. However, if feedback mechanisms are not well-defined or properly utilized, stakeholders might become disillusioned with their involvement, feeling that their input is ineffective or undervalued.

In conclusion, while this document outlines a potentially beneficial initiative by the NIH, the effectiveness of the project will heavily rely on clear budgeting, straightforward communication, and robust implementation of feedback mechanisms. These factors are crucial for ensuring that stakeholder engagement translates into meaningful improvements in cancer research and advocacy.

The document announces a request submitted by the National Institutes of Health to the Office of Management and Budget for the review and approval of a proposed information collection by the National Cancer Institute (NCI). In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the request pertains to a generic submission for formative research, pre-testing, stakeholder measures, and advocate forms.

The information collection aims to benefit the Office of Advocacy Relations (OAR) within NCI, which disseminates cancer-related information, seeks feedback, and facilitates collaboration among stakeholders. The primary goal is to improve the relevance, utility, and appropriateness of the initiatives and products developed by OAR.

Financial References and Implications

Financial Allocations and Spending
The document discusses the NCI's intent to utilize a variety of qualitative (interviews) methodology for conducting research. The strategy involves understanding the target audience's attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors. The findings will help develop effective strategies, refine OAR's efforts, and ensure these strategies have the greatest impact on target audiences. Notably, the document emphasizes the importance of using limited program resource dollars wisely and effectively. However, it does not provide exact figures or a specific breakdown of the financial allocations involved. This omission makes it challenging to evaluate the budgetary considerations or to determine whether the resources are managed economically.

Relation to Issues

Lack of Budget Specifics
One of the primary concerns highlighted in the document is the absence of specific details concerning budget or funding allocations for the proposed information collection. This lack of transparency prevents stakeholders from assessing potential instances of wasteful spending. Knowing how financial resources are allocated is crucial for ensuring accountability and efficiency, especially when public funds are involved.

Implementation and Measurement of Feedback Loops
The document mentions the use of a feedback loop to refine and enhance OAR's efforts but does not specify how these loops will be monitored or evaluated. The financial implication is significant because without a clear understanding of how these feedback systems operate, it is difficult to judge whether the money spent on such systems yields valuable insights and results.

Complexity in Language
The language used to describe the need and use of the information collection is somewhat complex, which might impede the public's understanding of how financial resources are utilized. Simplifying the description could aid in better public comprehension and ensure transparency regarding financial practices.

Estimated Burden Hours
Lastly, the document provides an estimate of 18 annualized burden hours for respondents but does not explain how this figure was calculated. This raises questions about the accuracy of the burden estimation and whether it adequately reflects the time and resources required, which indirectly influences the financial assessment of the program's cost-effectiveness.

In conclusion, while the document outlines the intention to use funds effectively, the absence of detailed financial information makes it difficult to verify this claim. Clear and transparent reporting of financial allocations and methodologies for evaluating program effectiveness would provide greater assurances regarding the prudent use of public funds.