Overview
Title
National Center for Complementary & Integrative Health; Notice of Closed Meeting
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The government is having a special meeting using video calls to talk about some projects that could use things like herbs or meditation to help people feel better. This meeting is secret so that everyone's private information stays safe.
Summary AI
The National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health is hosting a meeting on April 11th and 14th, 2025, to evaluate grant applications for clinical trials of complementary and integrative interventions. This meeting will be closed to the public to protect confidential information and personal privacy. It will be conducted as a video-assisted meeting, and the address provided is in Bethesda, Maryland. The event is being organized under the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
General Summary
The document provides a notice from the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) about a closed meeting scheduled for April 11th and 14th, 2025. This meeting is designed to discuss grant applications for clinical trials related to complementary and integrative health interventions that will be delivered remotely or via mobile health (mHealth) technologies. Organized under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the meeting will be held in a video-assisted format from Bethesda, Maryland.
Significant Issues and Concerns
The document raises several noteworthy issues and concerns:
Lack of Detailed Criteria: The notice does not elaborate on the specific criteria that will be used to review and evaluate the grant applications. This absence of detailed information might raise questions concerning the fairness and transparency of the review process.
Public Access and Transparency: The meeting is closed to the public to protect confidential information such as trade secrets and personal privacy. However, the language explaining the prioritization of confidentiality over public access could be clearer, allowing better understanding among the general public.
Insufficient Contact Information: While the document provides an email contact for the Scientific Review Officer, it lacks a phone number, which could be beneficial for urgent inquiries or situations where immediate communication is necessary.
Agenda Details: The agenda, simply described as reviewing and evaluating grant applications, offers little insight into the specific topics or types of projects under consideration. This lack of detailed context may not be sufficient for stakeholders looking for more information about the committee's focus and deliberations.
Repetition of Meeting Format: The document redundantly lists "Video Assisted Meeting" twice under the meeting format, which might confuse readers unless there is a specific reason for this repetition.
Impact on the Public
For the general public, this document highlights an ongoing commitment to innovation in health interventions through clinical trials. However, the closed nature of the meeting may limit public insight into how decisions are made, potentially affecting public perception regarding transparency and accessibility in federal health research programs.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Stakeholders such as researchers, healthcare professionals, and organizations involved in complementary and integrative health may find the notice important as it concerns potential funding opportunities. However, the lack of detailed evaluation criteria and agenda specifics might pose challenges for stakeholders preparing grant applications who are seeking to align their proposals with the committee's focus.
In summary, while the notice is informative regarding the logistical aspects of the meeting, it leaves room for improvement in terms of providing more detailed context and ensuring broader accessibility and transparency.
Issues
• The document does not provide detailed information about the criteria for reviewing and evaluating the grant applications, which may raise concerns about transparency and fairness.
• The language regarding the meeting being closed to the public could be clearer in explaining why the confidentiality of trade secrets or personal information is prioritized over public access.
• The contact information for the Scientific Review Officer is concise, but there's no phone number provided, which might be useful for urgent inquiries.
• The agenda simply mentions reviewing and evaluating grant applications, lacking information on specific topics or projects to be discussed, leading to a lack of detailed context for stakeholders.
• The document repeats 'Video Assisted Meeting' under 'Meeting Format', which might be perceived as redundant unless there's a specific reason for this repetition.