Thank you for attending “Coincidence Analysis: Case Studies for Practice-based Implementation and Programmatic Assessment Projects,” a virtual training session, on October 12, 2023. Please take a few minutes to fill in this anonymous survey to help us gauge the effectiveness of the session and plan for future events. 

The Lifetime Achievement Award consists of a sculpture/plaque. This Award recognizes and promotes individuals who have made a significant contribution to the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy and to pharmacy education through instruction, leadership/service and research/scholarship over a minimum of 25 years.

ELIGIBILITY

1. Nominees must hold a faculty appointment with a primary commitment to an AACP member college or school of pharmacy or be retired from a faculty appointment.
2. Nominees must be members of AACP, and have shown a commitment to the Association and mission and objectives of pharmacy education. A nominee’s name may not be submitted posthumously.
3. Nominees will be evaluated based upon contributions in the following areas:
   • Instruction including, but not limited to, effectiveness in undergraduate, postbaccalaureate, professional and graduate instruction; curriculum development and innovation; accomplishments of former students; special student educational projects; honors and awards for excellence in teaching and invited lectureships; and assessment of national educational involvement including active participation in AACP meetings, committees, teachers seminars and national workshops. Among the most important qualities are inspiration, leadership and quality of contributions and the impact on educational programs and professional growth of individuals;
   • Advancement of the profession of pharmacy, can be documented in terms of the following examples but not limited to: contributing to the development of the ACPE Standards, transforming the delivery of pedagogy, serving at the forefront of technology and/or innovation, advancing interprofessional education, significant contributions in pharmacy education administration that lead to improved patient outcomes and or improvements in pharmacy education, creating new knowledge such as, a pharmaceutical science discovery that enhances drug therapy for improved patient outcomes, or developing new care delivery models that improve patient outcomes, or developing patient interventions that improve outcomes, and modeled excellence of pharmacy;
   • Leadership/Service to AACP: Sustained service/leadership to with American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (consideration should be given to the breadth of service to AACP elected and all other forms of volunteer service).
   • Leadership/Service on behalf of Academic Pharmacy: Sustained contributions externally on behalf of academic pharmacy, outside of AACP and one's own institution, such as but not limited to active involvement in local, state and/or national pharmacy organizations and other health-related organizations through elected office, committee participation and contributions to program development; and
   • Evidence of research and creative scholarship activities relative to the respective discipline and/or to the quality of patient outcomes that can be documented in terms of publications (number and type) and grants/contracts.

AACP's AWARDS AND NOMINATIONS POLICY

Disclosure Required

AACP’s Board of Directors has adopted a policy affirming AACP’s right to grant, defer or decline to grant an honor or award, including a leadership position, to any person. AACP expects all recipients of honors and awards to embody the highest standards of professional and personal ethical behavior, therefore, AACP will not confer any honor, award or leadership position when, in its discretion, there has been a determination or credible question of unethical behavior. 

To implement this policy, AACP is instituting a disclosure process for nominees for the Lifetime Achievement Award. The required disclosure form must be completed, signed and submitted by the submission deadline to disclosure@aacp.org.

NOMINATION PROCEDURE

1. Nominations will be brought forth by members of the Board of Directors, but recommendations may be made by any AACP member, including self-nominations and are encouraged from faculty members of colleges and schools of pharmacy and from all segments of the Association (e.g., sections, special interest groups, affiliate members).
2. Any AACP member intending to recommend a nomination must submit a dossier received by the submission deadline. The dossier’s contents shall be presented to include the following separate sections, each beginning on a new page:
   • Cover letter from the nominator summarizing the nominee’s qualifications and commitment to the Association;
   • Résumé (CV) detailing education, appointments, activities, memberships, awards and honors, and other relevant data;
   • Reflection on contributions to instruction;
   • Reflection on contributions to the advancement of the profession of pharmacy;
   • Reflection on contributions to leadership/service to Association, local, state and/or national pharmacy organizations and other health-related organizations;
   • Reflection on evidence of research and creative scholarship activities; and
   • An additional three to five letters of support with reflections on the nominee’s contributions including those endorsements from individuals outside of the nominee’s home institution (supporting letters should interpret the impact that the nominee has had on his/her field and pharmacy education and provide evidence of contributions to instruction, to the advancement of the profession of pharmacy, leadership/service, and evidence of research and creative scholarship activities).
3. The dossier should be submitted by email by 11:59 p.m. PST on the date of the submission deadline. Materials will be reviewed by the Board of Directors during their meeting on Thursday, February 13, 2024 after a screening for completeness by AACP Staff.

Recommendations of nominations or questions regarding the nomination or submission process should be directed to Adam Jackson, AACP Manager of Governance .

SELECTION PROCEDURE

1. Dossiers will be screened for completeness by staff upon receipt. If time permits, staff will notify nominators of missing items. Applications that are incomplete at the deadline for submission will not be evaluated.
2. The AACP Board of Directors will serve as the Lifetime Achievement Award Selection Committee and will conduct peer review of nominations in light of the established criteria for the award.
3. At the conclusion of the evaluation process, the AACP Board of Directors will select and notify a single recipient.
4. The AACP Board of Directors will present this Award based on qualified applicants only and reserves the right not to present the Award on an annual basis.

Submission

Letter of Intent

The following criteria (point values in parenthesis) will be used by the disciplinary reviewer in evaluating LOI. Please refer to the criteria and point values below as a guide for the preparation of the NIA LOI. A reviewer may utilize continuous whole numbers when scoring each criterion. Example: If a reviewer determines the Objectives to be between “Excellent” and “Satisfactory,” a score of 4 points may be given.

Criteria 

Each criterion will be rated on a five-point scale, with that rating multiplied as indicated to arrive at the final criterion score.

• Objectives (10 points maximum)
• Aims (15 points maximum)
• Outcomes – Impact on research field (10 points maximum)
• Outcomes - Contribution to career (15 points maximum)

Objectives 

Multiply point rating by two to determine final criterion score.

• Excellent (5 points): Objectives, such as a testable hypothesis, novel design, new technology, specific problem to be solved or critical barrier to be addressed, are well-defined and appropriate.
• Satisfactory (3 points): Objectives are not clearly defined and/or are not clearly appropriate.
• Needs Improvement (1 point): Objectives are minimally defined or are not appropriate.
• Omitted (0 points): Objectives are not defined or not stated.

Aims

Multiply point rating by three to determine final criterion score.

• Excellent (5 points): The aims are clearly linked to and appropriate for the objectives proposed.
• Satisfactory (3 points): The aims are provided but are not clearly linked to the objectives proposed OR are not clearly appropriate for the objectives proposed.
• Needs Improvement (1 point): Aims are provided but are not linked to AND inappropriate for the objectives proposed.
• Omitted (0 points): Aims are not provided.

Outcomes – Impact on research field

Multiply point rating by two to determine final criterion score.

• Excellent (5 points): The research proposed is likely to contribute to the generation of significant future research.
• Satisfactory (3 points): The research proposed has the potential to be used as preliminary data for more substantial research in the same area. 
• Needs Improvement (1 point): The research proposed is unlikely to contribute to the generation of future research. 
• Omitted (0 points): Project outcomes not stated. 

Outcomes – Contribution to career

Multiply point rating by three to determine final criterion score.

• Excellent (5 points): Relevance of the project in relation to past and future scholarship interests of the applicant is clearly stated.
• Satisfactory (3 points): Relevance of the project in relation to past and/or future research interests of the applicant is briefly addressed.
• Needs Improvement (1 point): Relevance of the project in relation to the applicant's past and future research interests is unclear. 
• Omitted (0 points): The relevance to the applicant’s career is not provided.

Selection of LOI for Full Proposal Submission

After evaluation of LOI by disciplinary reviewers, top scoring LOI will be considered by the NIA Review Committee, which will determine the LOI which will be invited to submit full proposals using scores and reviewer comments. Consideration will also be given to the disciplinary mix of invited applications, and preference may be given to LOI concerning research fields not otherwise represented in the application pool. Note: COS Board Members will have final discretion to invite full applications based on recommendations of the full NIA Review Committee.

Full Proposal - Phase 1

The following criteria (point values in parenthesis) will be used by the disciplinary review panels in evaluating applications. Please refer to the criteria and point values below below as a guide for the preparation of NIA application. A reviewer may utilize continuous whole numbers when scoring each criterion. Example: If a reviewer determines the Nature of the Project to be between “Excellent” and “Satisfactory,” a score of 4 points may be given.

Criteria

Each criterion will be rated on a five-point scale, with that rating multiplied as indicated to arrive at the final criterion score.

• Nature of Project (5 points maximum)
• Specific Aims (15 points maximum)
• Significance of the Project (15 points maximum)
• Methods I: Methods to Be Used in the Study (20 points maximum)
• Methods II: Data Analysis and Interpretation (15 points maximum)
• Timeline (5 points maximum)
• Contribution to Career (15 points maximum)
• Budget Justification (10 points maximum)

Nature of Project

• Excellent (5 points): Provides a clear, concise, and thorough background, structure, and scope of the project.
• Satisfactory (3 points): Provides partial background, structure, and scope of the project.
• Needs Improvement (1 point): Provides minimal background, structure, and scope.
• Omitted (0 points): Background, structure, and scope not provided. 

Specific Aims

Multiply point rating by three to determine final criterion score.

• Excellent (5 points): Goals are defined and appropriate. Objectives, such as a testable hypothesis, novel design, new technology, specific problem to be solved or critical barrier to be addressed, are well-defined and appropriate.
• Satisfactory (3 points): A majority of goals are defined, appropriate and testable.
• Needs Improvement (1 point): A minority of goals are defined, appropriate and testable.
• Omitted (0 points): Goals are inappropriate and/or untestable.

Significance of the Project

Multiply point rating by three to determine final criterion score.

• Excellent (5 points): The research proposed is likely to add significantly to the current relevant literature with a stated plan to disseminate the results and contribute to the generation of future research.
• Satisfactory (3 points): The research proposed has the potential to be used as preliminary data for more substantial research in the same area and a stated plan for result dissemination. 
• Needs Improvement (1 point): The research proposed is unlikely to add to the body of evidence that currently exists in the field and is unlikely to be widely disseminated. 
• Omitted (0 points): Project significance not stated and has no plan for dissemination of results. 

Methods I: Methods to Be Used in the Study

Multiply point rating by four to determine final criterion score.

• Excellent (5 points): Provides a clear explanation of appropriate methods and are appropriate for testing the study hypothesis. They are sound and workable within the one-year time frame including sufficient collaborative support when needed. There is adequate recognition and discussion of the limitations.
• Satisfactory (3 points): Provides adequate explanation of methods. There is room for improvement with the proposed research techniques. Limitations have not been properly considered.
• Needs Improvement (1 point): Provides an unorganized explanation of poor methods. It is unlikely the methods will produce the proposed data.
• Omitted (0 points): Methods not provided or inappropriate for goals or objectives.

Methods II: Data Analysis and Interpretation

Multiply point rating by three to determine final criterion score.

• Excellent (5 points): Provides clear evidence the Principal Investigator can efficiently evaluate the data with proper statistical measures.
• Satisfactory (3 points): Provides adequate evidence the Principal Investigator can evaluate the data, statistics are appropriate and limitations of data have been considered.
• Needs Improvement (1 point): Unclear if the Principal Investigator can evaluate the data appropriately.
• Omitted (0 points):  Data analysis methods not provided.

Timeline

• Excellent (5 points): The project is appropriate for a one-year time frame. 
• Satisfactory (3 points): The project is appropriate for a one-year time frame but requires modification to ensure timeline is met.
• Needs Improvement (1 point): Questionable project for completion within one-year time frame, requires significant modification to meet timeline.
• Omitted (0 points): The project is not appropriate for a one-year time frame.

Contribution to Career

Multiply point rating by three to determine final criterion score.

• Excellent (5 points): Purpose of the project is clearly stated in relation to past and future scholarship interests of the applicant and will assist in future grant proposals.
• Satisfactory (3 points): Purpose of the project is vaguely stated in relation to past and/or future research interests of the applicant but will assist in future grant proposals.
• Needs Improvement (1 point): Purpose of the project is unclear in relation to the applicant's past and future research interests. 
• Omitted (0 points): The contribution to the applicant’s career is not provided.

Budget Justification

Multiply point rating by two to determine final criterion score.

• Excellent (5 points): The salary, equipment, and supply items requested in the budget are consistent and justified by the proposed methods.
• Satisfactory (3 points): The salary, equipment, and supply items requested are consistent but not justified by the proposed methods.
• Needs Improvement (1 point): The salary, equipment and supply items requested are not justified by the proposed methods. 
• Omitted (0 points): Justification for budget not stated. 

Full Proposal - Phase 2

After evaluation of proposals by disciplinary review panels, top scoring proposals from each disciplinary section are compared to each other using scores and reviewer comments from Phase 1. The NIA Review Committee will provide an overall impact score based on a modified NIH 9-point scale:

• 1 = Exceptional (Exceptionally strong with essentially no weaknesses)
• 2 = Outstanding (Extremely strong with negligible weaknesses)
• 3 = Excellent (Very strong with only some minor weaknesses)
• 4 = Very Good (Strong but with numerous minor weaknesses)
• 5 = Good (Strong but with at least one moderate weakness)

The NIA scoring system differs from NIH in a few ways:

• Scores ranging from 6-9, representing satisfactory or low impact proposals, are not used. This is because proposals that would score in this range are not brought forward from Phase 1 for further consideration.
• Proposals are scored by members of the NIA Review Committee to one decimal place (e.g. 2.2). Immediately prior to scoring a proposal, the Review Committee agrees to a half-point range (e.g., 1.0-1.5, 1.6-2.0, 2.1-2.5, etc.) from which individual scores are submitted.
• If a disciplinary section puts forward multiple proposals for consideration, no more than two may have the same score range.

Top scoring proposals in this phase will be recommended for funding. Note: COS Administrative Board Members will have final discretion to assign awards based on recommendations of the full NIA Review Committee.

2024 Award Information

The AACP New Investigator Award will not be administered in 2024-2025. In the coming 1-2 years, AACP will evaluate the NIA and other research-related programs through the work of the 2024-2025 Research and Graduate Affairs Committee and in consultation with research leaders in the Academy. Based on the outcome of this evaluation, the NIA funding decision will be revisited in future years.

Meet the 2024 New Investigators!

General Information 

The COD Programming Committee is seeking presenters for networking sessions that are scheduled during the 2024 AACP Annual Meeting:

• Challenging Topics Facing Deans:  examples of topics include navigating challenging budgeting conversations with University leadership, supporting student organizations/engagement with reduced budgets, and navigating conflict of interests with faculty.
• Fostering Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Challenging Political Landscapes: examples of topics include navigating challenging legal issues and recruitment of faculty in challenging political landscapes.
• Innovative Approaches to Advancing the Pharmacists Scope of Practice:  examples of topics include engaging with state or national payors for payment of pharmacist services (e.g. Medicaid, national insurance carriers such as Blue Cross Blue Shield, etc.), developing coalitions with Boards of Pharmacy, schools, and other stakeholders, and advocating/engaging with non-pharmacy organizations (e.g. patient advocacy organizations, physician professional organizations, etc). 

Please submit your information by Monday, April 8, 2024.  

 We hope you enjoyed the AACP Webinar on Technical Standards. Please take a few minutes to evaluate your experience and provide us with feedback. 

AACP both conducts data collection activities and seeks to support the research and data collection activities of members.

Data collected by the Office of Institutional Research & Effectiveness (OIRIE) will largely be located under OIRIE's section of the website. These data are collected through the AACP Survey System which is linked below.

For other questions related to what data AACP collects, please email data@aacp.org.