REACH

Starting with a Research Idea

Every funded research program begins with a question, often one that arises directly from clinical practice. For researchers in complementary and integrative health (CIH) fields such as chiropractic, acupuncture, osteopathic medicine, Chinese medicine, music therapy, Ayurveda, and naturopathic medicine, this is a profound advantage. You work at the intersection of healing traditions and contemporary patient care, which means you are uniquely positioned to ask questions that matter deeply to patients, practitioners, and the broader health care system.

The starting point for any research journey is giving yourself permission to take those clinical observations seriously as the seeds of scholarly inquiry. What do you notice in practice that surprises you? What outcomes do you see that lack a rigorous explanation? What does the evidence not yet tell us about the therapies your students will soon be delivering? Sitting with these questions and writing them down is the first act of both developing and seasoned researchers.

Sharpening Your Idea into a Testable Hypothesis

A research idea is not yet a research question, and a research question is not yet a hypothesis. Moving from one to the next requires deliberate refinement. A well-formed hypothesis is specific, measurable, grounded in prior evidence, and falsifiable, meaning it can, in principle, be proven wrong.

To get there, begin by conducting a focused review of the existing literature. What has already been studied? Where are the gaps, contradictions, or under-examined populations? What biological, psychological, or social mechanisms might explain the phenomenon you have observed?

From this foundation, you can craft a hypothesis that names a specific intervention, a defined population, a measurable outcome, and a predicted direction of effect. For example, moving from “acupuncture seems to help my patients with chronic pain” to “weekly acupuncture over eight weeks will reduce patient-reported pain intensity by at least 30% compared to usual care in adults with chronic low back pain” represents the kind of precision that reviewers and funders need to evaluate your work.

Strong hypotheses drive strong study designs, and strong study designs drive competitive grant applications. Our research ideation sessions are a great place to get feedback from peers and seasoned investigators on your emerging research questions as you move toward a study design.

Matching Your Hypothesis to a Study Design

Once you have a testable hypothesis, the next decision is how to test it. The study design must be appropriate to the question, feasible within your institutional context, and honest about what level of evidence you can realistically generate.

For most CIH investigators, a pilot or feasibility study is the right first step, because pilot data are what make subsequent, larger proposals credible. Pilot studies explore success in recruitment rates, protocol adherence, effect size estimates, and measurement validity. They are the essential proving ground.

These can be conducted by the investigator, or there may be enough articles in the literature to establish safety and feasibility, and projected effect sizes. From there, investigators may progress to observational studies, case-control designs, or once the groundwork has been laid, randomized controlled trials or practice-based research suited to integrative care settings.

Whatever design you choose, you will need to articulate clearly to reviewers why it is appropriate, what controls are in place to minimize bias, and how you will analyze the data. Engaging a biostatistician or methods collaborator early in this process is strongly encouraged; their input at the design stage is far more valuable, and far less expensive, than trying to rescue underpowered or poorly controlled data after the fact.

If you haven’t yet, you can learn or refresh your memory about study design and analysis by watching the course by Dr. Shah Goslhan, available free to all UCSD REACH Partners, and you can request an individual design and biostatistical consultation with him here.

Knowing the Funding Landscape

Before writing a word of an application, it is essential to understand who funds the kind of research you want to do and what they are looking for. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) remains the largest source of federal research funding in the biomedical sciences, and several of its institutes and centers actively prioritize complementary and integrative health, including the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH), the National Cancer Institute (NCI), and the National Institute on Aging (NIA), among others.

For investigators earlier in their research careers, mechanisms such as the R15 (Academic Research Enhancement Award, or AREA grant) are specifically designed for faculty at institutions that are not major research universities but that demonstrate promising scholarly activity.

Beyond NIH, the funding ecosystem includes private foundations, professional associations, state-level health research programs, and institutional pilot grant mechanisms. Understanding eligibility requirements, application cycles, award sizes, and the review culture of each funder is as important as the science itself.

A great first step is to review the funder’s website and previous awardees working on topics related to your research interests. For federal grants, search one of these databases for keywords that match your research question.

Funding Databases and Resources

NIH RePORTER: Use this to search for active and past NIH-funded projects.

RePORT (Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools): Access the NIH Data Book, funding reports by location, and categorical spending on research areas.

Matchmaker in RePORTER: Allows you to enter project descriptions or abstracts to find similar, previously funded projects and relevant Program Officials.

For foundations or charitable organizations, search for the organization’s recent IRS Form 990 filings using resources such as ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer, IRS TEOS, and Candid (GuideStar).

You can also request a funding opportunities consultation with UCSD REACH here.

Preparing to Apply: What Reviewers Are Looking For

Grant reviewers, whether at NIH study sections or private foundation panels, are asking a small number of fundamental questions: Is this research question important and does it address a meaningful gap? Are the investigators capable of carrying it out? Is the design rigorous and feasible? Does the institution have the infrastructure to support the work?

Your application must answer each of these questions compellingly and concisely. The Specific Aims page, or its equivalent, is often the single most important document in the application. It must clearly state the problem, your central hypothesis, your objectives, and why your approach is novel and significant.

The rest of the application — background and significance, innovation, approach, team biographies, environment, and budget — must all reinforce and substantiate what you promised on that first page.

Common pitfalls include overreaching, under-explaining methodology, neglecting preliminary data, and failing to articulate clearly why your team and institution are well-positioned to succeed.

Consider attending the UCSD REACH Summer 2026 Grant Writing Intensive here.

Peer review of your drafts, whether by a mentor, a colleague outside your field, or a program officer, is not optional; it is one of the most reliable predictors of proposal quality. You can also request a mock grant review from UCSD REACH here.

Building the Team and Relationships That Support Success

Research is rarely a solitary endeavor, and this is especially true for CIH investigators who are building their programs in environments where research infrastructure may still be developing. Strategic collaboration is both a practical necessity and a mark of a maturing scholar.

Establishing a relationship with a senior research mentor, co-investigator, or co-PI can dramatically accelerate your development and strengthen your applications. Collaborations with colleagues at research-intensive institutions like UC San Diego can provide access to biostatistical expertise, core laboratory facilities, regulatory support, and study design guidance that may not yet exist at your home institution.

Equally important are relationships with program officers at your target funding agencies. Program officers are an underutilized resource; they can advise you on whether your idea fits a particular funding opportunity, suggest alternative mechanisms, and provide feedback on draft Specific Aims before you invest months in a full application.

Managing the Timeline from Idea to Submission

Grant writing takes far longer than most new investigators anticipate. A competitive NIH application typically requires four to six months of sustained effort from the initial drafting of Specific Aims through final submission.

A realistic timeline works backward from the submission deadline: identify the deadline first, then map out the milestones — aims draft, internal review, full draft, external review, budget development, compliance review, and final assembly.

Build in buffer; something will always take longer than planned.

Remember also that a scored-but-not-funded application is not a failure. Detailed reviewer critiques are one of the most valuable tools for improving your next submission. Many grants that are ultimately funded were revised and resubmitted one or more times.

Persistence, responsiveness to reviewer feedback, and continued development of your preliminary data are the hallmarks of investigators who eventually succeed.

Join Us This Summer: REACH Proposal Development & Grant Writing Workshop

UCSD REACH is pleased to announce a Summer Proposal Development and Grant Writing Workshop designed specifically for faculty across our partnering CIH institutions who are ready to move their research ideas toward competitive applications.

This intensive, mentored workshop series will provide structured support for investigators working toward three key funding targets: REACH Pilot Grants, NIH R15 (AREA) grants and other NIH mechanisms, and foundation and other extramural funding opportunities.

Sessions will guide participants through the full arc of proposal development — from articulating a compelling research question and drafting Specific Aims, to building a rigorous research design, assembling a credible team narrative, and navigating budget development.

Participants will receive direct feedback on their drafts from experienced research faculty and mentors at UC San Diego.

Whether you are preparing your first pilot grant application or working toward your first NIH submission, this workshop is designed to meet you where you are and move you meaningfully forward.

Watch for registration details in the coming weeks. Space will be limited, and we encourage all REACH partner faculty with an active research idea to apply.

This is exactly the kind of opportunity the REACH program exists to provide.

Practice-based Research (PBR) is a type of research that asks questions that originate from day-to-day clinical practices and collects/analyzes data generated during the course of practice -- for the purposes of understanding and improving effectiveness, efficiency and quality.  PBR conducts pragmatic studies tied to the real (“messy”) world of practice, instead of highly structured controlled randomized trials, the results of which are often challenging to apply back to the real world.

The average number of questions that arise during a day in practice is upwards of 15-20. Compared to 20 years ago, many of these questions are now more answerable to a reasonable approximation from the current evidence base and literature. This is because that knowledge has been made more accessible to the clinician by advances like highly cross-linked and regularly updated “electronic texts” like “Up-to-Date”, and the more recent AI/LLM resources like “Open-Evidence” that can synthesize an answer to a complicated natural language clinical question.  Despite these tools, there are still many unanswered questions that PBR can help answer.

As with all research, PBR has required steps to optimize its practicality and impact. The first is defining the clinical question carefully. These arise directly from clinicians’ observations in practice about many aspects of care: what is the best way to screen for, diagnose or manage a given problem, how widespread is the challenge among all the patients in the practice or in the community, are there systemic approaches to preventing or affecting the outcomes for a particular challenge, etc. Such ideas of how to improve practice are often called Quality Improvement (QI).

The next step is to decide what data elements are needed to answer the question and planning data collection methods that least disturb day-to-day practice. The data are often collected with a mixed methods approach, that is they include both quantitative data directly from the EMR and qualitative elements obtained from patient reported outcomes or experiences often via questionnaires.  These data reflect the actual real-world events going on with patients in the course of their care.

A major requirement of PBR is that one must have the ability to extract data from the EMR, but also to be able to innovate the data capture in the EMR on the front end. This expertise is sometimes hard to come by and is not cheap. Some data collection in PBR can be done more simply and inexpensively, but if an increased scale is desired EMR-based data capabilities are required.

The final step is to analyze the data and design interventions to improve clinical practice. This is usually done over a short time frame, and the process can be repeated until one achieves an acceptable level of improvement. This process can be described as the “plan-do-study-act” or PDSA cycle.

PBR has several advantages: 1) it is designed to be a “byproduct” of the care being delivered so it can be done in parallel with ongoing practice; 2) it is a good beginning form of research because clinicians are motivated by their own practice needs and clinical curiosity, which helps them be and remain engaged; 3) the outcome is pragmatically useful as it can often actually improve practice in the short run.

Interested in partnering with UC San Diego clinician-scientists to work on practice-based research projects? With support from the Krupp Endowed Fund, the UC San Diego Centers for Integrative Health uses PBR to evaluate the impact of our integrative medicine clinical programs and services on a range of health conditions. These studies help generate evidence that directly informs patient care, advances best practices, and improves outcomes across our community. Pilot grants for in-kind research support are available each year.  Learn more at cih.ucsd.edu/research/practice-based-research/