Considerations for the reform of CIHR’s suite of open programs

To support the strategic directions outlined in Roadmap, three reforms have been identified. All three reforms are interrelated.

Bottom up StrategyReform of Open Suite of Programs

Full spectrum of CIHR mandate

Top Down StrategyStrategic Reform

Targeted to specified areas of health research and knowledge translation. These programs and initiatives are intended to:

• Focus on gaps in specific research areas and research communities or

• Leverage existing strengths for impact

Open to all areas of health research and knowledge translation. This suite of programs is intended to:

• Capture excellence across all pillars• Capture innovative/breakthrough research• Improve sustainability of long-term research enterprise• Integrate new talent R

efo

rm t

o th

e P

eer

Rev

iew

S

yste

m

2










efo

rm t

o th

e P

eer

Rev

iew

S

yste

m

3

Why is CIHR reforming the open suite of programs?

CIHR’s mandate is to create knowledge and to translate this knowledge into benefits for Canadians through research across the full spectrum.

There are currently both real and perceived barriers in the OOGP which limit the ability for this program to support CIHR’s full mandate

There are certain types of ideas that are not being well supported today (e.g. high risk – high impact)

There are gaps in the current programming that limits CIHR from ensuring the long-term sustainability of the research enterprise

There is inconsistent application of criteria by peers which creates both real and perceived inequities

The current programs have been cited as causing peer reviewer fatigue and placing undue burden on applicants


Why is CIHR reforming the open suite of programs?

Current programs and peer review system are putting increasing pressure on the organization. The Research Portfolio currently:

Handles over 6,500 grant applications per year for review Relies on the work of 123 review panels and over 2,000 reviewers Carries out over 200 competitions a year – these competitions include:

Large scale strategic initiatives, Small RFAs, catalyst grants, Priority Announcements (PA’s), etc.


CIHR has been supporting research through a number of mechanisms since 2000. The largest is the OOGP.

The break down is:

OOGP54%

Other Open15%

Strategic31%

“Other” existing open programs include:

• PHSI• KT Synthesis• Knowledge to Action• POP• MPDs • CHRP• Team Grants• Masters• Doctoral• Postdoctoral• New Investigators program

Does not include CRC, NCE, CERC funds. 6


What we know about the OOGP:

Wide variety funded through the OOGP

In the March 2010 OOGP the duration ranged from 1 to 5 years and the amount of funding received ranged from $60K to $1.7M.

Both total grant value and grant duration vary by Pillar

Pop Health

10%

Health systems

6%

Clinical16% Biomed

68%

March 2010 OOGP Applications by Pillar

Pillar 1 Pillar 2 Pillar 3 Pillar 4

Average Value 644K 542K 392K 376K

Annual Average Value

141K 150K 133K 114K

Duration 4.5 3.6 2.8 3.1

Averages based on 2009/10 Competition Results 7


- Additional full-term grants: Applications to the OOGP that are funded from other program budgets beyond the core competition budget. e.g. Institutes and external partners; usually financing the full peer review recommended term and amount.

- Bridge grants: Applications to the OOGP that are provided with up to one year of funding from other program budgets beyond the core competition budget.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Number of Not ApprovedApplications (All Grants)

Additional Funded Full-TermGrants

Additional Funded BridgeGrants

Number of ApprovedApplications(Funded under OOGP corebudget)

3,365

4,416

3,680

3,625

3,894

3,672

Nu

mb

er

of

Ap

pli

ca

tio

ns

% F

un

de

d G

ran

ts

33% 29% 28% 29% 31% 23%

Application and Funding Statistics OOGP and Related Programs


There are currently both real and perceived barriers in the OOGP which limit the ability for this program to support CIHR’s full mandate. The response has been to create a number of new programs

PHSI (2005/06)

Program CreatedBarriers Cited

CHRP(2004/05)

Knowledge Synthesis (2005/06)

Knowledge to Action(2005/06)

PoP (2001-02)

MPDs(2007/08)

• Missing or conflicting review criteria

• Lack of appropriate review process

• Partnerships not fully Valued• Integrated KT not

appropriately evaluated, valued or incentivized

• Key types of applicants not eligible

• Missing reviewer expertise• Lack of a critical mass of

applicants to compete• Peer review culture• Application process/

attributes not capturing the correct information

9


10

Many parts of CIHR rely on the “open” programs to deliver on CIHR’s mandate:

Integrated KT

Initiatives (incl SPOR)

Ethics

Institutes

Institutional Partners

Tri-Council

Intervention Research

International

Citizen & Public Engagement

Pillar 2

Pillar 4

System level Sustained Support

Large GrantsCommercialization

High Risk / High Impact

MPDs Priority Announcements

Pillar 3

Pillar 1

End of Grant KT

Partnerships – peer to peer

Training Requirements

Network and Team Sustained Support

Individual Sustained Support

Global Health

Career Launch requirements

Partnerships – org to org

KT Strategy


The biggest changes will be Strategic Reform.









efo

rm t

o th

e P

eer

Rev

iew

S

yste

m

11

Why embark on this reform?

CIHR targets investments to achieve substantial impact for the Health of Canadians

This often involves addressing gaps in specific research areas and/or leveraging areas of strength in Canada.

We have received feedback from our community to have fewer more targeted initiatives

We have received feedback from GC to focus our strategic efforts on achieving greater impact.

CIHR embarked on the Strategic Reform to maximize the potential impact of targeted investments.

Attain greater focus, coherence and impact from CIHR’s strategic investments

Build strategies and initiatives that address Health and Health Systems priorities and advance Institute priorities.

Enhance Patient-

Oriented Care and Improve

Clinical Results through

Scientific and Technological

Innovations

Support a High-Quality,

Accessible and Sustainable Health-Care

System

Reduce Health Inequities of Aboriginal

Peoples and other

Vulnerable Populations

Prepare For and Respond To Existing

and Emerging Threats to

Health

Promote Health and Reduce the Burden of Chronic

Disease and Mental Illness

The new strategic investment planning process is a key component of this reform.

With this new approach, CIHR will:

Seven initiative business cases/plans are now at varying stages of development and approval:

Enhance Patient-Oriented Care and Improve Clinical Results through Scientific and Technological Innovations

Support a High-Quality, Accessible and Sustainable Health-Care System

Reduce Health Inequities of Aboriginal Peoples and other Vulnerable Populations

Prepare For and Respond To Existing and Emerging Threats to Health

Promote Health and Reduce the Burden of Chronic Disease and Mental Illness

• Canadian Epigenetics, Environment and Health Research Consortium

• Community Based Primary Health Care

• Personalized Medicine

• Pathways to Health Equity for Aboriginal Peoples

• Inflammation in Chronic Disease

• Strategy on Patient-Oriented Research: Networks and SUPPORT Units

• International Collaborative Research Strategy for Alzheimer’s Disease

CIHR Research Priority Areas

New potential concept paper topics will be identified each year. Planning for the 2011-12 process is underway

Currently:

Documenting lessons learned from this year’s process

Identifying the approach to complete scans on how well the five roadmap priorities are supported as well as to identify new opportunities

Data analysis on Open programs

Analysis of Strategic Initiatives launched in 2010-11

Gap analysis and identification of priority areas with IABs

Planning the approach for the Scientific Council session that will be held in September

Objectives for reforming CIHR’s open suite of programs: Capture excellence across all pillars Capture innovative/breakthrough research Improve sustainability of long-term research enterprise Integrate new talent

Any program design/change and implementation must take into consideration impacts on:

Peer review burden Applicant burden Program complexity Cost-effectiveness and efficiency Stability (regular and predictable competitions, stable program designs)

16


17

Existing open programs include:

• OOGP (including RCTs)• PHSI• KT Synthesis• Knowledge to Action• Science to Business• POP• MPDs• CHRP• IPCR• Research Resource Grant• Masters• Doctoral• Postdoctoral Fellowships• New Investigators program

Today…..

Stable Open Suite:

Future…..

Annual budget of~$530M

Approx 1100 new grants a year

Annual budget of~$530M

Approx # grants a year


Peer Review Enhancements










efo

rm t

o th

e P

eer

Rev

iew

S

yste

m

19

Why are we enhancing peer review?

The peer review process is an essential part of maintaining excellence in all fields of scientific endeavor. The excellence of the research supported by CIHR is entirely dependent on the excellence of the peer review process.

Over the last 10 years there have been numerous reviews, reports, surveys, evaluations and ad hoc feedback gathered from peers on CIHR’s current peer review system.

Although there are many strengths in our current system, several general themes emerged as areas for improvement:

ad hoc mechanism for peer recruitment is time-consuming/inefficient inconsistent instruction and training provided to peer reviewers and no formal

mechanism to support new peers lack of incentives for peer reviewers, lack of formal mechanisms for recognition of the

value peers add to our system no systematic approach for ongoing evaluation and incorporating improvement to

reviewers, committees, peer review process


2121


The objective of these enhancements is to ensure that our Peer Review System:

• Can evaluate all applications with the same degree of rigour and fairness irrespective of research area or methodology

• Can adapt as research evolves• Makes optimal use of our most precious asset, our peers• Has a process for selecting the best reviewers

This objective will be achieved by addressing three key areas;• Reviewer Recruitment• Reviewer Training• Reviewer Incentives, Recognition and Performance

Today CIHR has ad hoc mechanisms for peer reviewer recruitment

Current• Systematic recruitment process to identify and mobilize a

ready source of expertise to evaluate all funding applications submitted to CIHR

Vision

• Greater access to expert reviewers (national/international)• Systematic recruitment process open to all

Gains

• Develop a searchable database containing expertise spanning the entire mandate of CIHR

• Define a systematic approach to recruiting peers (to populate the database)

• Identify feasible yet impactful incentives to attract experts to peer review

• Investigate e-enabled methods for peer review

Planned Activities

Reviewer Recruitment


Today CIHR has Inconsistent instruction and training provided to peer reviewers & no formal mechanism to support new peers

Current• Peer reviewers informed, educated and supported in their

roles within the system

Vision

• Increased peer review effectiveness• Strengthened organizational leadership in reviewer

excellence and development

Gains

• Create comprehensive training materials for members (handbook, instructional docs and checklists)

• Expand mentorship program for Chairs, SOs and peers • Identify and create tools to deliver training (web-based

kiosks and mock meeting video)• Develop instructional materials for program delivery staff

and research facilitators in institutions• Investigate outreach programs and regular communiques

to peers

Planned Activities

Reviewer Training


• No regular incentives exist to recognize the value peers add to our system & no systematic approach for ongoing evaluation or incorporating improvement to reviewers, committees, peer review process

Current• Performance of peers recognized• Fair and transparent succession planning of reviewers to

Chair and SO roles• More formal approach to performance measurement of

peers, committees and the peer review process

Vision

• Increased recognition and incentives for reviewers• Institutions recognize participation in peer review as an

important contribution• Consistently high quality reviews and reviewers

Gains

• Establish recognition programs• Identify meaningful incentives for reviewers• Develop methods to receive feedback on peers, committee

functioning and peer review process using measurable performance indicators

• Establish a tracking system to manage and to systematically report on the peer reviewer system

Planned Activities


Reviewer Incentives, Recognition & Performance

Considerations for the reform of CIHR’s suite of open programs

Documents

Transcript of Considerations for the reform of CIHR’s suite of open programs