Considerations for the reform of CIHR’s suite of open programs.
-
Upload
claire-daniel -
Category
Documents
-
view
222 -
download
0
Transcript of 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
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
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
Considerations for the reform of CIHR’s suite of open programs
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.
Considerations for the reform of CIHR’s suite of open programs
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
Considerations for the reform of CIHR’s suite of open programs
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
Considerations for the reform of CIHR’s suite of open programs
- 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
Considerations for the reform of CIHR’s suite of open 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
Considerations for the reform of CIHR’s suite of open programs
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
Considerations for the reform of CIHR’s suite of open programs
The biggest changes will be Strategic Reform.
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
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
Considerations for the reform of CIHR’s suite of open programs
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
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
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
Peer Review Enhancements
2121
Peer Review Enhancements
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
Peer Review Enhancements
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
Peer Review Enhancements
• 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
Peer Review Enhancements
Reviewer Incentives, Recognition & Performance