Transcript Slide 1

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.
Top Down Strategy
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
Full spectrum of CIHR mandate
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
Bottom up Strategy
Reform of Open Suite of Programs
Reform to the Peer Review System
Strategic Reform
2
To support the strategic directions outlined in
Roadmap, three reforms have been identified. All
three reforms are interrelated.
Top Down Strategy
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
Full spectrum of CIHR mandate
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
Bottom up Strategy
Reform of Open Suite of Programs
Reform to the Peer Review System
Strategic Reform
3
Considerations for the reform of CIHR’s
suite of open programs
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:
“Other” existing open
programs include:
Strategic
31%
OOGP
54%
Other Open
15%
Does not include CRC, NCE, CERC funds.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
PHSI
KT Synthesis
Knowledge to Action
POP
MPDs
CHRP
Team Grants
Masters
Doctoral
Postdoctoral
New Investigators program
6
Considerations for the reform of CIHR’s
suite of open programs
March 2010 OOGP
Applications by Pillar
Health
systems
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.

Clinical
16%
Pop
Health
10%
Biomed
68%
Both total grant value and grant duration vary 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
Application and Funding Statistics OOGP and Related Programs
5000
4,416
Number of Not Approved
Applications (All Grants)
3,894
4000
3,625
3,365
% Funded Grants
Number of Applications
3,680
3,672
3000
Additional Funded Full-Term
Grants
Additional Funded Bridge
Grants
2000
1000
33%
29%
28%
31%
29%
23%
Number of Approved
Applications
(Funded under OOGP core
budget)
0
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
2009-10
2010-11
-
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.
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
Barriers Cited
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
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
Program Created
PoP
(2001-02)
CHRP
(2004/05)
PHSI
(2005/06)
Knowledge Synthesis
(2005/06)
Knowledge to Action
(2005/06)
MPDs
(2007/08)
9
Considerations for the reform of CIHR’s
suite of open programs
Many parts of CIHR rely on the “open” programs to deliver on
CIHR’s mandate:
Integrated KT
Tri-Council
Institutes
End of Grant KT
Institutional
Partners
MPDs
Ethics
Citizen & Public
Engagement
International
Commercialization
Pillar 4
System level
Sustained Support
Large Grants
Priority
Announcements
Pillar 1
Pillar 2
Intervention
Research
Pillar 3
Network and Team
Sustained Support
Career Launch
requirements
Individual Sustained
Support
Partnerships – peer
to peer
Initiatives (incl
SPOR)
Partnerships – org
to org
Training
Requirements
KT Strategy
Global Health
High Risk / High
Impact
10
The biggest changes will be Strategic Reform.
Top Down Strategy
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
Full spectrum of CIHR mandate
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
Bottom up Strategy
Reform to the Peer Review System
Strategic Reform
11
CIHR embarked on the Strategic Reform to maximize the
potential impact of targeted investments.
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.
The new strategic investment planning process is a key
component of this reform.
With this new approach, CIHR will:
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
PatientOriented 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
Seven initiative business cases/plans are now at
varying stages of development and approval:
CIHR Research Priority Areas
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
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
Considerations for the reform of CIHR’s
suite of open programs
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
Today…..
Existing open programs include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Future…..
Stable Open Suite:
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
Annual budget of~$530M
Approx 1100 new grants a year
Annual budget of~$530M
Approx # grants a year
17
Peer Review Enhancements
To support the strategic directions outlined in
Roadmap, three reforms have been identified. All
three reforms are interrelated.
Top Down Strategy
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
Full spectrum of CIHR mandate
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
Bottom up Strategy
Reform of Open Suite of Programs
Reform to the Peer Review System
Strategic Reform
19
Peer Review Enhancements
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

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
21
Peer Review Enhancements
Reviewer Recruitment
Current
Today CIHR has ad hoc
mechanisms for peer
reviewer recruitment
Vision
• Systematic recruitment process to identify and mobilize a
ready source of expertise to evaluate all funding applications
submitted to CIHR
Gains
• Greater access to expert reviewers (national/international)
• Systematic recruitment process open to all
Planned Activities
• 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
Peer Review Enhancements
Reviewer Training
Current
Today CIHR has
Inconsistent instruction
and training provided to
peer reviewers & no
formal mechanism to
support new peers
Vision
• Peer reviewers informed, educated and supported in their
roles within the system
Gains
• Increased peer review effectiveness
• Strengthened organizational leadership in reviewer
excellence and development
Planned Activities
• 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
Peer Review Enhancements
Reviewer Incentives, Recognition & Performance
Vision
Current
• 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
• 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
Gains
• Increased recognition and incentives for reviewers
• Institutions recognize participation in peer review as an
important contribution
• Consistently high quality reviews and reviewers
Planned Activities
• 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