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

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 Strategic Reform Reform to the Peer Review System • 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 2

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: • PHSI • KT Synthesis • Knowledge to Action • POP • MPDs • CHRP • Team Grants • Masters • Doctoral • Postdoctoral • New Investigators program 6 Does not include CRC, NCE, CERC funds.

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 Considerations for the reform of CIHR’s suite of open programs March 2010 OOGP Applications by Pillar 7 Averages based on 2009/10 Competition Results

Considerations for the reform of CIHR’s suite of open programs Application and Funding Statistics OOGP and Related Programs 33% 29% 31% 28% 29% 23% • 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 Program Created PoP (2001-02) • 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 CHRP (2004/05) PHSI (2005/06) Knowledge Synthesis (2005/06) Knowledge to Action (2005/06) MPDs (2007/08) 9

Many parts of CIHR rely on the “open” programs to deliver on CIHR’s mandate: Considerations for the reform of CIHR’s suite of open programs Integrated KT Tri-Council End of Grant KT Institutes Institutional Partners MPDs Pillar 4 Ethics Priority Announcements Pillar 3 Citizen & Public Engagement International System level Sustained Support Pillar 1 Pillar 2 Network and Team Sustained Support Commercialization Large Grants Intervention Research 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 Strategic Reform Reform to the Peer Review System • 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 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. 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 Enhance Patient-Oriented Care and Improve Clinical Results through Scientific and Technological Innovations

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 • 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 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

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 Future….. Today….. • 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 Stable Open Suite: Annual budget of~$530M Annual budget of~$530M Approx # grants a year Approx 1100 new grants a year 17

Peer Review Enhancements

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 21

Peer Review Enhancements Reviewer Recruitment Current Vision • Systematic recruitment process to identify and mobilize a ready source of expertise to evaluate all funding applications submitted to CIHR Today CIHR has ad hoc mechanisms for peer reviewer recruitment 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 Vision • Peer reviewers informed, educated and supported in their roles within the system Today CIHR has Inconsistent instruction and training provided to peer reviewers & no formal mechanism to support new peers 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 Current Vision • 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 • 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 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

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