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 Strategy Reform of Open Suite of Programs Full spectrum of CIHR mandate Top Down Strategy Strategic 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 Reform to the Peer Review System 2

To support the strategic directions outlined in Roadmap, three reforms have been identified. All three reforms are interrelated. Bottom up Strategy Reform of Open Suite of Programs Full spectrum of CIHR mandate Top Down Strategy Strategic 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 Reform to the Peer Review System 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 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 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 March 2010 OOGP Applications by Pillar Pillar 1Pillar 2Pillar 3Pillar 4 Average Value644K542K392K376K Annual Average Value 141K150K133K114K Duration 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. 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 Created Barriers Cited CHRP (2004/05) Knowledge Synthesis (2005/06) Knowledge to Action (2005/06) PoP ( ) 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 Grants Commercialization 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 Strategy Reform of Open Suite of Programs Full spectrum of CIHR mandate Top Down Strategy Strategic 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 Reform to the Peer Review System 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 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 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

Peer Review Enhancements

To support the strategic directions outlined in Roadmap, three reforms have been identified. All three reforms are interrelated. Bottom up Strategy Reform of Open Suite of Programs Full spectrum of CIHR mandate Top Down Strategy Strategic 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 Reform to the Peer Review System 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

21 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