1. After Action Review EU Fundraising
December 15, 2016

2. Six projects submitted
HENCE: the Human Evidence Project: Global health knowledge curation through human-machine discovery, analysis and validation.
FETOPEN-RIA
FETOPEN
TRANSCEND: Transcending Methods for Evidence based Nutrition (H2020-MSCA-ITN-2016)
ECHO: Enlarge Capacity building and eHealth Opportunities for improved health digital literacy (SC1-HCO )
INTERACT: The INTERnAtional network on Crisis Translation (MSCA-RISE-2016)
IMPETUS: IMPlementation research and Evidence curation for improving equiTable pUblic health policies and programS (SC1-PM )

3. At least 8 other projects considered
Comparing the effectiveness of existing heatlhcare interventions in the adult population (health societal challenge): Cochrane Cancer Alliance
Strategic partnerships in the field of youth (Erasmus +): Cochrane Germany
Marie Curie Training Networks:
Cochrane Brazil network
Cochrane African network
Cochrane Germany
How to tackle childhood obesity epidemic? (food societal challenge): CET (coordination by the University of Cambridge)
Platform driven e-infrastructure innovation (infrastructure): IKMD (coordination by UCL)
Marie Curie Research and Innovation Staff Exchange: CET (partnership with PAHO)
Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases (GACD) prevention and management of mental disorders: Cochrane Global Mental Health Satellite
Integrating Society in Science and Innovation – An approach to co-creation (science with and for society): IKMD (partnership with Oxford)

4. Three ongoing projects involving CET
HimL ( ): Health in my Language (ICT )
INTERACT ( ): The INTERnAtional network on Crisis Translation (MSCA-RISE-2016)
Mirror ( ): Methods in Research on Research (MSCA- ITN-2015)

5. Role played by CET
Advisory role
Review of proposals
Coordination

6. Lessons learnt Interest raised by Cochrane groups to join EC bids
Lack of understanding of EU process
Limited time dedicated by group leaders to the preparation of proposals and underestimation of time needed for proposal development
Problems with respecting deadlines
Need more support (full-time position + junior staff)
Need more involvement of CET at the European level: advocacy
Need real technical leaders for supporting the decision-making in terms of partnership and project directions
Need for primarily considering competencies and expertise for the development of consortia
Difficulties to find common grounds for consortium development
Difficulties in being totally transparent for collecting expression of interest and establishing partnerships

7. Legal barriers
A lot of Cochrane groups are based in the UK: what is the impact of Brexit?
Although the EC states that the evaluation process continues business as usual, it is legitimate to wonder if it really has no impact and how long it will last.
Developing proposals is time consuming and success rates are already low: to which extend, should we take the chance to be rejected because of the nationality of the coordinator/partner?
Ultimately, UK-based organisations may not be allowed to take part in EU bids.
How many Cochrane groups are able to coordinate proposals in Europe?
A lot of Cochrane groups are not legal entities and cannot receive funding on behalf of Cochrane: what is the relevance in using host organisations for taking part in EU bids?

8. Results from Group monitoring re EU funding
Limited Cochrane involvement in EU bids:
Only 5 groups submitted proposals at the EU level
only 2 proposals were successful
Interest in joining bids: 64,2 % of Cochrane groups are interested in taking part in EU bids that are coordinated by CET (27% have no opinion)
Need for support in fundraising activities: 62,8 % of Cochrane groups don’t receive any support from their host organisations
Identification of funding opportunities
Information about calls (regular alerts, calendar of openings, tips for proposal preparation, information about programs)
Administrative support for submission
Assistance for drafting proposals
Application review

9. Reflections from Cochrane EU Working Group
Compelling ideas in response to EC calls need to come from experts within Cochrane Groups (from the research community) We need a skills database to facilitate building of consortia (could use TaskExchange for this) We need to know at a much earlier stage which topics are being developed within the EC for research calls (participate in open consultations; check within host institutions of Cochrane Groups what mechanisms are used to influence the agendas; find out who gets consulted)