Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Government of Canada Symbol
Skip to content Skip to institutional links

Common menu bar links

Home > Institutes > Infection and Immunity

 

Evaluation of CIHR's HIV/AIDS Community-Based Research Program - Final Report

Appendix C: Interview Guides

[ Table of Contents ]

Evaluation of the CIHR HIV/AIDS CBR Program Interview Guide for CIHR, Partners, and Steering Committee Members

This is a general interview guide; any additional insights relevant to the evaluation are welcome. Please answer the questions for the streams and funding tools with which you are familiar. Please feel free to decline to answer any questions for which you do not have full information. All comments you provide will be confidential to PRA Inc., and results will be reported in aggregate only.

A brief factsheet is attached to this interview guide. It describes the purpose of the evaluation and provides an overview of the Federal Initiative to Address HIV/AIDS in Canada, CIHR's Strategic Plan, and the HIV/AIDS CBR Program funding streams and tools.

  1. How have you been involved in the CIHR HIV/AIDS CBR Program? (Prompt: Were you involved with the general stream or the Aboriginal stream? What funding tools are you familiar with?) What were your specific roles and responsibilities?

    Relevance

  2. In your opinion, how does the CIHR HIV/AIDS CBR Program support:
    • The Federal Initiative (FI) to Address HIV/AIDS?
    • The Strategic Plan for the CIHR HIV/AIDS Research Initiative?
  3. In your view, how well does the HIV/AIDS CBR Program, in its current form, respond to the needs of communities? What research needs, if any, do you believe the Program is not able to meet? How do you think the program could be modified to address these needs?
  4. How do you think communities would be impacted if this program did not exist? To your knowledge, are other sources of funding available to communities and academia for HIV/AIDS community-based research?

    Design/delivery

  5. In your opinion, how aware are communities and academia of the HIV/AIDS CBR Program, including its two streams and six funding tools? How has the program been promoted? Do you have any suggestions for other ways to promote the program?
  6. What factors do you think may prevent communities and/or academia from applying to the program? Do these factors differ by streams or funding tools? How can CIHR address these factors?
  7. Based on the applications you have seen or the feedback you have received from stakeholders, how easy or hard is it for communities and/or academia to complete the registration and application forms? Does the ease of completing applications vary by stream or funding tool? Are applicants able to provide the required information (i.e., CVs, research proposals, etc.)? To your knowledge, are they having any difficulty using the web forms? What changes, if any, would you suggest be made to the application process?
  8. How well is the Merit Review process working in terms of
    • including community participation in the review process?
    • achieving an appropriate balance between scientific rigour and community impact in assessing applications?
    • having clear criteria for assessing applications?
    • providing useful feedback to applicants to assist with their funded projects or to assist with resubmitting applications that did not receive funding?

    Please specify any differences by stream or funding tools. Do you have any suggestions for changes to the Merit Review process?

  9. To your knowledge, are approved applicants having any difficulty meeting the conditions required for their funding to be released (e.g., obtaining ethics approval, providing budget forms, submitting revenue information, etc.)? If yes, what assistance could CIHR provide these applicants?
  10. Based on your experience and any feedback you have received on funded projects, how involved have the communities been in each stage of the research (e.g., defining the research question, developing the proposal, conducting the research, and disseminating results)? Are there any factors that affect the ability of communities to be involved and act as equal collaborators with their academic co-applicants? How might these factors be addressed?
  11. To what extent do the reports of funded projects enable CIHR to monitor the HIV/AIDS CBR Program's performance? How consistent is the type of information collected across projects? Is there other information that the reports should capture?
  12. Do you have any concerns with the design or delivery of the HIV/AIDS CBR Program? What changes would you make to the design and delivery of the program?
  13. To your knowledge, is this program similar to any other community-based research programs (regardless of the research subject matter)? If yes, what are the similarities and differences between the programs?

    Success

  14. To your knowledge, what are the intended results of the program? What progress do you believe the program has made toward its intended results?
  15. In your opinion, how effective has the Community-Based Research Facilitator funding been at promoting the program, building community research capacity, and fostering the development of new partnerships? What changes can you suggest to improve the effectiveness of this funding tool?
  16. Based on the information available to you, to what extent have the projects carried out through the HIV/AIDS CBR Program resulted in
    1. improved capacity of communities to direct and conduct research?
    2. increased stakeholder involvement in HIV/AIDS or other research?
    3. increased dissemination of research results to communities and other stakeholders?
    4. increased use of research results by stakeholders to address community issues?

    Where possible, please give specific examples.

    What challenges, if any, exist to meeting these goals?

  17. To your knowledge, what unintended results, if any, has the program had?

    Conclusion

  18. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the HIV/AIDS CBR Program? What lessons have been learned for designing and delivering future CBR programming?
  19. Is there anything you would like to add?

Thank you for your assistance with this study


Top of Page

Evaluation of the CIHR HIV/AIDS CBR Program Interview Guide for Merit Review Committee members

This is a general interview guide; any additional insights relevant to the evaluation are welcome. Please answer the questions for the streams and funding tools with which you are familiar. Please feel free to decline to answer any questions for which you do not have full information. All comments you provide will be confidential to PRA Inc., and results will be reported in aggregate only.

A brief factsheet is attached to this interview guide. It describes the purpose of the evaluation and provides an overview of the Federal Initiative to Address HIV/AIDS in Canada, CIHR's Strategic Plan, and the HIV/AIDS CBR Program funding streams and tools.

  1. How have you been involved in the CIHR HIV/AIDS CBR Program? (Prompt: Were you involved with the general stream or the Aboriginal stream? What funding tools are you familiar with?) What were your specific roles and responsibilities?

    Relevance

  2. In your opinion, how does the CIHR HIV/AIDS CBR Program support:
    • The Federal Initiative (FI) to Address HIV/AIDS?
    • The Strategic Plan for the CIHR HIV/AIDS Research Initiative?
  3. In your view, how well does the HIV/AIDS CBR Program, in its current form, respond to the needs of communities? What research needs, if any, do you believe the Program is not able to meet? How do you think the program could be modified to address these needs?
  4. How do you think communities would be impacted if this program did not exist? To your knowledge, are other sources of funding available to communities and academia for HIV/AIDS community-based research?

    Design/delivery

  5. In your opinion, how aware are communities and academia of the HIV/AIDS CBR Program, including its two streams and six funding tools? How has the program been promoted? Do you have any suggestions for other ways to promote the program?
  6. Based on the applications you have reviewed, are the program objectives and eligibility criteria clearly defined and understood by applicants?
  7. Generally, how complete are the applications that are submitted for funding? Are there certain types of information that applicants seem to have difficulty providing? Does the ability of applicants to complete the forms vary by funding tool? Is there any additional information that the application form should collect?
  8. What factors do you think may prevent communities and/or academia from applying to the program? Do these factors differ by streams or funding tools? How can CIHR address these factors?
  9. Based on your experience as a reviewer, how involved have the communities been in defining the research question and developing the proposal? Do the proposed projects clearly provide for community involvement in conducting the research and disseminating results? In your opinion, are there any factors that reduce the ability of communities to be involved and act as equal collaborators with their academic co-applicants? How might these factors be addressed?
  10. How well is the Merit Review process working in terms of
    • having clear criteria for assessing applications?
    • including community participation in the review process?
    • achieving an appropriate balance between scientific rigour and community impact in assessing applications? In your opinion, do the individuals who are asked to take part in both the community and scientific review have the appropriate background to do the review?
    • providing useful feedback to applicants to assist with their funded projects or to assist with resubmitting applications that did not receive funding?

    Please specify any differences by funding tools.

  11. How does the scientific review process for the HIV/AIDS CBR Program compare to other scientific review panels you have participated in? Do you have concerns about the scientific rigor of the process used in the CIHR HIV/AIDS CBR Program?
  12. What do you believe the strengths and weaknesses of the Merit Review process are? What changes to the review process would you recommend?
  13. Do you have any concerns with the overall design or delivery of the HIV/AIDS CBR Program? What changes would you make to the design and delivery of the program?

    Success

  14. To your knowledge, what are the intended results of the program? What progress do you believe the program has made toward its intended results?
  15. In your opinion, how effective has the Community-Based Research Facilitator funding been at promoting the CIHR HIV/AIDS CBR Program, building community research capacity and fostering the development of new partnerships? Has the Community-Based Research Facilitator funding had any other impacts on communities? What changes, if any, can you suggest to improve the effectiveness of this funding tool?

  16. Based on the information available to you, how are the projects funded through the HIV/AIDS CBR program expected to

    1. improve the capacity of communities to direct and conduct research?
    2. increase stakeholder involvement in HIV/AIDS or other research?
    3. increase dissemination of research results to communities and other stakeholders?
    4. increase use of research results by stakeholders to address community issues?

    What challenges exist to meeting these goals?

    Conclusion

  17. Is there anything you would like to add?

Thank you for your assistance with this study.


Top of Page

Evaluation of the CIHR HIV/AIDS CBR Program Interview Guide for Research Facilitators

This is a general interview guide; any additional insights relevant to the evaluation are welcome. Please answer the questions for the streams and funding tools with which you are familiar. Please feel free to decline to answer any questions for which you do not have full information. All comments you provide will be confidential to PRA Inc., and results will be reported in aggregate only.

A brief factsheet is attached to this interview guide. It describes the purpose of the evaluation and provides an overview of the Federal Initiative to Address HIV/AIDS in Canada, CIHR's Strategic Plan, and the HIV/AIDS CBR Program funding streams and tools.

  1. As a Community-Based Research Facilitator, how would you define your role in the community? What work have you done as a Community-Based Research Facilitator? What communities and organizations have you worked with?
  2. In your opinion, how aware are communities and academia of the HIV/AIDS CBR Program, including its two streams and six funding tools? How has the program been promoted? Do you have any suggestions for other ways to promote the program?
  3. In your view, how well does the HIV/AIDS CBR Program, in its current form, respond to the needs of communities? What research needs, if any, do you believe the Program is not able to meet? How do you think the program could be modified to address these needs?
  4. What factors do you think may prevent communities and/or academia from applying to the program? Do these factors differ by streams or funding tools? How can CIHR address these factors?
  5. Based on your experience, how involved have the communities been in each stage of the research (defining the research question, developing the proposal, conducting the research, and disseminating results)? Are there any factors that affect the ability of communities to be involved as equal collaborators with their academic co-applicants? How might these factors be addressed?
  6. In your opinion, how easy or difficult is it for communities to complete the registration and application forms? Does the ease of completing applications vary by funding tool? Are applicants able to provide the required information (i.e., CVs, research proposals, etc.)? To your knowledge, are they having any difficulty using the web forms? What changes, if any, would you suggest be made to the application process?
  7. To your knowledge, are approved applicants having any difficulty meeting the conditions required for their funding to be released (e.g., obtaining ethics approval, providing budget forms, submitting revenue information)? If yes, what assistance could CIHR provide these applicants?
  8. How would you define your relationship with CIHR? What works and what does not?
  9. How useful do you find the annual Community-Based Research Facilitator meetings? What changes, if any, would you make to the structure or frequency of these meetings?
  10. Do you have any concerns with the design or delivery of the HIV/AIDS CBR Program? What changes, if any, would you make to the design and delivery of the program?
  11. In your opinion, to what extent has your work as a Community-Based Research Facilitators assisted in
    1. developing partnerships between communities and researchers?
    2. capacity-building so that communities are better able to direct and conduct research?
    3. promoting stakeholder involvement in HIV/AIDS or other research in addition to that funded by the HIV/AIDS CBR program?
    4. disseminating research results to communities and other stakeholders?
    5. using research results by stakeholders to address community issues?

    Were there or do you expect any challenges to meeting these goals? If you experienced challenges, how did you address them?

  12. To your knowledge, what unintended results, if any, has the program had?
  13. What do you believe the strengths and weaknesses of the HIV/AIDS CBR Program are?
  14. What is the likelihood that community-based research would be conducted outside of the HIV/AIDS CBR Program without this support? How do you think communities would be impacted if this program did not exist? To your knowledge, are other sources of funding are available to communities and academia for HIV/AIDS community-based research?
  15. Do you have any other suggestions for how to improve the program?
  16. Is there anything you would like to add?

Thank you for your assistance with this study.


Top of Page

Evaluation of the CIHR HIV/AIDS CBR Program Interview Guide for Applicants

This is a general interview guide; any additional insights relevant to the evaluation are welcome. Please answer the questions for the streams and funding tools with which you are familiar. Please feel free to decline to answer any questions for which you do not have full information. All comments you provide will be confidential to PRA Inc., and results will be reported in aggregate only.

  1. Please describe how and why you/your organization became involved in HIV/AIDS research. (How long have you/has your organization been involved in addressing HIV/AIDS and/or community needs?)
  2. How did you become aware of the CIHR HIV/AIDS CBR Program? In your opinion, what is the best way to promote the program to communities and academia?

    Relevance

  3. In your view, how well does the HIV/AIDS CBR Program, in its current form, respond to the needs of communities? What research needs, if any, do you believe the Program is not able to meet? How do you think the program could be modified to address these needs?
  4. How do you think communities would be impacted if this program did not exist? To your knowledge, are other sources of funding available to communities and academia for HIV/AIDS community-based research?
  5. What factors do you think may prevent communities and academia from applying to the program? Do these factors differ by streams or funding tools? How can CIHR address these factors?

    Design/delivery (based on your application)

  6. Did you work with a Community-Based Research Facilitator? If no, why not? If yes, what assistance did you receive and how useful was it?
  7. Who did you collaborate with on your application? How were you and your research collaborator each involved in identifying the research need and preparing the proposal?
  8. How did you find the application process? How easy or difficult was it for you to complete the registration and application forms? Were you able to provide all of the required information (i.e., CVs, research proposals, etc.)? Did you have any difficulty using the web forms? What changes, if any, would you suggest be made to the application process?
  9. How did you find the Merit Review process? Were you aware of the criteria against which your application was being assessed? What aspects of the review process, if any, were unclear?
  10. (Declined applicants) If you have made an application that was not accepted, why was it not successful? Did CIHR provide you with any feedback on how to improve/revise your unsuccessful application? How useful did you find this information?
  11. (Declined applicants) If you have had an application was not successful, did you reapply with the same application? If yes, how many times did you reapply with the same application? If no, please tell us why you did not reapply.
  12. (Accepted applicants) What challenges, if any, did you experience in meeting the conditions required for the funding to be released (e.g., obtaining ethics approval, providing budget forms, submitting revenue information)? How could CIHR have helped you address these challenges?
  13. (Accepted applicants) How were you and your research collaborator each involved in conducting the research and sharing the results with the community?
  14. (Accepted applicants) Are there any factors that reduced the community's ability to be involved as an equal collaborator in the research? How might these factors be addressed?
  15. (Accepted applicants) In your opinion, are the program's reporting requirements (e.g., interim reports, final reports, financial reports) reasonable? What challenges, if any, did you encounter in preparing these reports?

    Success

  16. What are the intended results of your project? What progress has your project made toward its intended results?
  17. How has (or will) your project
    1. improve the capacity of the community to direct and conduct research?
    2. increase your organization/institution's interest in future involvement in HIV/AIDS or other research?
    3. disseminate the results of the research results to the community and other stakeholders?
    4. use the research results to address community issues?

    Were there (or do you expect) any challenges in meeting these goals? If you experienced challenges, how did you address them?

  18. Has your project had any unintended impacts?
  19. (Accepted applicants)What is the likelihood that the research would have been conducted without the support of the HIV/AIDS CBR Program?
  20. (Declined applicants) Were you still able to conduct your research project? If yes, what funding sources did you use? Did you have to change the project in order to obtain funding?

    Conclusion

  21. What do you believe the strengths and weaknesses of the HIV/AIDS CBR Program are?
  22. Do you have any suggestions for how to improve the program?
  23. If you were in a position to advise others on how to undertake a similar project, what advice would you give them?
  24. Would you apply again for HIV/AIDS CBR Program funding? Why or why not?
  25. Is there anything you would like to add?

Thank you for your assistance with this study.


Top of Page

Evaluation of the CIHR HIV/AIDS CBR Program Interview Guide for HIV/AIDS stakeholders

Note: This is a general interview guide; any additional insights relevant to the evaluation are welcome. Please feel free to decline to answer any questions for which you do not have full information. All comments you provide will be confidential to PRA Inc., and results will be reported in aggregate only.

A brief factsheet is attached to this interview guide. It describes the purpose of the evaluation and provides an overview of the Federal Initiative to Address HIV/AIDS in Canada, CIHR's Strategic Plan, and the HIV/AIDS CBR Program funding streams and tools.

  1. To what extent has your organization supported and/or undertaken HIV/AIDS research projects? What partners, if any, did you work with on these projects? What sources of funding did you use to complete the research?
  2. Are you aware of the CIHR HIV/AIDS CBR Program, including its two streams and six funding tools? If yes, how did you become aware of the program? In your opinion, was this method of promoting the program effective? What do you think would be the best way to promote the program to stakeholders in the HIV/AIDS community?

    The remaining questions are for stakeholders who are aware of the Program.

  3. Based on your understanding of the CIHR HIV/AIDS CBR Program, would your organization's mandate encompass the type of research funded by the program? If not, how does the program fall outside your mandate?
  4. To your knowledge, why has your organization not applied for funding through the HIV/AIDS CBR Program? Has your organization ever consulted with a Community-Based Research Facilitator about submitting an application? If yes, how useful was the Community-Based Research Facilitator?
  5. What factors do you think may prevent HIV/AIDS stakeholders from applying to the program? How can CIHR address these factors?
  6. What could CIHR do to encourage organizations like yours to apply?
  7. Do you have any other suggestions for the HIV/AIDS CBR Program?
  8. Is there anything you would like to add?

Thank you for your assistance with this study.

[ Previous Section | Next Section ]

Modified: 2009-09-23

Top of Page
Important Notices