Power Point Presentation - Healthcare Renewal Policy Analysis
[ PDF (508 KB) | help ][Slide 1]
Evidence-Informed Healthcare Renewal
Healthcare Renewal Policy Analysis
Funding Opportunity
Information Webinar for Applicants
June 2012
[Slide 2]
Outline
- Background and Overview of Evidence-Informed Healthcare Renewal Initiative
- Funding Opportunity Highlights
- Merit Review
- General Tips
- Resources
[Slide 3]
Evidence-Informed Healthcare Renewal
CIHR Roadmap Signature Initiative
- Led by IHSPR and KT Branch
- Goal: To support research, capacity building and knowledge translation in the priority areas of healthcare financing and funding; health system sustainability; and governance and accountability
[Slide 4]
Evidence-Informed Healthcare Renewal
- The EIHR initiative provides an opportunity for engagement across different disciplines (e.g. health services research, economics, sociology, political science, law)
- Also, different sectors such as health, finance, education, social services
[Slide 5]
What is Health Policy Analysis?
- An approach to public policy that aims to mobilize a range of new and existing research evidence to analyze policy options in order to provide advice to policy and decision makers
- To support the generation of robust health policy analyses that identify evidence-informed policy options for healthcare renewal in Canada
- Responsive to the evidence needs of health system policy makers
[Slide 6]
Why is Health Policy Analysis Important?
- An important tool for policy makers
- It can help to understand which health policies have been successfully implemented, and why
- It can explore why policies are successful in one jurisdiction but not another
- It can help to understand what conditions are required for successful implementation (obstacles and facilitators that influence outcomes)
[Slide 7]
Key Components
- Integrated Knowledge Translation Approach
- Driven by the priorities relevant to the policy maker
- Research team must have two Principal Applicants – a researcher and a Principal Knowledge User who must be a policy maker based in Canada
[Slide 8]
Integrated KT
- As a minimum requirement for conducting integrated KT, knowledge users and researchers must work together to:
- Shape the research questions
- Interpret study findings and craft messaging around them
- Move the research results into practice
- … In addition, knowledge users and researchers can work together to:
- Decide on the methodology
- Help with data collection and tools development
- Conduct widespread dissemination and application
[Slide 9]
Knowledge Users
- An individual:
- who is likely to be able to use the knowledge generated through research in order to make informed decisions about health policies, programs and/or practices
- whose level of engagement in the research process may vary in intensity and complexity depending on the nature of the research and their information needs
- Examples:
- practitioner, policy-maker, educator, decision-maker, health care administrator, community leader, or an individual in a health charity, patient group, private sector organization or a media outlet.
[Slide 10]
"Policy Maker" - Definition
- A senior-level knowledge user who is directly involved in the formulation of policies related to health and is capable of making or influencing changes to policies related to health that have a population-level impact.
- Must work directly within the health sector or other sectors that intersect with health (education, social services, industry)
- A policy maker must be a Principal Knowledge User Applicant
[Slide 11]
Policy Maker Target Audiences
- All 13 ministries of health have indicated an interest in working with researchers – some have identified particular areas of priority
- Federal; provincial/territorial ministries of health, education, social services, industry; Regional Health Authorities; public health departments may be policy maker partners
- Funding for one team to work with the European Observatory's performance programme
[Slide 12]
Three Phases for Projects
Phase 1
- Agreement on policy issue, methods and data for the analysis, KT plan
- Analyze research evidence / key dimensions
- Formulate top three feasible policy options & their implications
- Prepare a draft report
[Slide 13]
Three Phases for Projects (cont'd)
Phase 2
- Health Policy Roundtable hosted by the team
- Present policy options
Phase 3
- Team incorporates feedback received; revise policy options
- Finalize and share policy analysis report.
[Slide 14]
Funds Available
- Maximum $150,000 for one year.
- Targeted funding "pools"
- CIHR Institutes of:
- Aging
- Health Services and Policy Research
- European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies
- Human Development, Child and Youth Health
- Infection and Immunity
- Population and Public Health
- CIHR Institutes of:
[Slide 15]
For more information, see the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies Website.
[Slide 16]
Allowable Costs
- KT-related costs for networking and exchange
- $15K to be allocated to policy roundtable
- Release time allowance available - $25K per year, per individual per grant (see specific guidelines for who qualifies)
[Slide 17]
Merit Review
- Both knowledge users and researchers are on the review panel - each proposal is reviewed by at least one of each
- Knowledge users are not required to have academic backgrounds (expertise is related to their experience)
- Each proposal is scored on both potential impact and scientific merit
[Slide 18]
CIHR's rating scale for merit review
| Potential Impact | Range | Scientific Merit | |
|---|---|---|---|
| May Be Funded | Extremely Significant | 4.5 – 4.9 | Exceptional |
| Very Significant | 4.0 – 4.4 | Outstanding | |
| Significant | 3.5 – 3.9 | Excellent, may still require revision | |
| Not Fundable | Moderate | 3.0 – 3.4 | Very good however needs revision to be fundable |
| Limited | 2.5 – 2.9 | Needs major revision | |
| Negligible | 0.0 – 2.4 | Seriously flawed |
Only applications rated 3.5 or higher on both Potential Impact and Scientific Merit are eligible for CIHR funding.
[Slide 19]
Review Criteria Headings:
- Policy Issue
- Policy Analysis Approach
- Feasibility
- Impact of Policy Analysis
[Slide 20]
1. Policy Issue
Explanation of the policy issue.
What this means for you:
- Be clear about what the policy issue is right away
- Ensure (and explain) its relevance to at least one of the evidence-informed healthcare renewal objectives
- Be clear about the origin of the issue: why it is important, who is interested in it and what the policy maker partners think about it
- Demonstrate that the issue has been shaped by the participating policy makers and responds to their needs
- Highlight the potential for applicability and transferability to policy makers in other jurisdictions across Canada.
[Slide 21]
2. Policy Analysis Approach
Detailed description of the research approach and justification for the proposed methods/strategies.
What this means for you:
- Ensure the design addresses the three phases of this funding opportunity and the required components.
- Be clear and specific about your proposed methods – don't assume that the committee is familiar with the methodology
- Justify your approach – someone on the committee is bound to disagree with you
- Ensure policy makers are engaged throughout
- Include a reasonable end-of-grant KT plan appropriate for the projects goals and audiences - distinguish between the policy maker users participating in the project and other target audiences that will be reached by the dissemination plan
[Slide 22]
3. Feasibility
Demonstration that the researcher-policy maker team has the requisite skills, experience and resources to complete the project in the one-year time frame.
What this means for you:
- Document the expertise of each team member and their role in the proposed study (include expertise in the content area to be covered, expertise in policy analysis methods, experience working with policy makers)
- Be clear about why each member is on the team, their strengths, and how they are able to do the work
- Demonstrate that this is this is a "doable" study – from both a scientific and a practical perspective
- Link KT activities to a thorough budget justification
[Slide 23]
4. Impact of Policy Analysis
Results expected from the successful uptake of project findings.
What this means for you:
- Consider the potential impact of your study and its transferability
- Illustrate how it will have a substantive and sustainable impact on financing and funding, sustainability, and/or governance and accountability of Canada's healthcare systems
- While the project is intended to respond to the needs of participating policy makers, findings can have even greater impact depending on the extent to which the results are transferable to other contexts. It should be transferable enough that other, similar audiences will benefit.
- If it is not transferable, acknowledge and justify this
[Slide 24]
General Tips
- Read and understand all requirements
- Contact us if you are unsure about anything
- Invest enough time to prepare and revise, revise, revise!
- Establish the need, importance of the project
- Show how the proposed work fits into the larger scheme of things
[Slide 25]
General Tips
- Set challenging yet realistic goals
- Clearly articulate the theoretical or conceptual framework
- do not neglect the literature review
- Write with the reviewers in mind; reviewers do not simply read, they interpret
- Keep in mind that your application will be reviewed by both researchers and knowledge users
- Ensure the proposal flows logically, is clearly written and easy to read
- Use simple declarative sentences
[Slide 26]
General Tips
- Avoid use of imprecise words, jargon, unusual abbreviations, acronyms, and poor grammar and syntax
- Proof-read!
- Have others review your application (not just your friends and collaborators)
- recognize that greater clarification in the proposal may be warranted even if you do not agree with the comments/concerns
[Slide 27]
Common Pitfalls
- Unclear research question / objectives
- Weak or "token" knowledge user involvement
- Lack of theoretical rationale
- Lack of specificity in the methodology
- Lack of expertise on the team
- Low potential impact – or not transferable / generalizable
- Lack of detail in the end-of-grant KT plan around sharing results with other relevant groups
[Slide 28]
Key Dates:
- August 22, 2012 – deadline to approach the European Observatory for a letter of support
- September 19, 2012 – Applications are due to CIHR
- March 12, 2013 – Notification of Awards
[Slide 29]
Contact Information
For questions about the initiative and the research objectives:
Jennifer Campbell
jennifer.campbell@cihr-irsc.gc.ca
(613) 941-0805
For questions about the CIHR funding guidelines, how to apply, and the merit review process:
Jeff Warren
jeff.warren@cihr-irsc.gc.ca
(613) 948-2813
[Slide 30]
Technical Support
CIHR PIN:
1-888-603-4178
pin-nip@cihr-irsc.gc.ca
ResearchNet Technical Support:
1-888-603-4178 or 613-941-9080
support@researchnet-recherchenet.ca
General Information Service for Funding Enquiries:
1-888-603-4178 or 613-954-1968
info@cihr-irsc.gc.ca
[Slide 31]
KT Funding Opportunities
| KT Focus | Funding mechanisms |
|---|---|
| Planning |
|
| Integrated KT |
|
| Commercialization |
|
| End-of-Grant KT |
|
| Science of KT |
|
| Training |
|
[Slide 32]
KT Resources
[Slide 33]
KT Resources
- CIHR Guide to Knowledge Translation Planning at CIHR: Integrated and End-of-Grant Approaches
- A Guide to Evaluation in Health Research
- Knowledge to Action: A Knowledge Translation Casebook
- Knowledge to Action: An End-of-Grant Knowledge Translation Casebook
- KT in Health Care – Moving from Evidence to Practice: A KT Handbook
- KT Clearinghouse
- Online Learning modules
- CIHR Guides to KT
- CIHR Funded Research Database
- CIHR Resources for Applying for a Grant
[Slide 34]