PowerPoint Presentation: PHSI Information Webinar
Other format
Table of Contents
- Partnerships for Health System Improvement
- PHSI: An Overview
- Priority Research Areas
- Application Instructions
- Tips for PHSI Success
[Slide 1]
Partnerships for Health System Improvement
Information Webinar
September 12, 2012
[Slide 2]
Webinar Outline
| Presenter | |
|---|---|
| PHSI: An overview | Andrea Smith CIHR, Manager, KT Initiatives |
| Priority Research Areas: Spotlight on Fostering Innovation in Healthcare Initiative |
Dr. Phillippe Couillard Chair, the Rx&D Health Research Foundation Sue Geffkin-Graham CIHR, Associate Director, SPOR |
| Application Instructions | Alison Bourgon CIHR, Deputy Director, Program Delivery |
| Tips for success | Dr. Walter Wodchis University of Toronto |
| Q&A |
[Slide 3]
PHSI: An Overview
[Slide 4]
What is PHSI?
- Partnerships for Health System Improvement (PHSI) offers Canada's health-system decision makers evidence-based answers to their most pressing questions.
- A funding program founded on partnerships, every PHSI project involves collaboration between decision makers and researchers interested in working together to address health system challenges.
- Any applied health services and policy research topic can be addressed so long as it responds to the information needs of the participating decision makers.
[Slide 5]
PHSI: The Snapshot
- Relevant Projects: Any applied health systems and/or services research question that is deemed useful to health system managers/policy makers. Proposals must meet the objectives outlined in the funding opportunity. ('Objectives' section)
- Eligibility: Applications must include a researcher and a decision maker, and a partnership contribution must be secured (20%)
- CIHR funding available: $12.7M
- Funding sources: A mix of CIHR and partnership support. The maximum amount that can be requested from CIHR is $600K over 3 years.
- KT requirement: Comprehensive knowledge translation plan
[Slide 6]
Key Words
- Integrated Knowledge Translation
- Decision maker
- Competition partners, Project-specific partners, and Strategic partners
- Merit Review
[Slide 7]
Integrated Knowledge Translation
Knowledge translation at CIHR: Definition
Knowledge translation is a dynamic and iterative process that includes synthesis, dissemination, exchange and ethically sound application of knowledge to improve the health of Canadians, provide more effective health services and products and strengthen the health care system.
This process takes place within a complex system of interactions between researchers and knowledge users that may vary in intensity, complexity and level of engagement depending on the nature of the research and the findings as well as the needs of the particular knowledge user.
About Knowledge Translation[Slide 8]
Integrated Knowledge Translation
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 User
- 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
- Knowledge User is an official applicant category at CIHR to recognize the participation of knowledge users in iKT projects
- With iKT projects there is a greater expectation that the findings or recommendations will be acted on. The participating knowledge users should have enough decision-making authority to integrate knowledge into their working environment.
[Slide 10]
Decision makers
A decision maker is a knowledge user who has the authority to influence or make decisions about health policy or the delivery of health services. In the PHSI competition a decision maker is typically a health-system manager, policy-maker or clinician leader capable of making significant changes to policy or practice.
[Slide 11]
Decision makers
- There are two applicant roles to recognize the participation of decision makers (and other types of knowledge users) in PHSI projects:
- Principal Knowledge User
- Knowledge User
- At least one decision maker must be involved in each application as the Principal Knowledge User
- Additional decision makers can be listed on the grant in either the role Principal Knowledge User or Knowledge User
[Slide 12]
Eligibility: Partnership Requirements
Applications must secure a minimum partnership contribution equal to 20% of the total grant amount requested from CIHR.
Partnership contributions must be secured at the time of application.
Support can be in-kind or cash, or a combination of both.
[Slide 13]
PHSI Partnerships
There are two sources for this support:
- Competition Partners
- These are organizations with established agreements with CIHR and are listed in the 'Partner/Collaborator' section of the funding opportunity
- In most cases they need to be contacted with a request for support 6 weeks before the PHSI application deadline (e.g., August 31st for FRQS, and September 17th for all other competition partners – for the November 1st 2012 application deadline)
- Project-specific partners
- Often linked to the decision-maker team member
[Slide 14]
2012 Competition Partners
- Alberta Innovates – Health Solutions
- Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of Canada
- Fonds de recherche du Québec – Santé et Ministère de la Santé et des services sociaux du Québec
- Manitoba Health Research Council
- Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research
- New Brunswick Health Research Foundation
- Nova Scotia Health Research Foundation
- Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
- Saskatchewan Health Research Foundation
[Slide 15]
PHSI Partnerships
Example of total partnership contributions that meet the minimum requirement:
| List of Partners | Type of Contribution (cash/in-kind) | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CIHR | Cash | $100,000 | $200,000 | $100,000 | $400,000 |
| Named Competition Partner | Cash | $15,000 | $15,000 | $15,000 | $45,000 |
| Named Project-specific partner #1 | In-kind | $15,000 | $10,000 | $10,000 | $35,000 |
| Total partner contributions | Cash and/or in-kind | $80,000 |
Total grant amount ($400K) x 20% = $80K in cash or in-kind support
[Slide 16]
Examples of PHSI projects
| Topic: | Intervention models for preschoolers with autistic spectrum disorder (ASD): A population-based comparative effectiveness study |
|---|---|
| Principal Investigators: | Isabel Smith (IWK) – NPI Patricia Murray (NS Dept of HW) – PKU Susan Bryson (IWK) – PI Jeffrey Den Otter (NB Dept of Ed and Early Childhood) - KU |
| Partner: | NBHRF (Competition partner) - $52,459 NSHRF (Competition partner) - $97,500 Partner contribution = $149,959 (34%) |
| CIHR contribution: | $294,495 |
| Total project budget: | $444,454 |
| This study will compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of 2 provincial (NS and NB) early intensive behavioural intervention (EIBI) programs for children diagnosed with ASD, data for which are currently lacking. The government decisions-makers on the research team require this data to make policy decisions. | |
[Slide 17]
Examples of PHSI projects
| Topic: | Injecting Evidence into Health Policy Coverage: Working with the Media |
|---|---|
| Principal Investigators: | Noralou Roos (UManitoba) – NPI Olivia Nuamah (Atkinson Charitable Foundation) – PKU Patricia Martens (UManitoba) – PI Gary Slywchuk (Troy Media Corp.); Steve Buist (Hamilton Spectator) Jennifer Verma (CHSRF); Nicholas Hirst (Original Pictures Inc.); Alan Cassels (UVic); Penny Park (Science Media Centre of Canada); Ann Silversides; Janine Harasymchuk (UManitoba) – KU |
| Partner: | MHRC (Competition partner) - $94,000 Project-Specific Partners: $388,314 (in-kind contributions) Atkinson Charitable Foundation- $135,000; CHSRF - $90,000 Manitoba Centre for Health Policy - $6,700; UManitoba - $4,250 Science Media Centre - $ 75,000; Troy Media Corp. - $77,364 |
| CIHR contribution: | $397,321 |
| Total project budget: | $879,635 |
| This study aims to improve the understanding of health policy research evidence by journalists and ensure it is accurately communicated to Canadians and policy makers via the media, more specifically through EvidenceNetwork.ca, a non-partisan health policy news resource. | |
[Slide 18]
PHSI Partnerships
Of the funding requested from CIHR (max $600K p/grant), Strategic Partners will support applications relevant to the PHSI objectives and their research priority areas:
| For the 2012/13 funding opportunity these Strategic Partners include: | |
|---|---|
| Evidence-Informed Healthcare Renewal Initiative | Institute of Health Services and Policy Research |
| CIHR SPOR/Rx&D HRF – Fostering Innovation in Health Care | Institute of Human Development, Child and Youth Health and the Mental Health Commission of Canada |
| Institute of Aboriginal People's Health | Institute of Infection and Immunity |
| Institute of Aging | Institute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis |
| Institute of Gender and Health | Institute of Nutrition Metabolism and Diabetes |
| CIHR Knowledge Translation Branch | |
Partner descriptions and priority research areas can be found in the 'Partner/Collaborator' section of the PHSI funding opportunity
[Slide 19]
Priority Research Areas
Spotlight on:
the Fostering Innovation in Health Care Initiative
From left to right: Mr. Russell Williams, President of Rx&D; Dr. Philippe Couillard, Chair of the Health Research Foundation Board of Directors; the Honourable Leona Aglukkaq, Minister of Health; Dr. Alain Beaudet, President, Canadian Institutes of Health Research; and Dr. Sylvie Belleville, Director of Research at the Institut universitaire de gériatrie de Montréal
[Slide 20]
Fostering Innovation in Health Care Initiative – A Snapshot
Goal: Fund research that will increase the value of the healthcare system from the perspective of the patient by supporting patient-oriented innovations aimed at enhancing the quality and efficiency of healthcare delivery
- Partnership between CIHR's Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research and Rx&D's Health Research Foundation
- Additional $6M in funding committed to the 2012-13 PHSI competition ($3M from each partner)
- Additional 1-page relevance document required for application package
[Slide 21]
Fostering Innovation in Health Care Initiative
CIHR's Strategy for Patient Oriented Research (SPOR)
Vision: Fund research that will increase the value of the healthcare system from the perspective of the patient by supporting patient-oriented innovations aimed at enhancing the quality and efficiency of healthcare delivery
Goals to achieve this vision are:
- To create a collaborative, pan-Canadian process for identifying, establishing and addressing patient-oriented research priorities;
- To establish an integrated, leading-edge pan-Canadian clinical research infrastructure along the full continuum of patient-oriented research;
- To grow Canada's capacity to attract, train and mentor health care professionals and health researchers, as well as to create sustainable career paths in patient-oriented research;
- To strengthen organizational, regulatory and financial support for clinical studies in Canada and enhance patient and clinician engagement in these studies; and
- To improve processes for the early identification of best practices, expedite their development and harmonization into guidelines for patient care and support their adoption by clinicians, caregivers and patients.
[Slide 22]
The Rx&D Health Research Foundation (HRF) is a non-profit organization whose mission is to support health research in Canadian academic health centres and to promote the value of health research in Canada.
Founded in 1964 by Canada's Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies (Rx&D), the HRF applies the highest standards of scientific excellence to address health challenges of great importance to Canadian society. It accomplishes this through a longstanding tradition of establishing partnerships with the academic field and government.
As one of the leading private health research foundations in the country, the HRF contributes significantly to the prevention and treatment of disease and to a better health care system.
The HRF, in collaboration with the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, has provided over $27 million in funding to more than 1,700 researchers across Canada.
[Slide 23]
Fostering Innovation in Health Care Initiative
Requirements and relevance:
To be considered for CIHR SPOR/Rx&D HRF funding, projects must meet the following relevance criteria:
- There must be a significant and meaningful level of input from patients and organizations impacted by the project's area of focus throughout the entire project, including:
- Patient representation in the research development, planning and validation phases;
- A high level of importance given to the measurement of patient experience as a major end-point (using published, available tools); and,
- Patient participation in the final evaluation of the project.
- The 20% partnership funding requirement from PHSI competition partners and/or project-specific partners must be from publically funded and/or not-for-profit agencies/organizations.
[Slide 24]
Fostering Innovation in Health Care Initiative – A research example
| Topic: | A Family Integrated Care Model for the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit |
|---|---|
| Principal Investigators: | Dr. Shoo Lee (Mount Sinai) – NPA Vasanthi Srinivasan (OMHLTC) – PKU Karel O'Brien (University of Toronto) – PA |
| Partner: | Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care |
| Dr. Lee will lead a research/decision-maker team evaluating a new model of care in neonatal intensive care units developed at Mount Sinai Hospital. In this new approach, parents provide all except the most advanced medical care for infants instead of nurses. Initial study of the family integrated care model has shown to be improving health outcomes while being safe and cost-effective. The funding will allow researchers to evaluate this innovative way of providing care in other centres across Canada. | |
[Slide 25]
Fostering Innovation in Health Care Initiative
If your project aligns with the Fostering Innovation in Health Care Initiative, you must:
- Articulate in a separate document how the project addresses the goal and the specific relevance criteria for this initiative (1 page max)
Your project may align with the research priorities of one or more of the other Strategic Partners. This will be flagged by the Strategic Partners when they are completing the relevance review.
Funded teams will be required to submit a mid-project report to track progress against stated milestones.
[Slide 26]
Merit Review
By requiring both researchers and knowledge users to be part of the research team, integrated KT requires 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 27]
Merit Review Scale
| Outcome | Range | Potential Impact | Scientific Merit |
|---|---|---|---|
| May Be Funded (Will be discussed by the committee) |
4.5 - 4.9 | Extremely Significant | Exceptional |
| 4.0 - 4.4 | Very Significant | Outstanding | |
| 3.5 - 3.9 | Significant | Excellent, may still require revision | |
| Not Fundable (May not be discussed by the committee) |
3.0 - 3.4 | Moderate | Very good, however needs revision to be fundable |
| 2.5 - 2.9 | Limited | Needs major revision | |
| 0.0 - 2.4 | Negligible | Seriously flawed |
Only applications rated 3.5 or higher on both Potential Impact and Scientific Merit are eligible for CIHR funding.
[Slide 28]
Review Criteria Headings
Research question
Explanation of the research project and justification for the need to conduct the research.
Research approach
Detailed description of the research approach and justification for the proposed methods/strategies.
Feasibility
Demonstration that the researcher - decision-maker team has the requisite skills, experience and resources to complete the project in the proposed time frame.
Outcomes
Results expected from the successful uptake of project findings.
[Slide 29]
PHSI Planning Grant
Objective
- To provide the opportunity for researchers and decision makers to apply for development funds to facilitate the formation and development of partnerships between researchers and decision makers interested in applying to PHSI.
Examples of eligible activities
- Planning and partnership-building meetings
- Activities that assist potential teams of researchers and decision makers identify emerging issues and priorities that could be addressed via a PHSI grant
Funding
- Up to $25,000 per grant
- Applications accepted three times/year: Oct, Feb, June (deadline for the current competition is October 15th, 2012)
Partnerships for Health System Improvement – Partnership Development Funds (MHS)
[Slide 30]
Application Instructions
[Slide 31]
Applicant Roles
- A Nominated Principal Applicant can be:
- An independent researcher; or
- A knowledge user
- A Principal Application can be:
- An independent researcher
- A knowledge user
- A Co-applicant can be:
- An independent researcher; or
- A knowledge user
- A trainee
- A Collaborator is an individual who provides a specific service or intellectual support to the project.
[Slide 32]
Applicant Requirements
- Applications must include at least two Principal Applicants:
If the Nominated Principal Applicant is a... You must also identify a... Independent Researcher Principal Knowledge User
(A Principal Applicant who is a knowledge user)Knowledge User Principal Applicant
(A Principal Applicant who is an independent researcher)
- There is no maximum number of Principal Applicants or Principal Knowledge Users who can be identified.
[Slide 33]
Applicant Requirements
CV Requirements:
- Independent Researchers:
- A full Common CV is required for the Nominated Principal Applicant (if he/she is an independent researcher), Principal Applicant, and Co-Applicant roles.
- Knowledge-Users:
- A Knowledge-User Common CV is required for the Nominated Principal Applicant (if he/she has indicated a knowledge user role), Principal Knowledge-User, and Knowledge-User roles.
- Collaborators are not required to submit a CV.
[Slide 34]
Partner Requirements
The following must be provided at the time of application for all cash and/or in-kind contributions:
From Competition Partners:
- a Partnership Details Form completed and signed by the Competition partner (no letter of support is required).
From Project Specific Partners:
- a Partnership Details Form completed and signed by the Project Specific partner.
- a signed letter of support from the Project Specific partner.
Those partnerships for which a signed Partnership Details Form is not provided at the time of application will not count towards the 20% partnership contribution requirement.
[Slide 35]
Letter of Support Requirements
Project Specific Partners:
- A signed letter of support is required from all Project Specific partners.
Competition Partners:
- Not required.
Knowledge Users:
- A letter of support is strongly encouraged (but not required), describing:
- Their role and involvement in the project
- Amount of time and/or resources committed to the project
- Description of how they intend to use the results.
[Slide 36]
Summary of Requirements
| Role | CIHR PIN | Signature | Signed Partnership Details Form | Signed Letter of Support | CV Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nominated Principal Applicant * | Yes | No | No | No | CCV or KU CV |
| Principal Applicant | Yes | Yes | No | No | CCV |
| Co-Applicant | Yes | Yes | No | No | CCV |
| Principal Knowledge User | Yes | Yes | No | Encouraged | KU CV |
| Knowledge User | Yes | Yes | No | Encouraged | KU CV |
| Collaborator | No | No | No | Encouraged | N/A |
| Competition Partner | No | No | Yes | No | N/A |
| Project Specific Partner | No | No | Yes | Yes | N/A |
* If the Nominated Principal Applicant is an independent researcher, a Common CV is required. If the Nominated Principal Applicant is a decision maker, a Knowledge User CV is required.
[Slide 37]
Summary of Requirements cont.
Complete applications must also include:
- A research proposal, respecting the 13-page limit.
- Budget information including the amounts requested from CIHR (up to $600K in total) and the partnership contribution amounts (a minimum of 20% of the total amount requested from CIHR).
Important submission information:
- The PHSI program uses the Electronic Approval of Applications process. Completed applications must be submitted to your Institution Paid (and not directly to CIHR) by the Research Institution Internal Deadline. The Institution will then review, electronically approve and submit your application to CIHR. Your Research Institution Internal Deadline is indicated at the top of the page on ResearchNet and may differ from the CIHR Application Deadline of November 1, 2012.
[Slide 38]
Tips for PHSI Success
[Slide 39]
Research Question
Explanation of the research project and justification for the need to conduct the research
What this means for you:
- Be clear about what the question is right away
- Be clear about the origin of the research question: why it is interesting, how does it align with health system priorities and the organizational priorities of decision-maker partners
- Demonstrate that the question has been shaped by the participating decision makers and responds to their needs
- Outline how the project responds to the objectives of the specific funding opportunity
[Slide 40]
Research Approach
Detailed description of the research approach and justification for the proposed methods/strategies
What this means for you:
- 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
- Include a reasonable end-of-grant KT plan appropriate for its goals and audiences - distinguish between the decision makers participating in the project and other target audiences that will be reached by the dissemination plan
[Slide 41]
Feasibility
Demonstration that the researcher - decision-maker team has the requisite skills, experience and resources to complete the project in the proposed time frame
What this means for you:
- Document the expertise of each team member and their role in the proposed study
- 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 a "doable" study – from both a scientific and a practical perspective
- Link KT activities to a thorough budget justification
[Slide 42]
Feasibility
Include a fair amount of detail about the decision makers:
- Their role in the project and evidence that they understand and have agreed to fulfill their role
- Their commitment to use the results of the study and to move them into action (when appropriate) - Be sure to demonstrate a "pull" for the results
- Justification that they are the right decision makers to inform the project and act on the findings
- Evidence of ongoing commitment from the organization as well as the decision maker is ideal - Financial or in-kind support from the decision maker's organization is a good sign of engagement and commitment
- Very strong iKT projects will demonstrate an established relationship with the participating decision makers, one that hopefully precedes and will outlast the project
[Slide 43]
Outcomes
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 health outcomes, practice, programs and/or policy in the study context.
- While the project is intended to respond to the needs of participating decision 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
- Develop a reasonable evaluation plan to be able to assess the outcomes and impacts of your study (where appropriate)
[Slide 44]
General Tips
Before you start:
- Read and understand all requirements
- Contact CIHR if you are unsure about anything
- Seek a mentor
- Invest enough time to prepare
Writing your application:
- Establish the need, importance and originality of your research and how it fits into the larger scheme of things
- Clearly articulate the theoretical or conceptual framework – do not neglect the literature review
[Slide 45]
General Tips
Writing your application (cont'd):
- 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 – consider structuring your application to reflect the review criteria
- Avoid use of imprecise words, jargon, unusual abbreviations, acronyms, and poor grammar and syntax
- If your application is unsuccessful, re-write the application addressing all of the comments and re-apply
- Be brief and courteous in your Response to Previous Reviews page - address the most important criticisms factually and professionally
[Slide 46]
General Tips
Before submitting your application:
- Revise, revise, revise!
- 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 47]
Areas for Improvement
The following are areas for improvement have been identified by previous PHSI review committees:
- Low potential impact – or not "generalizeable"
- Lack of theoretical rationale or incoherent theory with objectives and methods
- Lack of specificity in the methodology
- Lack of gender-based analysis (where appropriate)
- Lack of expertise on the team
- Lack of meaningful engagement from decision-maker team members and/or collaborators
[Slide 48]
Key Dates
| Current Competition | |
|---|---|
| Launched | June 26, 2012 |
| Competition Partner Deadline | September 17, 2012 (August 31st, 2012 for FRQS) |
| CIHR Application Deadline | November 1, 2012 |
| Funding Start Date | June 15, 2013 |
PHSI Planning Grant:
PHSI Planning Grant launch (deadline) dates:
August (October), December (February), April (June)
[Slide 49]
Contact Us
For questions on CIHR funding guidelines, how to apply, and the merit review process contact:
Anne-Marie Poulin
Program Delivery Coordinator
613-948-2899
phsi-pass@cihr-irsc.gc.ca
For questions about the PHSI initiative and research objectives contact:
Andrea Smith,
Manager, KT Initiatives
613-941-4350
andrea.smith@cihr-irsc.gc.ca
[Slide 50]
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 51]
Questions
Thank you for your interest in the PHSI funding opportunity.
Questions?
[Slide 52]
KT Funding Opportunities
| KT Focus | Funding mechanisms |
|---|---|
| Planning | Planning Grants |
| Integrated KT | Knowledge Synthesis Knowledge to Action Partnerships for Health System Improvement (PHSI) |
| Commercialization | Collaborative Health Research Projects (CHRP) Proof of Principle Phase I and II (POP I/POP II) Industry-Partnered Collaborative Research Operating Grants |
| End-of-Grant KT | Dissemination Events KT Supplement |
| Science of KT | Operating Grant: KT Priority Announcement |
| Training | Doctoral, Fellowship, New Investigator Awards Health Research Communications Award Journalism Award Science to Business (S2B) MBA Scholarship |
[Slide 53]
KT Resources
[Slide 54]
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
- Guide to Writing Letters of Support
- CIHR Guides to KT
- CIHR Funded Research Database
- CIHR Resources for Applying for a Grant
[Slide 55]
Applying for a grant
- Knowledge Synthesis, Knowledge to Action, PHSI: Tips from the Chair and Reviewers
- Guidebook for New Principal Investigators
- Grants & Awards Guide
- "How to Apply for Funding"
- CIHR Funding Opportunities Database