CIHR Townhall (Winter-Spring 2015) – Long descriptions

Overview of CIHR’s three strategic directions

Roadmap II

Capturing Innovation to Produce Better Health and Health Care for Canadians

Promoting Excellence, Creativity and Breadth in Health Research and Knowledge Translation

  • Supporting leading researchers for advances in health
  • Building a solid foundation for the future

Mobilizing Health Research for Transformation and Impact

  • Refreshing health and health system research priorities
  • Reaping benefits through strategic alliances
  • Embracing the data revolution

Achieving Organizational Excellence

« Back to report

CIHR Budget 2014-15 - $1,018.1M

  $M %
Operating Support 504.6 49%
Training & Career Support 175.0 17%
Horizontal Health Research Initiatives 79.0 8%
Institute-Driven Initiatives 201.6 20%
Operating Budget & EBP 57.9 6%

« Back to report

Investigator-Initiated Operating Support

Fiscal Year Millions
2004-05 366.7
2005-06 396.7
2006-07 420.7
2007-08 457.3
2008-09 482.8
2009-10 474.0
2010-11 490.0
2011-12 484.5
2012-13 491.5
2013-14 491.5
2014-15 (Budget) 501.8

« Back to report

Foundation Scheme Pilot

This figure illustrates the transition timelines for the piloting of peer review design elements, the phasing-in of the new Open Suite of Programs and peer review process, and the phasing-out of existing programs.

  • Piloting Stage: Winter 2013 – Spring 2016
  • Phase-in Stage: Summer 2014 – Summer 2016
  • Phase-out Stage: Spring 2015 – TBD (optimal grantee intake is achieved)

« Back to report

Total Distribution of Applications

This figure illustrates the total distribution of the 1366 Stage 1 applications reviewed in the first Foundation Scheme pilot competition. The x-axis represents the consolidated percent rank of each application which was calculated by taking the average of the rankings given to an application from each reviewer who reviewed the application. The y-axis represents the standard deviation of the consolidated percent rank which represents the agreement between reviewers who reviewed the same application. The applications are colour coded according to the following four categories:

  1. invited to stage 2;
  2. not invited to stage 2;
  3. new investigator – invited to stage 2; and,
  4. new investigator – not invited to stage 2.

« Back to report

Distribution of Applications by Pillar

  Biomedical Clinical Health Systems/Services Social, Cultural, Environmental and Population Health
Historical OOGP Success Rates 65.95 16.42 7.19 10.44
% of Submitted Applications 53.95 20.42 11.20 13.91
% of Successful  Applications 55.25 21.63 9.85 13.06

« Back to report

Distribution of Applications submitted by New/Early Career Investigators by Pillar

  Biomedical Clinical Health Systems/Services Social, Cultural, Environmental and Population Health
% of Submitted Applications 34.87 51.25 52.94 40.00
% of Successful Applications 13.95 23.76 30.43 21.31

« Back to report

Distribution of Applications submitted by New/Early Career Investigators by Pillar

  Overall Applications 6-10 years as Independent Researcher Associate Professor
% of Submitted Applications 100.0 17.8 21.9
% of Successful Applications 34.2 5.7 6.0

« Back to report

Is the structured application/review working?

Applicants

Thoughts regarding the structured application format (i.e. having one section for each adjudication criterion)

  Strongly Agree Agree Agree Slightly Neutral Disagree Slightly Disagree Strongly Disagree
The Structured Application Format is Easy to Work With 9.08 46.72 19.17 14.13 5.75 3.94 1.21
The Structured Application Format is Intuitive 6.05 36.93 22.50 16.35 10.10 5.85 2.22
Applicants are Satisfied with the Structured Application Process 6.35 43.15 20.87 16.03 7.06 4.33 2.22

« Back to report

Peer Reviewers

The structured application format was helpful in my review process

  Strongly Agree Agree Agree Slightly Neutral Disagree Slightly Disagree Strongly Disagree
The structured application format was helpful in my review process 24.36 46.55 10.91 8.36 2.55 4.00 3.27

« Back to report

Compared to the last time peer reviewers reviewed applications for CIHR (i.e. completed a non-structured review), completing a structured review:

  Strongly Agree Agree Agree Slightly Neutral Disagree Slightly Disagree Strongly Disagree
Made it Easier to Review 15.32 25.40 17.34 16.13 10.48 7.26 8.06
Was a Better way to Provide Feedback to Applicants 9.35 17.07 12.20 22.36 15.04 12.20 11.79

« Back to report

Did peer reviewers participate in online discussions?

  Yes No
Did peer reviewers participate in online discussions? 91.77 8.23

« Back to report

Peer reviewer thoughts regarding the online discussion:

  Strongly Agree Agree Agree Slightly Neutral Disagree Slightly Disagree Strongly Disagree
The online discussion was helpful to peer reviewers as part of the review process 17.26 32.74 19.47 10.18 6.64 5.75 7.96
Online comments were considered by peer reviewers in the decision-making process 12.05 38.39 20.54 10.27 4.46 8.04 6.25
Peer reviewers felt their online discussion contribution was considered by others 5.50 33.49 17.43 22.48 6.42 8.72 5.96
The online discussion is an important component of the Stage 1 review process 22.57 38.94 12.39 9.29 3.98 4.42 8.41

« Back to report

Is applicant and peer reviewer burden starting to decrease?

Applicants

  Much Less Time Less Time Slightly Less Time About the Same Amount of Time Slightly More Time More Time Much More Time
Compared to the last time you submitted an application to CIHR, completing the structured application took, on average: 15.38 35.02 14.81 13.32 7.92 9.07 4.48

« Back to report

Peer Reviewers

  Much Less Work Less Work Slightly Less Work Same Amount of Work Slightly More Work More Work Much More Work
Compared to the last time you reviewed for a CIHR competition, the workload assigned to you was: 14.10 27.78 17.95 17.09 7.26 12.39 3.42

« Back to report

Is the support material for peer reviewers effective?

Peer Reviewers

  Documents were used Documents were useful
  Yes No Yes No
Foundation Scheme Pilot 2014 Funding Opportunity 70.61 29.39 90.07 9.93
Foundation Scheme Pilot 2014 Eligibility Criteria 64.91 35.09 86.81 13.19
Foundation Scheme Pilot 2014 Stage 1 Application Instructions 73.36 26.64 89.63 10.37
Foundation Scheme Pilot 2014 Stage 1 Application Requirements 70.04 29.96 90.00 10.00
Foundation Scheme Pilot 2014 Interpretation Guidelines of the Adjudication Criteria 94.27 5.73 86.91 13.09
Foundation Scheme Pilot 2014 Peer Review Manual 88.89 11.11 87.91 12.09
Foundation Scheme Pilot 2014 Role Definitions 48.23 51.77 68.52 31.48
Reforms of the Open Programs and Peer Review: Foundation Scheme 2014 42.99 57.01 71.74 28.26
Reforms of the Open Programs and Peer Review: Questions and Answers 44.93 55.07 74.44 25.56
Foundation Scheme CV Program Leader Requirements 38.50 61.50 81.82 18.18
Foundation Scheme CV Quick Reference Guide 47.81 52.19 82.83 17.17

« Back to report

College of Reviewers


Quality Peer Review and Peer Review System
Breadth and Diversity of Experience
Structured Recruitment Training and Mentoring Quality Assurance Recognition Program

« Back to report

Date modified: