corporate overview/recent events alain beaudet, md, phd president, cihr university delegates june 2,...
TRANSCRIPT
Corporate Overview/Recent Events
Alain Beaudet, MD, PhDPresident, CIHR
University DelegatesJune 2, 2011
Outline
• Strategic Investment Process
• Reform to CIHR’s open suite of programs
• Peer review enhancements
• 2011 CIHR International Review
2
CIHR’s Roadmap
3
Bottom up StrategyReform of Open Suite of Programs
Full spectrum of CIHR mandate
Top Down StrategyStrategic Reform
Targeted to specified areas of health research and knowledge translation. These programs and initiatives are intended to:
• Focus on gaps in specific research areas and research communities or
• Leverage existing strengths for impact
Open to all areas of health research and knowledge translation. This suite of programs is intended to:
• Capture excellence across all pillars• Capture innovative/breakthrough research• Improve sustainability of long-term research enterprise• Integrate new talent
Ref
orm
to
the
Pee
r R
evie
w
Sys
tem
4
To support the strategic directions outlined in Roadmap, three interrelated
reforms have been identified.
Strategic Investment Process
5
Programs and Peer Review
“Rapid growth, particularly of new strategic initiatives and peer review panels, has led to excessive complexity. This complexity needs to be reduced to enable opportunities and activities to be both focused and manageable.”
6
Facts and Figures
The Research Portfolio currently:
• Handles over 6,500 grant applications per year for review.
• Relies on the work of 123 review panels and over 2,000 reviewers.
• Reports unevenness in number of grants reviewed by each committee (between 3 and 60!).
• Carries out over 200 competitions a year.
7
Grants per Unique Program Code
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
≤ 5 6-10 11-25 26-50 51-100 101-250
250-500
More
Num
ber
of G
rant
s/A
war
ds
Total
PA
Facts and Figures (continued)
Awards per Program Code
For Competition Year 2007-08, EIS data indicates that there were 218 programs (measured as unique program codes in the EIS), leading to a total of 2948 grant awards.
The data indicates that a significant percentage of funding opportunities (66%, or 145/218) result in 5 or less grant awards, and that only one program (Operating Grant) resulted in more than 500 grant awards.
145 program codes (66% of codes) resulted in 5 or less grant awards (58PAs, 87RFAs)
8
• The objective of the Strategic Reform is to attain greater focus in the use of strategic investments.
• This new strategic investment process is a key component of this reform.
• It responds to feedback from CIHR’s community to have fewer more targeted initiatives and is designed to achieve greater impact.
• It is intended to concentrate limited resources on fewer, but better funded, initiatives and to simplify the interface between CIHR and its partners and stakeholders.
• It relies on a common sense of strategy and purpose within the organization as well as on a tight collaboration between Institutes.
• It implies establishing clear differences in objectives between targeted and open grants.
Top Down Strategy - Strategic Reform
9
CIHR Signature Initiatives
Enhance Patient-Oriented Care and Improve Clinical Results through Scientific and Technological Innovations
Support a High-Quality, Accessible and Sustainable Health-Care System
Reduce Health Inequities of Aboriginal Peoples and other Vulnerable Populations
Prepare For and Respond To Existing and Emerging Threats to Health
Promote Health and Reduce the Burden of Chronic Disease and Mental Illness
• Evidence Informed Healthcare Renewal
• Canadian Epigenetics, Environment and Health Research Consortium
• Community Based Primary Health Care
• Personalized Medicine
• Pathways to Health Equity for Aboriginal Peoples
• Inflammation in Chronic Disease
• Strategy on Patient-Oriented Research: Networks and SUPPORT Units
• International Collaborative Research Strategy for Alzheimer’s Disease
CIHR Research Priority AreasEight Signature Initiatives are
now at varying stages of development and approval
10
Valley 1 Valley 2
Basic Biomedical Research
Clinical Science & Knowledge
Clinical Practice &
Health Decision Making
Translational Continuum
The Strategy on Patient Oriented Research is an umbrella strategy that
will be supported by a number of initiatives….
Personalized Medicine
Drug Safety Effectiveness
Network
Community Based Primary Health
Care
Some examples include….
Considerations for the reform of CIHR’s open suite
of programs
12
• CIHR’s mandate is to create knowledge and to translate this knowledge into benefits for Canadians through research across the full spectrum.
• There are currently both real and perceived barriers in the OOGP which limit the ability for this program to support CIHR’s full mandate.
• There are certain types of ideas that are not being well supported today (e.g. high risk – high impact).
• There are gaps in the current programming that limits CIHR from ensuring the long-term sustainability of the research enterprise.
• There is inconsistent application of criteria by peers which creates both real and perceived inequities.
• Current programs are causing peer reviewer fatigue and placing undue burden on applicants.
Issues raised about the Open Programs at CIHR
13
CIHR Expenditures 2000-2010 ($ M Excluding NCE, CERC and CRC)
$339
$449
$528$576
$619$658
$690$739
$797 $808
$-
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
$800
$900
2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
Exp
end
itu
res
($ M
illio
n)
Open Strategic
Open and Strategic Expenditures
• Objectives for reforming CIHR’s open suite of programs:• Capture excellence across all pillars
• Capture innovative/breakthrough research
• Improve sustainability of long-term research enterprise
• Integrate new talent
• Any program design/change and implementation must take into consideration impacts on: • peer review burden
• applicant burden
• program complexity
• cost-effectiveness and efficiency
• stability (regular and predictable competitions, stable program designs)
Bottom Up Strategy - Open Programs
15
The New Open Suite of Programs
• We have initiated work on the reforming the open suite or programs but are still in the early stages of planning and development.
• An executive Task Force has been established to oversee the design and implementation of the changes.
• A dedicated team of CIHR employees has been assembled to provide subject matter expertise and ensure the right level of engagement and discussions are happening with our community.
• The work has focussed to date on assessing the current suite of funding mechanisms.
16
Peer Review Enhancements
17
Programs and Peer Review
“The peer review system that is responsible for handling most of the research funding is currently under strain and requires more academic leadership. A review of its processes and structure is necessary.”
18
%
Peer Reviewers Applicants & Grantees InstitutionalStakeholders
Stakeholder Satisfaction – Peer ReviewPercent of respondents who provided an
opinion
Satisfied category includes:
- Very satisfied; somewhat satisfied and neutral
Dissatisfied category includes:
- Very dissatisfied and somewhat dissatisfied
19
7970
54
40 40
1726
44
5848
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Efficiency of thepeer review process
Fairness of the peerreview process
Quality of peerreview judgements
Consistency of peerreview judgements
Consistency of peerreview judgements
Satisfied Dissatisfied
Issues raised about Peer Review at CIHR
• Unsustainable number of peers being currently used that leads to serious difficulties in proper peer recruitment
• Ad hoc mechanism of peer recruitment
• Not enough participation of seasoned researchers on review panels
• Not enough participation from international researchers
• Not good enough instruction of peers
• No systematic evaluation of peers performance
20
Enhancements will involve:
Creation of a framework for organizing and managing a group of peer reviewers with expertise across the full spectrum of health research: CIHR College of Reviewers
Chairs to playing a central role in ensuring that peers with the expertise to cover the full mandate of their respective committee are recruited to the College
Enhancing Peer Review
Objectives
• To strengthen peer-review quality in each of the four health research pillars; and
• To improve the breadth and quality of peer review panels
21
Enhancements to the Peer Review System:
Three Streams
The College will build the capacity for:
Recruitment
Training
Incentives, Recognition and
Performance
Identify and mobilize a ready source of expertise to evaluate all applications submitted to CIHR for funding by using a systematic recruitment process.
Inform, educate and support college members in their roles within the college which will strengthen organizational leadership in reviewer excellence and development.
Establish meaningful incentives for members, recognize excellence and offer a framework for performance measurement of peers, committees and the peer review process.
22
CIHR International Review
23
2011 CIHR International Review
Key review questions:
• Has CIHR been effective in fulfilling its mandate at outlined in the CIHR Act?
• How can CIHR improve at achieving its mandate?
24
Institute reviews - Expert review teams (ERT) Overall review – International Review
Panel (IRP)March 30-31, 2011
International Review Panel (IRP)
Dr. Elias Zerhouni (Chair)Prof. Rudi Balling Prof. Sir John Bell
Prof. Christian Bréchot Dr. Marie-Françoise Chesselet
Dame Sally DaviesProf. Victor Dzau
Dr. Stephen E HymanDr. Jan LundbergDr. Chris Murray
Prof. Fiona Stanley
IGHProf. Hilary Graham (Ch)
Dr. Marianne LegatoDr. Marie-Françoise
Chesselet
INMHAProf. T W Robbins (Ch)Prof. Charles P O’Brien
Dr. Marie-Françoise Chesselet
IAPHDr. Jeff A Henderson (Ch)Prof. Linda Tuhiwai Smith
Prof. Fiona Stanley
IAProf. Carol Brayne (Ch)
Prof. Kyriakos S MarkidesProf. Fiona Stanley
ICRDr. Anto J M Berns (Ch)Dr. Margaret Tempero
Prof. Rudi Balling
ICRHProf. Stephen Holgate(Ch)
Dr. Joseph LoscalzoProf. Victor Dzau
IGProf. Han G. Brunner (Ch)
Prof. Jim R. LupskiProf. Rudi Balling
IHSPRProf. Sally Redman (Ch)
Prof. Sally MacintyreDr. Chris Murray
IHDCYHDr. Richard Johnston (Ch)
Dr, Roberto RomeroProf. Fiona Stanley
IIIProf. Deborah Smith (Ch)
Prof. Hidde PloeghProf. Rudi Balling
IMHAProf. Alan Silman (Ch)
Dr. Matthew H LingProf. Victor Dzau
INMDDr. Garrett A FitzGerald (Ch)
Prof. W Phillip T JamesProf. Christian Bréchot
IPPHProf. Sally Macintyre (Ch)
Prof. Don NutbeamDr. Chris Murray
Feb 8, 2011 Feb 9, 2011 Feb 10, 2011
International Review Process
25
Sources of Evidence
1. Expert Review Teams and International Review Panel interviews with key informants (CIHR senior executives, Scientific Directors, senior and young investigators, senior government officials, funding agencies, stakeholders (charities, industry, provinces)
2. Institute reviews, self-assessment and response to 2006 review
• 13 Institute reports (Results of the Institute reviews)• CIHR’s Response to the 2006 IRP and current Strategic Plan
3. Survey assessing satisfaction with CIHR performance in core function areas
4. Open invitation on website to provide feedback on CIHR mandate
26
Health Research Community Consultations
Survey assessing satisfaction with CIHR performance in core function areas Examined several areas including grants application and peer review Census of grantees/applicants, peer reviewers and institutions 2461 responses to the survey (24% response rate) Noting that respondents could respond to more than one survey type, the
distribution of responses is as follows:
Open invitation on website to provide feedback on CIHR mandate
– 442 stakeholders completed the survey– The majority of respondents were affiliated with universities (70%)– The top three categories of respondents were researchers (76%), users of
health research (15%) and health administrators (11%) (note: multiple responses possible)
Survey Type Number of Completed Surveys
Applicants/Grantees 2198
Peer Reviewers 1519
Institutional Stakeholders 232
27
CIHR International Review – Next Steps
IRP final report presented to CIHR Governing Council
June 22-23, 2011
IRP final report posted on CIHR website July 2011
CIHR Governing Council retreat to discuss the IRP report. Management response to follow.
August 23-24, 2011
CIHR International review webpage: www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/31680.html
28
Institution Engagement
29
Institution Engagement
• Universities• Hospitals• Research institutions where health research is conducted
and applied
• Reform success depends on partnerships in Canadian health research:
30
• CIHR is committed to a renewed approach for strategic communications with research institutions.
Institution Engagement
CIHR is committed to strengthening relationships with the institutions through the establishment of a long-term partnership which includes:
• A CIHR which understands and values the perspective of Institutions and takes that perspective into consideration in its decision-making
• Institutions that understand CIHR’s programming from both an operational and strategic perspective
• A shared understanding of the values and beliefs that are embedded in CIHR’s programs and peer review system
31
Thank you!
Questions?
32