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