Dr Katie EvansProject Manager - BiomedicalInvestment Processes Group

HRC Annual Funding Round 2015Information for BMAC members

ANNUAL FUNDING ROUND 2015

• 321 Project EOI’s submitted across all streams• 137 to consider at 5 BMAC meetings (HW & IOACC)

• 26 BMAC1• 32 BMAC2• 23 BMAC3• 28 BMAC4• 28 BMAC5

• 61 to consider at 2 CTAC (HW, IOACC & HD)• 79 to consider at 3 PHAC meetings (HW & IOACC)• 28 to consider at the HDAC meeting (NZHD)• 16 to consider at the MHAC meeting (RHM)

RESEARCH INVESTMENT STREAMS

Rangahau Hauora Māori

Building Māori knowledge & capability to address Māori health issues

Improving Outcomes for Acute & Chronic Conditions in NZ

Improving outcomes in illness& injury

Health and Wellbeing in NZUnderstanding health and preventing

illness & injury

NZ Health Delivery

Immediate impact on policy & health

delivery

Goals: • Understanding, maintaining & enhancing health • Preventing disease & injury• Understanding & reducing inequalities in risk factors &

determinants for disease & injury• Driving innovation through new knowledge• Delivering direct economic benefits for NZ

Purpose: Research that keeps people healthy & independent

Scope: Clear link with improving health & wellbeing

Goals:• Improve understanding of molecular, cellular or pathological

basis • Improving outcomes for individuals/populations • Cost-effective economically sustainable solutions• Reducing inequalities in health-related outcomes• Delivering direct economic benefits

Purpose: Improving understanding & management of disease

Scope: Clear link to a specific disease, condition/impairment

SCIENCE ASSESSING COMMITTEE

• Aim • Meeting Procedure• Full Stage Recommendations

SCIENCE ASSESSING COMMITTEE MEETING

AIM: to discuss, score and rank EOIs, and recommend selection of Full applications (this is NOT a funding decision)

•EOIs with lowest average pre-scores triaged

•Discussion will take place in a randomized order

•EOIs will be ranked by score & presented at the end of the meeting

TIME ALLOCATIONThe total time available for this meeting is limited so we must keep to schedule.

For each application, the following times are suggested:•Declaration & management of COIs ~ 1 min•Lead Committee Reviewer (CR) comments ~ 5 min•General Discussion ~10 min •Scoring ~ 1-2 min•Points noted for written feedback ~ 1-2 min•Total time ~ 15-20 min

RECOMMENDATIONS

• Should an EOI be invited back as a Full application?

• Scores from each SAC will be normalized & ranked (against all other committees in same RIS), and top EOI applicants will be invited to submit full applications

• EOI outcomes released by 6th October

• Full Application – should allow 40-50% chance of funding

FINER DETAILS

• CR responsibilities• Conflict of Interest management• Responsiveness to Māori

RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CR

• Providing an overview & assessment of assigned applications

• Commenting on 4 different score criteria

• Commenting on any issues relevant (positive/negative)

Declare potential COIs with applicants (PI & NI’s), if:

• From same department, institution or company

• Directly involved in research/collaborated/published/co-applicant, within last 5 yrs

• A student/supervisor within the last 10 yrs

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

• A close personal friend/relative

• Any significant scientific/personal differences

• Potential for financial gain/loss from the outcome

• You cannot provide an objective review

COIs discussed, with one of the following outcomes:

1. No action necessary, conflict noted

2. Member may be asked questions relating to their unique knowledge, but will not score

3. Member must not be present during discussion or scoring of proposals

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST MANAGEMENT

• SAC required to review whether consultation & involvement of Māori as researchers and/or participants is appropriate

• Responsiveness to Māori could impact one or more scoring criteria

RESPONSIVENESS TO MĀORI

ASSESSMENT & SCORING

• Score criteria & descriptors• Assessing Impact• Weighting of scores• Review & re-ranking

• Rationale for Research

• Study design & methods

• Research Impact

• Expertise & Track Record of the Research Team

• Global Score (not in total & used only as tie breaker)

Score Descriptor 7 Exceptional 6 Excellent 5 Very good 4 Good 3 Adequate 2 Unsatisfactory 1 Poor

ASSESSMENT & SCORING

YOUR DISCUSSION

•Consider each of the 4 criteria

•Do not focus only on Design & Methods

•Consider Research impact (more next slide)

•Should the applicants be invited to submit a full application?

SCORING IMPACT

•The applicant must state how their research contributes to investment signal goal(s)

•If not addressed in any detail this must be reflected in score

•If definitely in the wrong research investment stream, a score of 1 should be given

WEIGHTING OF SCORES

Criteria Points % score

Rationale for research 7 25

Design and methods 7 25

Research Impact 7 25

Expertise and track record of the research team

7 25

Global (not incl. in total) 7 0

Total 28 100

Electronic Scoring• Turn on device• When “voting is open” you see :

– application ID no 15/XXX– which “Question” 1-4: Rationale, D&M, TR, Impact – Q5 & Q6 blank (enter any number)– Q7 Global score

– “Answer” each question & “Enter” your score (1-7)

NOTE: - Whole numbers only - Cannot re-score; record on score sheet

• Ranked total scores presented for discussion• Re-ranking:– Any member may propose an application for re-ranking– COI noted & managed – Scores modified, after discussion & agreement, by adding

±0.5 points max. to 1 or 2 score criteria – New ranking & adjusted Totals considered – This can be repeated for a number of applications

• Members identify cut point off – those below NOT invited to submit full application

REVIEW SCORES & RE-RANKING

CONCLUSION

• At the end of the meeting• Feedback to applicants

AT THE END OF THE MEETING . . .• Hand in all documentation & proposals

• Complete your expense claim forms

• Complete feedback to applicants in next 3 days

• Keep everything confidential

• Committee Dinner

FEEDBACK TO APPLICANTS

• Applicants will receive review summary feedback from the CR• In next 3 days – collated & Chair approval before results released

• Applicants will also receive quantitative feedback:

1) Percentile ranking of SAC score (if discussed); or

2) Percentile ranking of SAC pre-scores (if triaged)

THANK YOU

• All processes are fully described in the provided HRC Peer Review Manual

• Don’t forget:• to note your Review Summaries• Hand in your expense claim