Institute of Population and Public Health & Institute of Cancer Research
|
Amendment The amendment is as follows:
|
Deadlines:
Introduction
Recently, there have been a number of national and international processes undertaken to identify priorities in specific areas of health research. In Britain, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) developed a "National Listening Exercise" and several Canadian health services and policy research organizations have just completed a similar process entitled "Listening for Direction". The essence of these exercises is the identification of "starting points" to support the development of coordinated and forward-looking research agendas.
The overall program goal of NGOAs is the identification of Canadian research needs, gaps and opportunities within selected research areas identified as priorities by institutes within CIHR, using a broad consultation process. The intention is to input to the development and further refinement of these Institutes' and other Canadian funding agencies' health research agendas.
The Needs/Gaps/Opportunities Assessment grant is designed to support the systematic review of Canadian research activity, and capacity, in well-defined priority areas determined by participating CIHR Institutes, as part of their forward-looking strategic plans.
Available Funds
Each grant provides 8 months of non-renewable funding (up to $80,000) to a consortium of researchers, potential research users (e.g. policy makers and/or program administrators, health practitioners) and stakeholder organizations, all hereafter collectively termed "Stakeholders."
Specific Objectives
The objectives are:
To conduct an environmental scan of current and planned research activity, and capacity in Canada, related to institute-specific strategic priorities (see "Eligible Research Areas" below)
To facilitate a participatory consultation process involving stakeholders, concerning the needs, gaps and opportunities related to both research activity and capacity
To develop, collaboratively with stakeholders across the country, a prioritized list of these research needs/gaps/opportunities using explicit prioritization criteria
The grants are intended to achieve the following:
A structured "environmental scan" of current and planned major Canadian research activities (projects/programs) in the specified research area, including key projects funded in Canada by agencies other than CIHR, as well as an assessment of related Canadian research capacity (personnel at various levels -- including those with CIHR and other personal support awards, physical facilities, relevant major databases and analytic capacity, training programs). The design of the environmental scan should demonstrate both scientific methodological rigour and creativity of approach - for example in the identification of the relevant key research publications, projects and personnel/centres. The intent is to provide a sense of the overall state of research in specific areas of population health (Note: an exhaustive inventory of all individual researchers/stakeholders in the field and all grants/publications in recent years is NOT expected).
Collaborative stakeholder consultation process - the apparent needs, gaps and opportunities in these research activities and capacity in Canada should be identified through a consultative process involving a variety of stakeholders. This should be judged in comparison with the analogous activities and capacity in other countries with similar levels of overall health research expenditure, but with exemplary research productivity in the identified field. In addition, current activities and capacity should be assessed in light of current Canadian researchers' and research-users' visions as to what would constitute particularly innovative or informative research in the specified field. In short, this process should determine what would be needed for Canada to develop into a world-class centre of research in this field, that successfully informs policy and practice in the specified field.
Prioritization of Needs/Gaps/Opportunities - using clearly justified criteria applied in a collaborative stakeholder process, these identified research gaps and needs should be prioritized in order to provide practical advice to CIHR and other potential funders, on the most urgent and fundamental investments that should be made in the field, as opposed to later or less critical investments. (A set of prioritization criteria is found in Appendix 1. Adaptations of or departures from these criteria are acceptable, but should be explicitly justified or explained).
The completion of a comprehensive report that documents the process used to develop and conduct the environmental scan, and the stakeholder consultation process, as well as the prioritization of needs/gaps/opportunities by stakeholders, key findings and lessons learned. The report should be delivered to CIHR within eight months of receipt of funds.
Eligible Research Areas
| Institute of Population and Public Health (IPPH) The Institute Advisory Board has specified the following two areas of research as priorities in the next few years that would benefit from such Needs/Gaps/Opportunities Assessments: The Influence of Various "Contexts" on Health (e.g., Home/Family; Daycare/School; Work/Recreation; Institutional /Domiciliary Living Arrangements for the Frail Elderly and Severely Disabled; Neighbourhood/ "Community") Both the physical and social characteristics of these micro-environments are of interest to the Institute, as they affect health over the life-course, and especially those characteristics that are potentially alterable by improved design and/or public/private/voluntary sector policies and programs. Appendix 2 provides a sampling of the sorts of research questions identified by the Institute as typical of the field of inquiry. It is anticipated that each application to this RFA would address only one of these micro-environments - such as daycare policy/programs and health; schools and health, work and health, etc. The design and evaluation of the health impact of population-level interventions, particularly public sector policies and programs -- including those in other sectors (e.g., taxation, housing, regional/urban development policies and programs.) While many population-level policies and programs are widely known to affect population health status, including those not primarily intended to have this effect, there appears to be a dearth of high-quality evidence, especially in Canada, of the precise health impacts on well-being (negative as well as positive) of these policies and programs within a Canadian context. It is therefore expected that a major focus in these assessments would be the identification and prioritization of specific gaps and needs in current and relevant Canadian research activity and capacity. The intent of these assessments is to provide IPPH with recommendations on surmounting key barriers to developing more first-class research capacity in this field in Canada. The Institute recognizes that the potential scope of this field is large, and anticipates that each proposal submitted might well address the health effects of only one sort of public policy or program such as taxation (e.g. via income inequality), housing, or urban development. Other issues that applicants may want to address in this field are briefly described in Appendix 3. Other current priorities of the CIHR-IPPH, although not specifically targeted by this RFA, may provide applicants with additional arguments regarding their proposal's salience to the Institute's strategic initiatives:
|
|
Institute of Cancer Research (ICR) The ICR is interested in several by-products from the NGOA process including workshops that will facilitate the creation of Canadian research networks with the goal of developing trans-institutional, trans-disciplinary research proposals; a review current initiatives; discussion of the concept of "centres of excellence" that will serve as focal points for the Network; and consolidation of contacts with international networks and groups. In consultation with the Executive of the Institute Advisory Board, the ICR has identified the following three areas of research within its preliminary list of priorities that would benefit from Needs/Gaps/Opportunities Assessments: Supportive/Palliative Care "The goal of supportive/palliative care in cancer research is to improve the quality of life of patients and families throughout the course of illness and into bereavement. This includes research to enable early identification and impeccable management of' suffering associated with cancer, as well as research that will lead to enhancement of positive contributors to quality of life. Supportive/palliative care research addresses all aspects of the person with cancer and their families: physical, emotional, social, spiritual, cognitive, financial. It also addresses issues regarding accessibility to and delivery of the most effective supportive/palliative care. Based on current biologic and psychosocial research, palliative care is an exercise in prevention as early identification, management, and support will prevent some sources of suffering and make it easier to alleviate others. Palliative care is no longer an end of life concept separate from other aspects of cancer treatment." National Cancer Information Resource for Data Collection for "A key step in capitalizing on opportunities across the research spectrum depends on the collection of, and access to, high quality data on a wide range of dimensions relating to cancer. This requires standardized and linkable data sets in a variety of areas such as risk behaviours, biological samples, health services utilization, and outcomes such as survival and quality of life. This is essential for research which informs the cancer process, from prevention to palliation". Tumour Banks With the development of new molecular technologies, many thousands of analyses can be carried out on even small tumour samples and corresponding normal tissues. While much work has already been done in establishing a range of cancer tumour banks there is a need to identify existing activities, to determine current and future needs for collection, maintenance and distribution, and to identify realistic opportunities for a national initiative. |
Eligibility Criteria
Consortia or partnerships must be between not-for-profit organizations (eligible costs allow for consulting support). Research teams must consist of three or more researchers. Members of the team must be fully-qualified independent researcher(s) employed at a Canadian not-for-profit institution/organization. The team leader is the person who will act as research program director and assumes administrative responsibility for the grant. International or private-sector collaborators who make a substantial intellectual contribution to the research program may be listed as additional team members, but CIHR funding is restricted to work performed within not-for-profit institutions in Canada. No person listed as a member of the team may receive a salary from the grant.
Mechanism of Support
This RFA is designed to solicit non-renewable project operating grant applications for a duration of up to eight months.
Allowable Costs
Operating support for specific research activities undertaken by the members of the team
Purchase and maintenance of equipment and other research tools, maintenance grants for common services and shared facilities
Costs of data collection and maintenance of information holdings
Costs of regional, national and international networking activities, including collaboration, planning, and research exchange activities directly related to the research project
Meeting support - travel and accommodation costs for stakeholders
The salary of a professional coordinator and/or administrative assistant
The salary(ies) of research assistants as appropriate
Costs involved in dissemination of research findings to the practitioner and policy communities
Consulting fees (e.g., environmental scan)
The full application must provide a detailed justification of all costs
Evaluation Criteria for Peer Review
All applications for this grant will be judged by a special panel of peer-reviewers, with significant international representation, independent of the participating Institutes. The number of panels needed, will be determined by the total volume of applications, as indicated by the Letters of Intent received.
The key criteria for adjudication include:
"Fit" (responsiveness) of the proposal to the priorities of the Institute to which the application is made, as stated in this request for applications, including the clarity and appropriateness of proposed definition of the field to be addressed
Evidence of scientific rigour and relevance of proposed methodology for conducting environmental scan
Adequacy of approach to identifying key research activities and capacities
Robustness, creativity and participatory nature of approach to needs/gaps/opportunities identification and prioritization by stakeholders
Credibility of applicant consortium, in terms of research and research/knowledge transfer track-record, and leadership in the field of the Institute to which the application is made
Evidence that applicant consortium has experience working with stakeholders to achieve collaborative outcomes
Adequacy of representation of key stakeholder groups reflected in the proposed planning and prioritization process.
Likelihood that the findings would inform CIHR as to prudent and strategic investments where Canadian health research is currently under-developed, but capable of world-class excellence.
How to Apply
The team leader is the person who will act as the research program director and assumes administrative responsibilty for the grant. This individual must obtain a CIHR PIN.
Letter of intent
There is a two-stage application process. In the first stage, the team leader must submit, by September 4, 2001, through his/her Canadian university or affiliated not-for-profit organization (the host institution), three copies of a letter of intent. The letter must not exceed 5 pages and must address the review criteria described above and outline:
the objectives of the research program;
the nature and extent of the collaboration between investigators, with an explanation of the anticipated value added to the research program/project through the formation of the team;
the proposed program budget, listing major cost categories and the level of funding which has been secured or which will be requested or required from other sources
the preliminary research plan and schedule of work;
the nature and extent of the host institutions' financial and other long-term commitment to the research, and to ensuring a favourable environment for carrying out the research activities;
the proposed developmental budget and its use.
The letter of intent must be co-signed by the President or delegate of the host institution, as well as by the delegated authority for the university research office. In addition to the information outlined above, letters of intent must include the following attachments:
a cover page (one page) including
the title of the program/project as it will appear in publicity and other announcements
the name, title, address, telephone and FAX numbers, and E-mail address of the principal/co-investigators
a statement indicating which non-profit organization or university will administer the funds
the signatures of the principal/co-investigators and university officials
a short bibliography ( one page ) of the literature relevant to the theme(s) of the application may be appended in addition to the five-page letter;
a list of all team members with their affiliations
an abbreviated biography ( two pages) as related to the theme area and the objectives of the application for each team member.
Details of Review Process
An expert, multidisciplinary committee will review letters of intent, and selected applicants will be invited to submit a full application, with a deadline for receipt of November 15, 2001. The names of teams that will be invited to apply and the topic of their research will be made public.
Details of the full application procedure will be provided at that time to those invited to apply. This will involve a more detailed description of the research objectives, methods, knowledge transfer plan and other details relevant to the proposal. It will also include a detailed justification of the disciplinary composition of the research team The review process may involve external reviews and/or a meeting of the team members with the reviewers, as appropriate.
Contact for Further Information
For further information about applying for this initiative, please contact:
Terry Albert - Institute Liaison
(Institute of Population and Public Health)
Email: talbert@cihr-irsc.gc.ca:
Tel: (613) 941-4598
Fax: (613) 954-1040
For questions concerning the application process please contact:
Sophia Tsouros - Program Coordinator
Email: stsouros@cihr-irsc.gc.ca
Tel: (613) 957-6119
Fax: (613) 954-1800
Appendices
Appendix 1
Suggested Generic Criteria for Selection of Strategic Initiatives by CIHR InstitutesNine Prioritization Criteria In Three Clusters (Unranked)
Science
Potential to illuminate broader processes/principles (generalizability)
Potential for significant scientific advance
Pertinence/Strategic Importance
a) Potential to improve the health of Canadians - related both to attributable "burden of suffering" and the likelihood of its substantial future reduction as a result of the research
b) Potential to reduce current inequalities in health status - regional/ethnic/gender-related, etc.
Potential to improve the effectiveness, efficiency and equity of the Canadian health care system
National competitive advantage/niche
Contribution to capacity building in Canada
Tackles emergent or increasing public health or health care system problem
Organizational Arrangements
Bridges across institutes and themes
Unlikely to be funded through CIHR investigator-initiated competitions, given current Canadian research capacity.
Appendix 2
Some Examples of Key Research Questions Relating to:
The Influence of Various "Contexts" on Health (e.g., Home/Family; Daycare/School; Work/Recreation; Institutional /Domiciliary Living Arrangements for the Frail Elderly and Severely Disabled; Neighbourhood/ "Community")
The influence on health, over the life course of the context or settings in which people live, work or play has been acknowledged by the IPPH as an overarching theme with a large number of research questions of potentially great importance. The following are therefore intended only as illustrative examples, to assist RFA applicants in their development of a proposal addressing current Canadian research activities and capacity, within one of the following specific "micro-environments."
Home/Family:
How could housing options available to Canadians - especially to vulnerable groups such as the poor, families with young children, single parents, minorities, the disabled and the elderly - be optimized to preserve the health and functioning of these individuals
What specific family/household-related public and private-sector policies and programs could be better designed, and in what way, to support the health-enhancing aspects of family/household life? [E.g. family-care/parenting leave from employment; measures to reduce social isolation, especially for disadvantaged/single parents of young children, the disabled and the elderly?]
Daycare/School:
How could current child-care and early childhood development policies and programs in Canada more effectively contribute to the long-term "developmental-health trajectory" of our youth?
Could cost-effective means be developed across Canada to improve disadvantaged children's life chances, by earlier enrichment of neighbourhood social and physical environments (e.g. pre-school "Child Development and Parenting Centres" in schools and other local institutions)?
Work/Recreation:
How could Canadian workplaces improve the quality of working life to enhance workforce health, and also improve Canada's international competitiveness?
How could workplaces better assist Canadians to cope with conflicting demands from work and family/personal life?
How could public recreation facilities in Canada be better designed/situated in order to provide improved access to groups currently unable to use them; how could such use be increased to maximize health benefits for those at risk; and how can this all be made economically sustainable?
Domiciliary-Care, Institutional and Other Living Options for the Disabled and Elderly
How can the current attendant and supportive care options available to persons needing assistance with activities of daily living be designed so as to equitably meet their needs, while maximizing their autonomy, and their interactions with the community, in an economically and culturally sustainable way?
Community:
What health-enhancing features of Canadian communities (ranging from neighbourhoods to local municipalities) could be readily improved, in politically acceptable ways, and what health-damaging features require action - either legislative/regulatory or cultural/social?
Are there emerging threats to the physical or social environments of Canadian communities that require public health action, and if so, what action is most cost-effective for their containment/control?
Potential Partners:
While there are many potential partners for applied research across Canada, especially at the local level, the following institutions and organizations are examples of those which should be engaged in the multi-stakeholder planning and prioritization process described in proposals responding to this RFA, according to the specific micro-environment addressed:
Housing Authorities - especially for assisted or public housing; tenants' organizations
Local Public Health Units/Regional health boards/Provincial/territorial Ministries & Federal Departments of Health and the Environment- including public health nurses and inspectors, who often have intimate knowledge of these settings
Daycare Providers, Consumers, and Regulators
School Boards, Teacher Associations, Parent councils, Parent-Teacher Organizations and Ministries of Education
Employer Organizations and Unions, Workplace Health and Safety Associations, Workers' Compensation Boards, Ministries of Labour and Human Resource Development Canada
Chronic/Home Care Providers, Consumers, Regulators, Health Professionals, and Policy-Makers, including Disabled Persons' Advocacy Groups
Environmental Regulators, Industry and Community Groups, as well as concerned professionals
Appendix 3
Some Examples of Key Issues Relating to:
The design and evaluation of the health impact of population-level interventions, particularly public sector policies and programs -- including those in other sectors (e.g., taxation, housing, regional/urban development policies and programs.)
It is suggested that RFA applicants addressing this IPPH priority theme strongly consider including the following issues/strategies/activities in their proposal:
A feasibility assessment for joint program-intervention/research funding-partnerships - e.g. what is the potential to set up a structure for dual-funding of projects, with the "intervention" arm of population health initiatives being funded by a non-research agency (e.g. Population Health Fund of Health Canada), and the "research" arm being funded by CIHR. The funds currently available for intervention projects on "fall prevention in the elderly," and funds available for the Federal Tobacco Demand Reduction Strategy are examples of potential non-research-agency funding sources for the "intervention" costs of such jointly funded studies.
The systematic identification and prioritization (in consultation with key stakeholders) of current or imminent significant "natural experiments" in Canadian policies and programs, that are worthy of detailed evaluation, in terms of their impact on population health status. An example would be the recent initiation of comprehensive public day care in Quebec.
A scan of virtual networks and policy/program think-tanks across Canada that already exist, which may further support capacity development for population health intervention research of this kind. These may be "health sector" in nature or involve other policy/program sectors that impact on health (e.g., taxation, housing, urban development, social welfare, etc.).
The identification of decision support tools that are currently being developed by researchers internationally, to guide the design and implementation of population health interventions. Examples would include the simulation models which are being developed and tested in the population health field by various researchers in Canada and internationally. Examples from other groups include PREVENT, EMPower, the Harvard Prevalence-Incidence Model, Statistic Canada's POHEM. There are also a variety of "paper-based" models - e.g., Logic Model, Illinois Project for Local Assessment of Needs, MATCH, etc.
Footnotes
This process was developed for health services and policy research. Five partner organizations engaged in the project: Institute of Health Services and Policy Research; Canadian Health Services Research Foundation; Canadian Institute for Health Information; Canadian Coordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment; Federal-Provincial-Territorial Advisory Committee on Health Services.[Return to 1]
Note: the funding of a proposal responsive to this RFA does not necessarily imply subsequent CIHR funding of research, or research capacity, in the specified field addressed by the proposal. The findings of these assessments will be taken into consideration by participating institutes in their future strategic planning, in light of other research priorities identified by them.[Return to 2]
For example, such barriers could include currently inadequate development, or diffusion across disciplines, of appropriate research methodologies and expertise, such as the use of quasi-experimental designs and analytic methods for evaluating "natural experiments," and mixed qualitative/quantitative method evaluations of population health interventions.
