Navigating CIHR Knowledge Translation Funding: Tips for Success

1. September 2011 Applying to Integrated Knowledge Translation Funding Opportunities at CIHR: Tips for Success

2. Outline • Background and Overview • iKT Funding Opportunities • Merit Review • Resources

3. Knowledge translation at CIHR: Definition Knowledge translation is a dynamic and iterative process that includes synthesis, dissemination, exchange and ethically sound application of knowledge to improve the health of Canadians, provide more effective health services and products and strengthen the health care system. This process takes place within a complex system of interactions between researchers and knowledge users that may vary in intensity, complexity and level of engagement depending on the nature of the research and the findings as well as the needs of the particular knowledge user. To learn more about KT at CIHR: www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/29418.html

4. End-of-grant KT Integrated KT Two broad types of KT at CIHR • The researcher develops and implements a plan for making knowledge users aware of the knowledge generated through a research project • Research approaches that engage potential knowledge users as partners in the research process • Requires a collaborative or participatory approach to research that is action oriented and is solutions and impact focused • Should produce research findings that are more likely to be relevant to and used by the end users

5. Integrated KT • As a minimum requirement for conducting integrated KT, knowledge users and researchers must work together to: • Shape the research questions • Interpret study findings and craft messaging around them • Move the research results into practice • … In addition, knowledge users and researchers can work together to: • Decide on the methodology • Help with data collection and tools development • Conduct widespread dissemination and application

6. Knowledge Users • An individual: • who is likely to be able to use the knowledge generated through research in order to make informed decisions about health policies, programs and/or practices • whose level of engagement in the research process may vary in intensity and complexity depending on the nature of the research and their information needs • Examples: • practitioner, policy-maker, educator, decision-maker, health care administrator, community leader, or an individual in a health charity, patient group, private sector organization or a media outlet.

7. Knowledge Users • Knowledge User is an official applicant category at CIHR to recognize the participation of knowledge users in iKT projects • With iKT projects there is a greater expectation that the findings or recommendations will be acted on. The participating knowledge users should have enough decision-making authority to integrate knowledge into their working environment. • A decision maker is a knowledge user who has the authority to influence or make decisions about health policy or the delivery of health services. In the Partnerships for Health System Improvement (PHSI) competition a decision maker is typically a health-system manager, policy-maker or clinician leader capable of making significant changes to policy or practice.

8. KT Funding Opportunities

9. Before you apply to an iKT funding opportunity, you may want to consider Planning Grants which provide support for planning and partnership development activities before embarking on a full application. Open to applications in all areas of health Additional funds are available for specific research areas including for iKT and PHSI Offer up to $25,000 per grant for up to 1 year Applications accepted 3 times per year in October, February and June Next application deadline is October 17, 2011 for a February 1, 2012 funding start date http://www.researchnet-recherchenet.ca/rnr16/srch.do Planning and Partnership Development

10. iKT Funding Opportunities • Knowledge Synthesis • Knowledge to Action (K2A) • Partnerships for Health System Improvement (PHSI)

11. What is Knowledge Synthesis? • This program aims to increase the uptake/application of synthesized knowledge in decision-making by supporting partnerships between researchers and knowledge users to produce scoping reviews and syntheses that respond to the information needs of knowledge users in all areas of health. • It also aims to extend the benefits of knowledge synthesis to new kinds of questions relevant to knowledge users and areas of research that have not traditionally been synthesized.

12. Knowledge Synthesis: Snapshot Maximum amount per grant: $100,000 for a synthesis / $50,000 for a scoping review, for up to one year.Eligibility: The team must include both an independent researcher and a knowledge user listed as a Principal Applicant.Applications accepted: Twice a year in October and May Next application deadline: October 3, 2011 (Funding start date March 1, 2012)

13. Knowledge Synthesis: Examples of Funded Projects

14. Knowledge Synthesis: Overall Success Rates

15. What is K2A? • K2A provides support for researchers and knowledge users to work together to move knowledge into action, and to increase the understanding of knowledge application through the process. • It is open to any area of health research as long as the project responds to the needs of the participating knowledge users.

16. K2A: Snapshot Maximum amount per grant: $100,000 per year for up to 2 years. Eligibility: The team must include both an independent researcher and a knowledge user listed as a Principal Applicant. Applications accepted: annually in October Next application deadline: October 3, 2011 (Funding start date April 1, 2012)

17. K2A: Examples of Funded Projects

18. K2A: Overall Success Rates

19. PHSI offers Canada’s health-system decision makers evidence-based answers to their most pressing questions. A funding program founded on partnerships, every PHSI project requires collaboration between decision makers and researchers interested in working together to address health system challenges. Any applied health services and policy research topic can be addressed so long as it responds to the information needs of the participating decision makers. What is PHSI?

20. Funding per grant: A mix of CIHR and partner support – CIHR provides most of the funding ($350K or $400K, depending on province) and partners are required to provide the rest (20% or 30% of the total project budget, depending on province) Length of grant: up to 3 years Eligibility: The team must include both an independent researcher and a knowledge user (decision maker) listed as a Principal Applicant Applications accepted: annually in November Next application deadline: November 1, 2011 (Funding start date April 1, 2012) PHSI: Snapshot

21. PHSI: Examples of Funded Projects

22. PHSI: Overall Success Rates

23. Review Implications of iKT By requiring both researchers and knowledge users to be part of the research team, integrated KT requires merit review: • Both knowledge users and researchers are on the review panel - each proposal is reviewed by at least one of each • Knowledge users are not required to have academic backgrounds (expertise is related to their experience) • Each proposal is scored on both potential impact and scientific merit

24. Merit Review Scale Only applications rated 3.5 or higher on both Potential Impact and Scientific Merit are eligible for CIHR funding.

25. Merit Review Review Criteria Headings: • Research question • Research approach • Feasibility • Outcomes Note: The specific evaluation criteria differ slightly for each funding opportunity – please refer to the relevant competition for a complete description of information and requirements. This is intended as general guidance only.

26. Research Question Explanation of the research project and justification for the need to conduct the research. What this means for you: • Be clear about what the question is right away • Be clear about the origin of the research question: why it is interesting, who is interested in it and what the knowledge user partners think about it • Demonstrate that the question has been shaped by the participating knowledge users and responds to their needs • Outline how the project responds to the objectives of the specific funding opportunity

27. Research Approach Detailed description of the research approach and justification for the proposed methods/strategies. What this means for you: • Be clear and specific about your proposed methods – don’t assume that the committee is familiar with the methodology • Justify your approach – someone on the committee is bound to disagree with you • Include a reasonable end-of-grant KT plan appropriate for its goals and audiences - distinguish between the knowledge users participating in the project and other target audiences that will be reached by the dissemination plan

28. Research Approach • Demonstrate the participation of and commitment to the project by the knowledge users – how will they be involved throughout the project? When, how and for what purpose will the researchers and knowledge users meet? • Knowledge user involvement can be written into the text and shown through letters of support: • These letters are important – they need to show true iKT-style collaboration • They should not be “cookie cutter” – ensure that they are unique • They should be specific about the knowledge user’s role and expectations - explain the role, amount of time committed to the project, cash and/or in-kind contributions, precise degree of involvement in the project, and description of how they intend to use the results

29. Feasibility Demonstration that the researcher-knowledge-user team has the requisite skills, experience and resources to complete the project in the proposed time frame. What this means for you: • Document the expertise of each team member and their role in the proposed study • Be clear about why each member is on the team, their strengths, and how they are able to do the work • Demonstrate that this is this is a “doable” study – from both a scientific and a practical perspective • Link KT activities to a thorough budget justification

30. Feasibility • Include a fair amount of detail about the knowledge users: • Their role in the project and evidence that they understand and have agreed to fulfill their role • Their willingness to use the results of the study and to move them into action (when appropriate) - Be sure to demonstrate a “pull” for the results • Justification that they are the right knowledge users to inform the project and act on the findings • Evidence of ongoing commitment from the organization as well as the knowledge user is ideal - Financial or in-kind support from the knowledge user’s organization is a good sign of engagement and commitment • Very strong iKT projects will demonstrate an established relationship with the participating knowledge users, one that hopefully precedes and will outlast the project

31. Outcomes Results expected from the successful uptake of project findings. What this means for you: • Consider the potential impact of your study and its transferability • Illustrate how it will have a substantive and sustainable impact on health outcomes, practice, programs and/or policy in the study context. • While the project is intended to respond to the needs of participating knowledge users, findings can have even greater impact depending on the extent to which the results are transferable to other contexts. It should be transferable enough that other, similar audiences will benefit. • If it is not transferable, acknowledge and justify this • Develop a reasonable evaluation plan to be able to assess the outcomes and impacts of your study (where required)

32. Beware of the “KT Imperative” The importance of Synthesis • Results from a single research study should be contextualized within a synthesis of global research results before extra-ordinary dissemination or implementation efforts are undertaken • Need to bring common sense as well as academic rigour to bear on decisions about the degree and intensity of KT activities warranted by a single research study

33. Key word: Appropriateness For all KT grants and activities the most important consideration is appropriateness. Each discipline, research project, and knowledge-user community is different. When there are limitations on the validity or generalizability of the results with few potential knowledge-users, a modest approach is most appropriate. The key to a successful grant is to ensure that there is a match between the expected research findings, the targeted knowledge-users and the KT strategies selected.

34. Another key word: Engagement For all iKT activities another important consideration is engagement. By engaging in partnerships, knowledge-users and researchers can benefit from the expertise each offer to participate in research with a high potential for impact and to move high quality, locally adapted evidence into practice.

35. Other General Tips • Read and understand all requirements • Contact us if you are unsure about anything • Invest enough time to prepare and revise, revise, revise! • Seek a mentor • Establish the need, importance and originality of your research • Show how the proposed work fits into the larger scheme of things

36. Other General Tips • Set challenging yet realistic goals • Clearly articulate the theoretical or conceptual framework – do not neglect the literature review • Write with the reviewers in mind; reviewers do not simply read, they interpret • Keep in mind that your application will be reviewed by both researchers and knowledge users • Ensure the proposal flows logically, is clearly written and easy to read • Use simple declarative sentences

37. Other General Tips • Avoid use of imprecise words, jargon, unusual abbreviations, acronyms, and poor grammar and syntax • Proof-read! • Have others review your application (not just your friends and collaborators) • recognize that greater clarification in the proposal may be warranted even if you do not agree with the comments/concerns • If your application is unsuccessful, re-write the application addressing all of the comments and re-apply • Be brief and courteous in your Response to Previous Reviews page - address the most important criticisms factually and professionally

38. Common Pitfalls • Unclear research question / objectives • Weak or “token” knowledge user involvement • Lack of theoretical rationale • Lack of specificity in the methodology • Lack of expertise on the team • Low potential impact – or not transferable / generalizeable • Lack of detail in the end-of-grant KT plan around sharing results with other relevant groups • Weak evaluation plan (where required) • Lack of gender-based analysis (where relevant)

39. KT Resources • Knowledge to Action: A Knowledge Translation Casebook • Knowledge to Action: An End-of-Grant Knowledge Translation Casebook • KT in Health Care – Moving from Evidence to Practice: A KT Handbook • KT Clearinghouse • Online learning modules • CIHR Guides to KT • CIHR Funded Research Database • CIHR Resources for Applying for a Grant

40. Provides insight into the real world of researchers and knowledge users Presents important lessons about successful EGKT and IKT Published early 2009 www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/29484.html Knowledge to Action: A KT Casebook

41. Features end-of-grant (EoG) KT activities supported by CIHR's KT Supplement Grant program Showcases unique and effective ways to share research results covering a broad spectrum of research Published April 2010 www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/29484.html Knowledge to Action: An End-of-Grant KT Casebook

42. A KT Handbook Chapters cover: • Knowledge creation • Knowledge-to-Action cycle • Theories and Models of Knowledge-to-Action • Knowledge exchange • Evaluation of Knowledge-to-Action ca.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1405181060,descCd-description.html Presentations based on chapters available at: www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/40618.html All royalties go into a CIHR fund for students

43. KT Clearinghouse Funded by CIHR to serve as the repository of KT resources for individuals who want to learn about the science and practice of KT, and access tools that facilitate their own KT research and practices. ktclearinghouse.ca

44. Online Learning Modules 1)A Guide to Researcher and Knowledge-User Collaboration in Health Research Participatory Research at McGill (PRAM) 2) Introduction to Evidence-Informed Decision Making Donna Ciliska, McMaster University 3) Critical Appraisal of Intervention Studies Donna Ciliska, McMaster University 4) A Guide to Knowledge Synthesis Jeremy Grimshaw, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute 5) Deliberative Priority Setting Sandy Campbell www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/39128.html

45. CIHR Guides to KT • Format: • One for iKT • One for EoG KT • Designed for use in all funding opportunities • Objectives: • To bringconsistency and rigor to the assessment of KT requirements in grant and award applications • To make it transparent to applicants how CIHR reviews KT applications • Status: • To be posted on CIHR website soon: www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/38766.html

46. CIHR Funded Research Database A useful tool to view examples of funded projects. webapps.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/funding/Search?p_language=E&p_version=CIHR

47. CIHR Resources for Applying for a Grant • Knowledge Synthesis, Knowledge to Action, PHSI: Tips from the Chair and Reviewers www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/38766.html • Guidebook for New Principal Investigators www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/27491.html • Grants & Awards Guide www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/805.html • ‘How to Apply for Funding’ www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/795.html • CIHR Funding Opportunities Database www.researchnet-recherchenet.ca/rnr16/srch.do

48. Contact Information Knowledge Synthesis elizabeth.drake@cihr-irsc.gc.ca or 613-948-2682 Knowledge to Action yumna.choudhry@cihr-irsc.gc.ca or 613-954-1944 Partnerships for Health System Improvement jasmine.lefebvre@cihr-irsc.gc.ca or 613-952-8965

49. Contact Information Technical Support: CIHR PIN: 1-888-603-4178 pin-nip@cihr-irsc.gc.ca ResearchNet Technical Support: 1-888-603-4178 or 613-941-9080 support@researchnet-recherchenet.ca General Information Service for Funding Enquiries: 1-888-603-4178 or 613-954-1968 info@cihr-irsc.gc.ca