Download
dr katie evans project manager biomedical investment processes group n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Dr Katie Evans Project Manager - Biomedical Investment Processes Group PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Dr Katie Evans Project Manager - Biomedical Investment Processes Group

Dr Katie Evans Project Manager - Biomedical Investment Processes Group

189 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

Dr Katie Evans Project Manager - Biomedical Investment Processes Group

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. HRC Annual Funding Round 2015 Information for BMAC members Dr Katie Evans Project Manager - Biomedical Investment Processes Group

  2. 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)

  3. RESEARCH INVESTMENT STREAMS Health and Wellbeing in NZ Understanding health and preventing illness & injury NZ Health Delivery Immediate impact on policy & health delivery Improving Outcomes for Acute & Chronic Conditions in NZ Improving outcomes in illness & injury Rangahau HauoraMāori Building Māori knowledge & capability to address Māori health issues

  4. Purpose: Research that keeps people healthy & independent • Scope:Clear link with improving health & wellbeing • 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

  5. Purpose: Improving understanding & management of disease • Scope:Clear link to a specific disease, condition/impairment • 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

  6. Science assessing committee • Aim • Meeting Procedure • Full Stage Recommendations

  7. 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

  8. Time allocation • The 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

  9. 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

  10. Finer details • CR responsibilities • Conflict of Interest management • Responsiveness to Māori

  11. RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CR • Providing an overview & assessment of assigned applications • Commenting on 4 different score criteria • Commenting on any issues relevant (positive/negative)

  12. Conflicts of interest Declare potentialCOIs 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 • A close personal friend/relative • Any significant scientific/personal differences • Potential for financial gain/loss from the outcome • You cannot provide an objective review

  13. Conflicts of interest Management COIs discussed, with one of the following outcomes: • No action necessary, conflict noted • Member may be asked questions relating to their unique knowledge, but will not score • Member must not be present during discussion or scoring of proposals

  14. RESPONSIVENESS TO MĀORI • 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

  15. Assessment & scoring • Score criteria & descriptors • Assessing Impact • Weighting of scores • Review & re-ranking

  16. ASSESSMENT & SCORING Score Descriptor 7 Exceptional 6 Excellent 5 Very good 4 Good 3 Adequate 2 Unsatisfactory 1 Poor • 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)

  17. 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?

  18. 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

  19. Weighting of Scores

  20. 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

  21. Review scores & re-ranking • 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

  22. Conclusion • At the end of the meeting • Feedback to applicants

  23. 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

  24. 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)

  25. 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