Evaluation of the Pandemic Preparedness Strategic Research Initiative – Long descriptions

Figure 1-1: ARC and SI of the top ten productive countries in pandemic research

2001-2010
Group SI ARC Papers
United States 1.42 1.22 705
United Kingdom 1.63 1.11 214
Japan 1.17 0.99 157
China 0.61 2.44 54
Canada 1.18 0.81 80
Australia 1.30 0.82 56
France 0.72 0.82 65
Netherlands 1.92 1.10 73
Germany 0.43 0.90 55
Italy 0.79 1.02 52

2001-2005
Group SI ARC Papers
United States 1.44 1.20 1,976
United Kingdom 1.09 1.21 403
Japan 0.97 0.90 311
China 0.88 1.23 411
Canada 1.31 1.16 283
Australia 1.99 1.11 291
France 0.87 0.89 222
Netherlands 1.63 1.24 191
Germany 0.59 1.15 206
Italy 0.91 0.94 183

Back to report

Figure 1-2: Number of pandemic papers of top five most productive countries, for the period 2001-2010

Including United States
Group 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total
United States 120 129 118 162 176 301 262 291 477 645 2,681
United Kingdom 38 49 41 39 47 48 62 72 104 117 617
China 10 10 7 10 17 43 45 49 108 166 465
Canada 13 13 19 16 19 34 40 37 69 103 363
Japan 28 30 34 30 35 45 53 49 69 95 468
Total 209 231 219 257 294 471 462 498 827 1126 4594

Excluding United States
Group 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total
United Kingdom 38 49 41 39 47 48 62 72 104 117 617
China 10 10 7 10 17 43 45 49 108 166 465
Canada 13 13 19 16 19 34 40 37 69 103 363
Japan 28 30 34 30 35 45 53 49 69 95 468
Total 89 102 101 95 118 170 200 207 350 481 1913

Back to report

Figure1-3: Percentage of Canadian pandemic papers authored by CIHR-PPSRI-funded researchers, 2001-2010

Group 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Unsupported pandemic papers of the CIHR-PPSRI funded researchers 62% 69% 63% 56% 42% 56% 58% 46% 13% 0%
PPSRI supported pandemic papers of the CIHR-PPSRI funded researchers 27% 55% 62%
Other Canadian pandemic papers 38% 31% 37% 44% 58% 44% 42% 27% 32% 38%
Number of Canadian pandemic papers 13 13 19 16 19 34 40 37 69 103

Back to report

Figure 2-1: Number of distinct Canadian authors publishing in the area of pandemics, 2001-2010

Year Number of distinct Canadian authors
2001 31
2002 39
2003 57
2004 40
2005 49
2006 72
2007 106
2008 106
2009 249
2010 407

Back to report

Figure 2-2: Contribution of PPSRI to Researchers’ Careers

Contribution of PPSRI to researchers’ careers NPI ( n=40) COPI/OPI (n=104)
Has positively contributed to my career advancement 83% 58%
Has focused my work to influenza and pandemic preparedness research 68% 44%
Has contributed to a reorientation of my research focus 58% 32%

Back to report

Figure 3-1: Nature of Stakeholder Involvement in PPSRI Projects as Reported by Researchers

Nature of Stakeholder Involvement NPI ( n=40) COPI/OPI (n=104)
Data collection phase / Project implementation 48% 77%
Development of the protocol 48% 63%
Interpretation of the results 45% 63%
End of Grant KT Activities 45% 53%
Development of the research idea/question 40% 69%
Other 8% 18%

Back to report

Figure 3-2: Stakeholders Reported as Influenced to Some/Great Extent by PPSRI Projects

Stakeholders Reported as Influenced to Some/Great Extent NPI ( n=40) COPI/OPI (n=104)
Health System/Care Practitioners 40% 47%
Study Stakeholders (who are formally listed in the grant application) 33% 34%
Community/Municipal Organizations 23% 7%
Health System/Care Professional Organizations 23% 13%
Health System/ Care Managers 23% 23%
Federal/Provincial representatives 20% 23%
Patients/ Consumers of Health System 8% 19%
Industry 5% 6%
Consumer Groups/ Charitable organizations 5% 3%
The Media 3% 0%

Back to report

Figure 6-1: NPI Perceptions about the Application Process

Perceptions about the application process Percentage of NPIs who agree/strongly agree with the statement
CIHR staff reported promptly to my questions related to the application process (n=29) 100%
The information requested in the application was relevant to my evaluation 94%
My application was processed by CIHR within the stated timelines (n=39) 92%
The application form was an appropriate length (n=39) 90%
I was given enough time to prepare and submit my application (n=38) 87%
The forms were easy to understand and complete (n=38) 82%
The application guidelines provided by CIHR were clear (n=38) 79%

Back to report

Figure 6-2: NPI Perceptions about the Decision Process

Perceptions about the decision process Percentage of NPIs who agree/strongly agree with the statement
The peer review process was fair (n=38) 95%
The feedback received from the peer review committee on my application was useful (n=38) 95%
CIHR program staff responded promptly to my questions related to decision process (n=25) 92%
My funding was released within a reasonable period of time (n=40) 90%
The decision regarding my application was released within the posted timelines (n=38) 89%
The peer review process was transparent (n=38) 76%

Back to report

Figure 7-1: NPI Perceptions about the Application Process

Research priorities NPI ( n=40) COPI/OPI (n=103) Share of PPSRI funding
Vaccines and immunization 45% 43% 66%
Prevention and treatment 43% 28% 13%
Virus biology and diagnostics 38% 19% 13%
Ethical, legal or social aspects 23% 16% 8%

Back to report

Figure 8-1: PPSRI projects (N=92) by CIHR pillars

CIHR Pillar Percentage of PPSRI projects (n=92)
Biomedical 57%
Clinical 9%
Health Systems and Services 16%
Social/ Cultural/ Environmental/ Population Health 16%
Not applicable/specified 2%

Back to report

Date modified: