Healthy Cities Implementation Science (HCIS) Team Grants LOI Webinar – April 1, 2022
Questions & Answers

Table of contents

Important note: The Funding Opportunity (FO) text has been updated on ResearchNet to align with the responses below.

Please submit any additional questions about the HCIS Team Grants Funding Opportunity to CIHR’s Contact Centre.

Funding decisions

  • How many LOIs were funded in each thematic research area? How many will be funded at the full application stage?

    17 LOI teams were funded – three (3) in all pools except the musculoskeletal health, mobility or prevention thematic research area which has two (2) funded teams. One (1) team will be funded in each thematic research area for a total of six (6) grants.

  • At the full application stage, can you only be funded in the thematic research area from the LOI stage?

    Correct. CIHR will fund the top ranked application in each thematic research area.

    Will we be told which teams' LOIs were funded in each thematic research area?

    Yes. The list was provided in the LOI meeting material circulated in advance of the LOI webinar.

  • Do the applications submitted to the musculoskeletal health thematic research area have to be related to musculoskeletal conditions?

    Applications submitted to the musculoskeletal health, mobility or prevention thematic research area may address any part of the CIHR Institute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis (IMHA) mandate including oral health and skin.

  • How does end user uptake impact the funding decision?

    End user engagement is critical to the success of the research project. See the Evaluation criteria under Impact of the Research for the criteria that will be used by peer reviewers.

  • Is it possible to fund more than one (1) project in each thematic research area if funds asked are lower than 3 million?

    Although possible, it is unlikely that more than one (1) application per thematic research area will be funded, as applicants are usually asking for the maximum amount.

Eligibility

  • Is there a requirement to include implementation science trainees into the grant?

    Although strongly encouraged, there is no requirement to have implementation science trainees on the research project. It is important to consider, however, that one of the five objectives is to build capacity in implementation science “(Build capacity among researchers (including early career researchers) and implementers. This includes providing opportunity for linkage with other capacity-building efforts of the HCRI (e.g. the Healthy Cities Research Training Platform and HCRI Fellowships) and by fostering a network of “learning cities” that share and build on each other’s experience, support continuous improvement, and identify promising solutions for scalability.)” and one of the peer review criteria will be assessing the extent to which the proposal responds to the objectives and thematic research areas of the funding opportunity.

  • Are teams eligible to merge at the Full Application stage? What would be required?

    Yes, teams are welcome to merge. However, CIHR/PHAC/NHMRC won’t be facilitating that process. Relevance and peer review will be conducted again at the Full Application stage. Please note that the merged team will have to decide which LOI will continue to the Full Application and use its NPA as the NPA of the merged application. The NPA cannot change between the LOI and Full Application stages. If the merged application is applying for supplementary funds from NHMRC, the CIA must have already been invited to apply by NHMRC through Sapphire to be eligible to apply at the Full Application stage.

  • If we merge all LOI applications within the same thematic research area, would the combined team be guaranteed to receive funding if it does well?

    The merged application would be funded if its final rating is in the fundable range (i.e., above 3.5).

  • Is there a requirement to include an Implementation Science expert on the team?

    It is not a requirement to have an Implementation Science expert on the team though, the evaluation criteria include “experience of the applicant(s) in the proposed thematic research area and within the field of implementation science.”

  • What level(s) of policy makers must be involved?

    As stated in the funding opportunity, “Each municipality must be represented by an individual on the core research team and identified as a PKU. Each individual must have expertise in the relevant thematic research area and have knowledge of the cities being investigated in the application. Each PKU must also hold an active position in policy development; senior community leadership or management at a municipal or community-based organization (e.g. community health centres, community-based primary healthcare practices, Indigenous representative organizations, etc.) that developed the intervention and/or will be involved in testing/rolling out the intervention.” They don't necessarily have to be working in a city, they could be working with a community organization that’s leading an intervention within a municipality. They need to have decision making power/influence to be able to make changes to the intervention.

  • Can we identify more than one Principal Knowledge User (PKU) on the application?

    At the Full Application stage, a minimum of two (2) PKUs are required. You can include more than two (2) PKUs.

  • Are decision-maker and policy-maker partners required on the application or could we have collaborators only?

    At the Full Application stage, there is a requirement to have at least two (2) Principal Knowledge Users (this category includes policy-makers and decision-makers). Each municipality must be represented by an individual on the core research team and be identified as a PKU. They must hold an active position in policy development; senior community leadership or management at a municipal or community-based organization.

    For applications relevant to the Healthcare Systems, Services and Policies thematic area the leadership team must include the following 3 participants: 1) health services and policy researcher; 2) primary healthcare provider; and 3) healthcare decision maker.

    Collaborators (i.e., individuals whose role in the proposed activities is to provide a specific service) are optional.

    Also review the Evaluation Criteria section 2: Applicants.

  • What types of non-governmental organizations (NGOs), government and/or community partners constitute eligible PKUs (for both CIHR and PHAC proposals)?

    All types of NGOs, government and/or community partners are eligible as PKUs as long as they respect the requirements listed in the Eligibility section of the funding opportunity.

  • Is there a requirement to engage communities in more than one (1) province? Is it better to have more than the minimum of two (2) communities?

    No. There is no requirement to involve more than one (1) province but you must identify a minimum of two (2) Canadian municipalities to be eligible for this funding opportunity. Apart from that, it’s about the strength of the application as a whole and how it addresses the evaluation criteria.

  • How many sites are required?

    There must be a minimum of two (2) Canadian urban sites.

  • Is the adaptation of an implementation science framework to Indigenous research and methods meeting the requirements of utilizing an implementation science approach?

    Yes. As stated in the funding opportunity, the specific objectives of this funding opportunity are to:

    • Advance the field of implementation science
    • Build capacity in implementation science
    • Spark interdisciplinary collaborations across sectors and jurisdictions
    • Identify new solutions
    • Fill the knowledge gap and position Canada as a leader in implementation science
  • Does the funding opportunity allow for new models in implementation science to be tested that are related to Indigenous research methods, science and perspectives?

    Yes, new models in implementation science are welcome; however, the objectives of this funding opportunity remain the same. Applications need to address all five (5) objectives and they will be peer reviewed according to the evaluation criteria.

  • Is there any guidance on what age range would be considered eligible for healthy aging?

    There is no one definition of the age at which a person is considered an older adult or senior. Some sources use age 60, some age 65, while others use age 55. Based on the area of research, applicants should explain and justify how their research aligns with the thematic research area.

  • Is funding from IIPH restricted to urban populations or can these funds also be applied to research with Indigenous communities?

    To be eligible to this funding opportunity (including to the Urban Indigenous Health thematic research area), a minimum of two (2) Canadian municipalities as defined in the funding opportunity must be identified. Additional non-urban sites could be added if relevant. Please refer to the definition of Canadian municipalities to confirm if a reserve or settlement is considered part of a Canadian municipality or not.

  • We want to look at ways to build bridges, what if an Indigenous community wants to host and not do national level just yet?

    Teams applying to do research with Indigenous (First Nations, Inuit, Métis or Urban Indigenous) communities, must include the following (see Additional Elements under How to Apply):

    Peer reviewers will also be looking for the following (see Review Criteria, Full Application):

    • For research projects involving First Nations, Inuit, Métis or Urban Indigenous communities:
      • In addition to demonstrating scientific excellence (Western, Indigenous, or both), the proposed research approaches and methods must respect Indigenous values and ways of knowing and sharing, and abide by the Tri-Council Policy Statement Chapter 9: Research Involving the First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples of Canada and/or Indigenous partnering community/organizational ethical guidelines or clearly explain why other guidelines have been developed and agreed upon with the study governance body.

    It is the responsibility of applicants to demonstrate how they will meet the above criteria, within the context of their project. Please note that it is expected that at least one core team member will attend an annual gathering (5 gatherings in total), along with all trainees funded through the team grant, or who are working on the team grant projects as part of their training (see Conditions of Funding). There is no requirement, however, to share data or findings at these gatherings.

Peer review

  • What will peer reviewers be looking for as evidence of genuine co-development of the application?

    There should be evidence in the research process that the partner has been involved in the design and planned roll out of the project as opposed to only providing a letter of support. For example: indicating the ways that you’ve worked together with your partners; demonstrating a history of having done a pilot with this partner. See the Evaluation criteria for more information.

  • Is it possible for CIHR to provide a funding opportunity or a checklist that does not include the LOI stage information?

    Because the LOI is part of the application process for this competition and the funding opportunity must be archived for future reference, CIHR cannot remove the LOI instructions. At this point in the competition, it is not possible to provide a checklist.

  • Is it possible for CIHR and PHAC to provide a very clear list of evaluation criteria?

    CIHR and PHAC evaluation criteria for the Full Application are listed in the Review Process and Evaluation section of the funding opportunity.

  • What is the weighting for each of the CIHR proposal evaluation criteria?

    There are no explicit weights assigned to each criterion. Peer reviewers will use the evaluation criteria to assign a global score that reflects the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and risks of the application.

  • What are specific requirements for the evaluation component of the proposal?

    For CIHR, there is one (1) evaluation criterion specific to the evaluation plan (under 4. Impact of the Research): “Quality of the plan to evaluate the impact of the intervention, including the appropriateness of performance metrics”.

    For PHAC supplementary funding, applicants must attach a draft evaluation plan (3 pages maximum) identifying expected outcomes along the results chain, explaining how those will be measured, as well as how the evaluation design will enable measured results to be attributed to the intervention.

    For information on the evaluation of applications, please see the Review Process and Evaluation section of the funding opportunity.

  • What policies around protocol and Indigenous data usage should teams be aware of?

    For research projects involving First Nations, Inuit, Métis or Urban Indigenous communities, the evaluation criteria include:

    • How the research project will address the rights of Indigenous Peoples and the self-determination and self-governance of Indigenous Peoples, such as following the First Nations Principles of OCAP® (Ownership, Control, Access and Possession)
    • Appropriate consideration of TCPS2: Chapter 9 – Research Involving the First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples of Canada, and demonstration of meaningful and culturally safe practices, plans and activities throughout the research project.
    • The extent to which the overall research team has the necessary knowledge, expertise and experience in Indigenous health research to conduct Indigenous health research.

    While these criteria specifically mention the OCAP® principles, other data management principles may be appropriate for other communities, such as the CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance or other community-specific principles.

    The First Nations Information Governance Centre’s First Nations Data Governance Strategy is also a valuable resource.

  • If the Integrated Knowledge Translation strategy is confidential and/or led by the communities, how can we submit a proposal that meets the evaluation criteria with this consideration?

    Teams can be transparent and explain their approach which includes following the lead of community partners. The application needs to describe the general components like:

    • Who is the community?
    • How are you engaging?
    • How is the governance set up?
  • How should teams respond to the “scalability” aspect of the funding opportunity?

    See Full Application evaluation criteria 1a, 4b and 4e for details on how peer reviewers will consider scalability.

  • Can you share some best practices for reporting (for community and academia)?

    It is up to the applicant to decide what types of reporting are undertaken. For reporting back to CIHR, CIHR will share a reporting template. This template will allow you to explain why you privileged one type of reporting/KT over another.

  • What is the concept behind the conflict resolution component?

    As part of the research proposal, the applicants should explain how they plan to resolve any conflict that may arise especially when working with communities. Given that this is a team grant and there are many actors, it will be important to show that there has been thinking around the plan for governance and decision-making and what steps are in place should a conflict arise.

  • Will Indigenous applications be assessed by an Indigenous peer-review committee, or will Indigenous peer reviewers be part of the committee?

    We are recruiting reviewers with Indigenous expertise, some of whom are Indigenous. There is no separate Indigenous committee for this call.

  • Are reviewers grouped by thematic research areas?

    Yes, we recruit reviewers based on the thematic research areas relevant to the funding opportunity.

  • Will all reviewers be bilingual? Will applications with French and English components/partners/PKUs be reviewed by the exact same reviewers?

    No, not all reviewers will be bilingual. If a French application is received, CIHR will ensure that reviewers assigned to it understand French. If there are components in the application in French (e.g., letters of support) despite the application being written in English, every effort will be made to ensure the application receives a fair review.

  • Are teams expected to address all comments from LOI reviews either in the 15-page proposal or in a separate document?

    No, teams are not expected to address comments from the LOI review.

  • Are reviewers allocated to ensure an even mix of medical, policy, social services etc. for each application, or could an application have two (2) reviewers from social sciences?

    Every effort will be made to ensure applications are reviewed by reviewers with diverse areas of expertise.

  • Will CIHR include LOI reviewers in the review of the full application?

    LOI reviewers will be invited to review the full applications. Additional peer reviewers are also expected to be recruited. Reviewer assignments are driven by reviewers’ “Conflicts/Ability to Review” responses, which can change from LOI stage to the Full Application stage. Efforts will be made to assign to each application at least one reviewer from the LOI stage who reviewed it.

  • Will the reviewers for the Full Application have access to the LOI reviews?

    No, reviewers will not have access to the LOI reviews.

  • Is it possible that application ranking based on reviewers' scores will be complemented with overall programmatic concerns and goals?

    The overall peer review score is based on the evaluation criteria and should reflect the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and risks of the application.

  • How will reviewers be trained/guided to evaluate the "conflict resolution strategy"?

    Peer reviewers will have access to the materials shared with the teams. Reviewers can reach out to CIHR’s peer review coordinator if they have any questions about any details included in the funding opportunity.

  • What materials reviewers will be provided in addition to the evaluation criteria outlined? Will peer reviewers be given any training?

    Evaluation criteria will be presented to reviewers the same way they are outlined in the funding opportunity and a training session will be scheduled. Of note, review panel membership will be very similar to that of the LOI and, as such, there will be familiarity with the objectives of the funding opportunity.

Application process

  • Will CIHR be transferring the information collected during the LOI stage to the Full Application stage?

    No, CIHR will not be transferring the information collected during the LOI stage to the Full Application stage.

  • Is it possible to streamline the application process for Principal Knowledge Users and collaborators to reduce applicant’s burden?

    We did take applicants’ burden into consideration as we prepared this funding opportunity and given the current systems and processes, the current requirements are the most streamlined we could make them.

  • Is it possible for Principal Knowledge Users and collaborators to present SGBA+ Training as opposed to the CIHR sex and gender tutorials at the full application stage?

    We are not in a position to change the requirements. Principal Knowledge Users and collaborators will have to upload proof of having completed the CIHR modules.

  • When is the deadline for the full application and would CIHR consider extending it?

    Full application deadline is July 6, 2022. We are unable to extend it.

  • What is the definition of “municipality”?

    As written in the funding opportunity, “cities” and “municipalities” are defined as being located wholly or partly within medium or large population centers as defined by Statistics Canada. If you need more clarity, please contact the Contact Centre.

  • Define municipality and how that may differ from Indian Act reserve. How can we work with Indigenous organizations as proxy in a city with problematic racism?

    This funding opportunity is focused on the urban environment. Funding for the Urban Indigenous Health thematic research area should focus on Indigenous populations within the urban context as defined in the funding opportunity. For the purposes of this funding opportunity, “cities” and “municipalities” are used interchangeably and are defined as being located wholly or partly within medium or large population centres as defined by Statistics Canada. Please refer to the definition of medium and large population centre to confirm if a reserve or settlement is considered part of a Canadian municipality or not. Also see Indigenous Services Canada for more information on Urban reserves.

    Urban reserves, First Nations, Inuit or Metis governments, or Indigenous not-for-profit organizations operating within municipalities (ie. being located wholly or partly within medium or large population centers as defined by Statistics Canada), are eligible PKUs.

    Please see the Administration of Funds section of the funding opportunity for more information on eligible institutions.

  • The partner letter only allows for five (5) years. Will this be updated?

    This is a system limitation from ResearchNet. Please contact the Contact Centre and they will help you to work around the partner limitations.

  • How are the evaluation criteria weighted?

    Evaluation criteria are all weighted equally and it’s up to the reviewer to come up with a global rating.

  • Can you please define what is meant by “advancing the field of implementation science”?

    As indicated in the funding opportunity, Advance the field of implementation science means to “Understand how to implement evidence-informed interventions in different urban contexts and populations so that they result in positive and equitable health outcomes in real-world settings. This includes understanding how specific interventions can be adapted to different regions, ages, cultures, genders, or conditions, and how the interventions can be scaled given unique social, political, economic, cultural, and geographical contexts.” Please refer to the webinar material for additional resources on implementation science.

  • Since this is a 6-year grant, some implementation in the future may still be unknown as programs are growing. Is it acceptable to write with this in mind?

    As you are writing your application, you should describe a scenario for six (6) years and support from stakeholders should be for this duration.

  • How does CIHR prefer applicants present the governance piece? In writing, visuals such as a flow chart, etc?

    It’s up to applicants to decide how to most clearly present the governance structure and conflict resolution strategy.

  • Does CIHR want to see the municipalities working together/collaborating?

    Yes, because of the nature of the research, municipalities are expected to engage with each others as well as with the research team throughout the research project.

  • Can principal applicants and co-applicants have roles on multiple applications?

    Yes, principal applicants and co-applicants can have roles on multiple applications.

  • The geographic location is especially relevant to Indigenous community work, how would you frame the scalability elements in this respect? Sharing methods and a summit for example?

    In Indigenous contexts, scaling can be understood as adapting, spreading or sharing interventions or lessons learned between sites. Examples of scalability in Indigenous contexts may include:

    • implementing an intervention that is adaptable to changes in the immediate environment;
    • implementing the intervention among other individuals, groups and/or populations;
    • integrating the intervention with other pre-existing interventions; and
    • adopting the intervention as an organizational practice, program and/or policy.

    Please review the Objectives of this funding opportunity and the Evaluation Criteria for Full Application, particularly section 4, Impact of Research, for further information.

Budget

  • Does the CIHR funding have to meet (but not exceed) $500K annually?

    CIHR will be funding up to $500K per year for up to six (6) years. You should not exceed this annual limit within your application.

  • Does the total budget have to be split equally between all years or can team request different amounts in different years?

    Teams can request different amounts for each year (up to $500K per year) but CIHR funding will be disbursed equally across all years of the project.

  • Is there a CIHR budget template for the Full Application stage?

    There is no CIHR budget template at the Full Application stage. The applicant will enter the amounts in the appropriate boxes of the budget module in ResearchNet and attach a budget justification (free form) to provide the breakdown and justification for each budget item.

  • Can you provide additional information on what CIHR considers intervention costs vs costs related to the implementation of the intervention? Can you provide examples?

    CIHR funds are meant to support research and science, they’re not meant to support infrastructure or programs. The intervention itself is not funded by CIHR, but the money could be used to fund the work that goes into planning and rolling out a study or planning an evaluation (i.e., anything to do with the research).

    Bike lanes example: CIHR funds cannot be used to build the bike lanes, but they can be used to support the work needed to study and evaluate the roll out of the bike lanes and how the bike lanes have/haven’t changed the health of the community etc.

    Healthy lunch program in schools example: CIHR funds cannot pay for the program or the food but they can pay for researchers going into schools to collect information about how the program has/hasn’t impacted health, someone to work with the health promotion experts to figure out which schools to roll out the program in etc.

    Please refer to the Tri-Agency Guide on Financial Administration for guidance. Applicants are encouraged to review the Allowable Costs section of the funding opportunity for more information, and to reach out to the Contact Centre for any expense eligibility questions.

    PHAC funds, can be used for (but not limited to) the following:

    • Adding intervention elements (e.g. a programmatic and/or policy component could be added to what would otherwise be solely an infrastructure intervention);
    • Increasing the number and types of activities within an intervention;
    • Supporting the scaling of interventions to additional communities;
    • Facilitating more and deeper multi-sectoral engagement.

    Please refer to the PHAC Allowable Costs section for more information.

  • Can we list funds already spent by our partner (as cash or in-kind contributions) in our full application if they directly pertain to our implementation study?

    Yes, if you have a partner already spending money on your study, you can list their funds as cash or in-kind contributions.

  • Are there supports available if, for example, partners decide not to continue funding the intervention for the full grant cycle but the implementation science grant is successful?

    CIHR funds will not be able to support the cost of the intervention but teams are welcome to find other supports to leverage elsewhere. Applicants need to build into their applications a plan to address challenges outside of their control for the peer reviewers to assess. It’s up to the applicant to make the case for how their project is feasible and to propose mitigation strategies in case the circumstances around the intervention change.

  • Do teams need to prepare a separate plan should they be successful in obtaining CIHR funding but not PHAC supplementary funding?

    As stated in the funding opportunity, "Applicants interested in applying for the PHAC supplement must ensure their research project is still viable without the supplementary funding since success in obtaining CIHR funding does not guarantee that PHAC supplementary funding will be provided." 

  • Can independent researchers act as project consultants?

    Yes, independent researchers can act as project consultants, however they cannot receive compensation from the grant funds.

    As per the Tri-Agency Guide on Financial Administration, “Agency grant funds must not be used to pay compensation to: grant recipients or individuals who conduct research independently as part of the terms and conditions of their employment, including but not limited to researchers in academia, hospitals and research institutes”.

  • Is there a standard amount or percentage of the funding to be used for project administration, for evaluation activities, etc.?

    There is no requirement or standard amount in the funding opportunity. Applicants need to make the case for how their project should be delivered including the budget allocations.

  • Is there a requirement for matching funding from partners, collaborators, etc.?

    Collaborator/partner matching funds is not a requirement for this funding opportunity. However, as stated in the funding opportunity, CIHR funds cannot be used to cover the costs of the intervention and “Applicants are required to attach a Partner Letter describing the agreement with the partner(s) (i.e. municipality, industry, charity, etc.) who will cover the cost of the intervention should their team grant application be successful. See How to Apply for more details.”

  • What percentage is acceptable for in-kind contributions?

    In-kind contributions are not a requirement for this funding opportunity so there is no acceptable percentage to recommend.

  • Can CIHR funding be used to fund or share resources with partners?

    CIHR’s funds can be transferred to partner organizations so long as the funded Institution allows for it.

  • Are costs associated to the development of Integrated Knowledge Translation protocols considered allowable cost? Knowledge mobilization component is listed as an acceptable cost, but can Integrated Knowledge Translation as a methodological approach be budgeted for?

    Yes. Integrated Knowledge Translation (IKT) as a methodological approach or protocol can be budgeted for, as IKT is considered a Knowledge Mobilization strategy.

    There are also specific allowable costs that CIHR recognizes to help encourage and incentivize IKT as a methodological approach or protocol. One example is the release time allowance, which allows each Knowledge User collaborating on each grant to be compensated up to $50,000. The release time allowance is meant to encourage Knowledge Users to be part of Integrated Knowledge Mobilization approaches to research, and address cost-related barriers to their participation.

    In addition, the Tri-Council Policy Statement 2 (TCPS 2 - Chapter 9 Research Involving the First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples of Canada) recognizes the importance of respecting the culture and traditions of Indigenous Peoples and acknowledges the necessity to incur expenditures in that regard in the conduct of research, including Integrated Knowledge Translation development protocols that include community engagement. The CIHR and/or Tri- Agency considers the following expenditures eligible for payment from the grant holder’s grant funds (with appropriate backup documentation):

    • Costs related to community mobilization and engagement, including culturally relevant promotional items such as, tobacco, cloth, feasting and gift giving for honoring ceremonies, and cash reimbursements (in a method acceptable to the individual or community being reimbursed) to compensate community participation; and
    • Contracts and/or consultant fees for knowledge translation and communication activities for Indigenous Elders, community members, and Indigenous Knowledge Keepers involved in activities related to the Indigenous community.
  • Can the PKU’s organization receive funds directly and can it be more than the $50K for release time?

    Yes. Integrated Knowledge Translation (IKT) as a methodological approach or protocol can be budgeted for, as IKT is considered a Knowledge Mobilization strategy.

    There are also specific allowable costs that CIHR recognizes to help encourage and incentivize IKT as a methodological approach or protocol. One example is the release time allowance, which allows each Knowledge User collaborating on each grant to be compensated up to $50,000. The release time allowance is meant to encourage Knowledge Users to be part of Integrated Knowledge Mobilization approaches to research, and address cost-related barriers to their participation.

    In addition, the Tri-Council Policy Statement 2 (TCPS 2 - Chapter 9 Research Involving the First Nations, Inuit and Métis Peoples of Canada) recognizes the importance of respecting the culture and traditions of Indigenous Peoples and acknowledges the necessity to incur expenditures in that regard in the conduct of research, including Integrated Knowledge Translation development protocols that include community engagement. The CIHR and/or Tri- Agency considers the following expenditures eligible for payment from the grant holder’s grant funds (with appropriate backup documentation):

    • Costs related to community mobilization and engagement, including culturally relevant promotional items such as, tobacco, cloth, feasting and gift giving for honoring ceremonies, and cash reimbursements (in a method acceptable to the individual or community being reimbursed) to compensate community participation; and
    • Contracts and/or consultant fees for knowledge translation and communication activities for Indigenous Elders, community members, and Indigenous Knowledge Keepers involved in activities related to the Indigenous community.
  • On ResearchNet, it indicates: “Release Time Allowance: Up to $50,000 per knowledge user, per grant”. Does this mean the release time allowance is $50,000 total, per year or per PKU?

    $50,000 for PKU’s release time is the most applicants can budget for; however, once funds are released to the institution identified in the application as the “Institution Paid”, it’s possible to transfer more funds to the PKU’s organization assuming this operation is in compliance with the Tri-Agency Guide on Financial Administration.

Capacity building

Strengthening capacity building, by Dr. Norman Rosenblum, CIHR

  • Do the guiding principles target more groups beyond researchers?

    These guiding principles can be relevant to contexts beyond research (e.g., in a municipal setting) and, therefore, could also apply to implementers.

  • What does the 21st century training approach mean?

    The 21st century approach includes the four Cs: critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and creativity. Critical thinking: A more diverse or expensed view of critical analysis is needed; Communication – in your discipline and across sectors, individually and in group, orally and in writing – is key; Collaboration: Relates to work across disciplines and cultural domains and use of different modalities (i.e., in person, digital, etc.) to work together in the most optimal manner; and Creativity: Try to be more creative and open your space to creativity.

  • Are there examples outside of Canada that have developed training programs?

    The Eureka Institute for Translational Medicine is a global program that aims to build and foster a global community of translational medicine professionals for the tangible benefit of patients and society as a whole. So far, approximately 500 peoples from around the world were trained under this program. Key outcome: 63% of trainees have reported a change in their science program orientation – an indicator that was expected and hoped for.

Healthy Cities Research Training Platform

Introduction to the SMART Training Platform Team, by Drs. David Ma, Laurette Dubé and Miyoung Suh

  • Please provide more information on the SMART Training Platform. How many trainees are expected to be trained each year? How does the focus on food and food systems translate to the thematic research areas in the HCIS Team Grants funding opportunity?
    • Opportunities for SMART and Associate SMART Trainees will expand as the platform plans mature. See also table below. We aim to provide training through multiple channels and approaches to maximize opportunities to students across Canada.
    • The SMART Training Platform currently anticipates ~30-40 students per year in its Methods Café and Implementation Courses and will add additional sections as necessary. Courses are available to students linked to investigators who are part of the SMART Training Platform, HCRI and any other students funded by CIHR, NSERC and SSHRC.
    • The SMART team will initially be offering ten (10) student travel bursaries for the 2022 Summer School – this information was in the poster CIHR recently shared on the SMART team’s behalf with all HCRI grantees – and plan to expand in future years.
    • Training/educational opportunities will also be provided through free webinars, unlimited # of students (i.e. first webinar, May 3, 2022).
    • The team continues to identify training opportunities open to all trainees.
    • They have taken food as core initial focus as, in addition to being a shared domain of expertise between the three PIs, it was also the central domain of interest of the 3 Smart City infrastructure projects funded by Infrastructure Canada. However, as per the convergence-by-design approach, all facets of what makes a city “healthy” will be covered. While the focus of the SMART Training Platform is food and food systems, the training addresses the theory and practice of implementation science, healthy cities and smart cities which is transferrable to other disciplines.
  • What training initiatives will be available to trainees that are not affiliated with the SMART training platform?

    The table below summarizes the opportunities available to SMART Trainees and Smart Associate Trainees. Opportunities for SMART and Associate SMART Trainees will expand as the platform plans mature.

    Applicants apply directly to SMART Faculty Trainees associated with HCRI projects/teams (includes 6 implementation research teams) Current trainees from any academic institution funded from CIHR, NSERC and SSHRC
    SMART Trainee HCRI Trainee All other graduate trainees
      Associate SMART Trainee
    Opportunities and Benefits for SMART and SMART Associate Trainees
      SMART Trainee Associate SMART Trainee
    Stipend Yes – via SMART Faculty NA
    Annual SMART/HCRI Conference Support Yes – via SMART Faculty NA
    Summer Institute – Mini Methods Café and Design lab lite Optional; supports available from SMART Admin Optional; travel support available for pilot year 1, 2022 from SMART Admin; future years under consideration
    External experiential learning opportunities Yes Under consideration
    Implementation Methods Café (Fall) at Univ. of Guelph (online) Mandatory – fee waived Course fee required; limited space
    Implementation Design Lab (Winter) at Uni. Of Guelph (online) Mandatory – fee waived Course fee required; limited space
    Online implementation science webinars and workshops Optional and free Optional and free
    Online trainee development webinars and workshops Optional and free Optional and free
    Access to online educational portal (i.e. archived webinars) Yes Yes
    Newsletter and mailing list Automatic Automatic
    Micro-credential course(s) Under development Under development
    Certificate / Univ. Transcript recognition in Implementation Sci. Under development Under development
    International training opportunities Under development Under development
  • Will the SMART Training Platform offer virtual curricula and are core courses open to all trainees?

    The SMART Training Platform will develop webinars that will be available to everyone. To protect the integrity of the course content, students must register for the SMART Training Platform’s Methods Café and Implementation Lab. Associate SMART Trainees (see table above) may also register for these courses with permission from the course instructor and would be subject to applicable university fees.

  • What gaps exist in SMART Training Platform opportunities that might be advanced by engagement with the implementation science team grant teams that are funded?

    The SMART Training Platform is poised to provide a unique perspective of training that encompasses a range of disciplines in their Healthy Cities related training activities (e.g., Methods Café), which enable students to see where they are and how their works connects with other Healthy Cities activities.

    The SMART Training Platform approach is conversion-by-design, and a key enabler is this capacity of embedding the data and digital within the research and real-world action, something the SMART team can build in a synergistic manner.

    The platform welcomes additional input to enhance content of their educational opportunities and/or incorporation of relevant implementation activities that teams may have previously developed. This work is being coordinated by their Education committee.

    One of the key objectives of the SMART Training Platform is to accelerate and deepen multidisciplinary collaboration in implementation science. Opportunities and discussions will be advanced through mini research summits bringing together relevant stakeholders and investigators.

  • Can you please share the full list of SMART faculties?

    Full list of faculty can be found on the SMART Training Platform Website.

  • How much funding should be allocated from the budget for “representation on the HCRI coordination council”? And what are the time/resource expectations? 

    The SMART Training Platform External Advisory Committee (the HCRI Coordination Council) is chaired by Dr. Laurette Dubé from McGill University. The committee will meet 2 to 3 times per year to provide high level advice, reflection and help open doors to new opportunities. There are positions for 1-2 representatives from broader HCRI projects on the SMART External Advisory Committee. Current members include:

    • Mary L’Abbé, University of Toronto
    • Jim House, University of Manitoba
    • Ziynet Boz, University of Florida
    • Shaun Brown, University of Pittsburgh
    • Spencer Moore, Wageningen University, Netherlands
    • Rickey Yada, University of British Columbia
    • Tri-Council Representative

    Once the six CIHR healthy cities team are selected, their nominated PIs will join the SMART Training Platform Strategic Committee.

  • Are teams required to engage with the Healthy Cities Research Training Platform (HCRTP)?

    The SMART Training Platform team, who are the successful grantees of the HCRTP competition, presented at the webinar. For the Full Application stage, peer reviewers will be looking for evidence from the teams that they’re aware of this platform and their role in supporting capacity building and that they are beginning to think about how their team might engage with the training platform. As a reminder, the evaluation criteria isn’t explicitly tied to the HCRTP, it is to evaluate the “Extent to which the proposal supports the overall Healthy Cities Research Initiative and the other funded entities." Applications should provide evidence that teams are thinking of how their team grant will interact and contribute to building capacity in implementation science with other initiatives.

    In addition, as outlined in the Conditions of Funding section of the funding opportunity, “Funded projects must link to and increase the impact of the Healthy Cities Research Initiative (HCRI) by complying with the following:

    • The Healthy Cities Implementation Science (HCIS) research team must set aside funds to attend each annual meeting of the wider HCRI.
      • It is anticipated that there will be approximately five (5) annual meetings that will take place in Canada.
      • It is expected that at least one (1) core team member must attend on behalf of the team along with all trainees funded through the team grant, or who are working on the team grant projects as part of their training.
      • It is strongly encouraged that trainee supervisors attend the annual meeting as well.
    • The HCIS research team must set aside funds, have representation on, and actively participate in, a HCRI coordination council (once established) to facilitate collaboration across wider HCRI components. It is anticipated that this council would meet three to four times per year via videoconferences.
    • The HCIS research teams must participate in, and enable their trainees to participate in, activities associated with the Healthy Cities Research Training Platform including knowledge exchange, professional skills training, professional development and the building of a network of trainees focused on population health intervention research and implementation science.”
  • How much funding should be allocated from the budget for attending the annual meetings?

    For the annual meetings, funds must be reserved for at least one core team member and all trainees on the project to attend. The usual travel, hotel and food for 2 days should be budgeted for. The SMART teams plans to host three in-person annual meetings in 2022, 2024 and 2026, and three virtual meetings in 2023, 2025 and 2027. The first annual conference will be held in Ottawa on November 17-19, 2022 (2 full days).

  • How will peer reviewers be informed of the training elements that have been presented at the webinar?

    Peer reviewers will be briefed on the broader HCRI, and specifically on the SMART Training Platform, which is only one example of the various training opportunities that exist and could be leveraged.

  • How much should applicants focus on training efforts and programs for the Early Career Researchers of the team versus more broadly (into the community)?

    It’s up to the teams to decide how much emphasis should be put on training efforts keeping in mind that: 1) one of the objectives of the funding opportunity is: “Build capacity in implementation science: Build capacity among researchers (including early career researchers) and implementers. This includes providing opportunity for linkage with other capacity-building efforts of the HCRI (e.g. the Healthy Cities Research Training Platform and HCRI Fellowships) and by fostering a network of “learning cities” that share and build on each other’s experience, support continuous improvement, and identify promising solutions for scalability"; and 2) peer reviewers will adjudicate proposals by examining, among others criteria, to what extent research projects respond to the objectives of the funding opportunity.

  • Should the teams plan to use part of their funding to send trainees to annual meetings and to the SMART Training Platform Summer Institute?

    For the annual meetings, funds must be reserved for at least one core team member and all trainees on the project to attend. For the Summer Institute, a service offered by the SMART Training Platform, it’s up to the applicants to decide if they wish to take advantage of this training opportunity, in which case they would need to budget for it.

  • Will CIHR Healthy Cities Research Initiative also build training innovations into the initiative (e.g., successful HCIS Team Grants trainees meet ups to share views and projects across disciplines)?

    Knowledge mobilization is the main purpose of the annual meetings that will be hosted by the SMART Training Platform. This event will help to build a community of practice where stakeholders meet to share their experiences and opportunities.

  • Would it be possible to move the location of the HCRI annual meetings on a rotational basis to different cities?

    The annual meetings will be held in person every second year and only the location of the first annual meeting (i.e., Ottawa) has been determined so far. Because the SMART Training Platform will be hosting these annual meetings, it’s up to them to determine their location.

Supplementary funding: General

  • Will teams applying for the PHAC and/or NHMRC supplementary funding be viewed more favorably at peer review?

    No, teams will not be considered more favorably if they are also applying for supplementary funding.

  • How many teams are applying for supplementary funding? Is the supplementary funding guaranteed to be used in this competition?

    There are eleven (11) teams applying for PHAC supplementary funding, and nine (9) teams applying for NHMRC supplementary funding. Because PHAC and NHMRC’s funding is supplementary, it is not guaranteed to be used unless the top ranking CIHR applications include an application for PHAC and/or NHMRC funds and are deemed fundable by PHAC and/or NHMRC.

PHAC supplementary funding

  • Is there extra page allowance to write the proposal for PHAC supplementary funding?

    Please refer to the How to Apply section of the funding opportunity. Under the “Attach Other Application Materials”, you must identify PHAC in the Participant Table. You must also include several attachments under the “Other” section of this Task, including a detailed budget template, an evaluation plan, and a letter of support. For full details, please consult the funding opportunity. 

  • What are the backgrounds and areas of expertise of the peer reviewers? Are the peer reviewers the same for both CIHR and PHAC applications at the full application stage? Will the ranking for PHAC supplementary funding be based on the PHAC-only score?

    Peer reviewers are the same for both CIHR and PHAC applications and cover a breadth of expertise and backgrounds that will match the thematic research area of your project. Applicants are welcome to include reviewer suggestions in their application which will be considered by CIHR to fill gaps in expertise if needed. CIHR funded applications relevant to PHAC will be funded in order of the PHAC rating.

  • Who is eligible to be a third-party evaluator and how does a team identify one? What is their role?

    The third-party evaluator must be outside of your core research team. They must be a researcher or an accredited evaluator through the Canadian Evaluation Society. Third-party evaluators must have expertise in intervention evaluation. They cannot be involved in designing or delivering the intervention or be members of the core research team. They may belong to a different section of the same organization, for example a different faculty at a University. The role of the third-party evaluator is to validate project data and interpretation of the data. A third-party evaluator is a requirement of all agreements under PHAC’s HCCF program, regardless of whether or not the applicant is from an academic institution. The budget can include the costs associated with this requirement.

  • Are the PHAC attachments included in what should be uploaded for the NHMRC supplementary funding?

    Yes, the PHAC attachments are part of the full application package and, as such, should be included in the uploaded documents for NHMRC supplementary funding if you are also applying for the PHAC supplementary funding.

  • What is the weighting for each of the PHAC proposal evaluation criteria?

    An independent ranking for the PHAC supplementary funding will be generated based on all PHAC evaluation criteria. There are no weights assigned to the PHAC criteria and it is up to the peer reviewers to decide the importance of the various components after considering the application as a whole.

  • Will feedback be given for the PHAC supplementary funding?

    You will not be receiving feedback at the LOI stage. The evaluation criteria for PHAC supplementary funding at the LOI stage were on a “Meet” or “Does not Meet” basis. Applications that did not meet the requirements were screened out. At the Full Application stage, peer reviewers will be assessing the PHAC portion using the specific PHAC evaluation criteria outlined in the funding opportunity. Specific comments and Scientific Officer’s notes for the PHAC supplements will be provided.

  • Can letters of support from PKUs (if the same PKUs) be used for both proposals?

    Yes, letters of support from the same PKUs/partners can be reused to be included in the full application and/or duplicated for CIHR and PHAC if they meet the requirements.

  • Does the PHAC proposal require decision-maker and policy-maker partners or collaborators only?

    The PHAC proposal does not require decision-makers or policy-makers. As mentioned in the How to Apply section (Enter Proposal Information) of the funding opportunity, you must clarify the extent of support from relevant community leadership, other community members, organizations and/or relevant decision-makers from federal/provincial/territorial/Indigenous governments, research community, including information about how the relationship(s) was established.

  • Are teams allowed to have a PHAC representative as a partner or a collaborator?

    A PHAC representative can only be considered as a partner or collaborator in projects that are not receiving the PHAC supplementary funding. If applying for PHAC supplementary funding, a PHAC representative should not be listed on the application but could participate in an observer role only post-funding. It may be perceived as a conflict of interest otherwise.

  • Is there assistance to fill in the PHAC proposal requirements?

    If assistance is needed to fill in the PHAC proposal requirements, please contact the CIHR Contact Centre, and not PHAC directly.

  • PHAC funding to “Support scaling interventions to additional communities” will include more delivery partners, other team members. Where should those individuals be added in the application?

    All team members should be listed in the participant list and table. If you are including more people for the PHAC component, they must be in the participant list and table.

  • Will PHAC receive the full application or only the documents labelled for PHAC?

    As per the CIHR-PHAC agreement, CIHR will share the full application with PHAC.

  • Would a member of Environment and Climate Change Canada be valued as much as a PHAC observer since we are working with air/ground/water pollution?

    It is up to the team to justify the different team members and the value that they bring to the project.

  • Does having more than two (2) municipalities identified strengthen the PHAC application, and would it be favored?

    No, your application will not be favored if more than the minimum two (2) municipalities are identified. It is up to the teams to explain why additional municipalities enhance the overall project.

  • Will the PHAC sections (e.g., PME, budget) be reviewed by the peer reviewers or by PHAC staff?

    These sections will be fully reviewed by the peer reviewers and be viewed by PHAC staff. PHAC will not rate or provide a ranking, but they will review the budget and performance measurement plan to ensure eligibility.

  • Will PHAC supplementary funding be allowed for moving intervention to more rural communities as opposed to urban?

    No. As stated in the funding opportunity, the research activities described must relate to an intervention in a municipality located wholly or partly within medium or large population centres as defined by Statistics Canada.

PHAC supplementary funding: Budgets

  • Do we need to prepare a separate budget for the PHAC supplementary funding?

    Yes, you are required to prepare separate budgets – one for CIHR (and NHMRC, if applicable) and one for PHAC. The "PHAC Detailed Budget Template” was included in the Notice of Decision documentation and is required for the PHAC component of the proposal.

    As indicated in the How to Apply section (Full Application): “Applicants must attach the detailed budget provided in relation to planned activities using the PHAC supplemental funds.”

  • What is the difference between CIHR, PHAC and NHMRC funding and allowable expenses?

    CIHR funds cannot be used to fund an intervention. PHAC funds can be used to enhance the core intervention being studied and/or to develop additional intervention activities or sites, such as:

    • a programmatic and/or policy component could be added to what would otherwise be solely an infrastructure intervention
    • increasing the number and types of activities within an intervention
    • scaling up the intervention to additional communities
    • facilitating more and deeper multi-sectoral engagement. 

    Both CIHR and PHAC funds can be used to fund costs related to the evaluation of the intervention.

    Funding provided by NHMRC for a grant activity must be spent on costs directly incurred in that grant activity that satisfy the principles and requirements outlined in the Direct Research Costs Guidelines on the NHMRC website.

  • A substantial amount of budget may go to non-academic partners. What are the implications for this for timely transfers and reporting?

    The PHAC funding will be provided through a grant paid to the recipient institution. The total maximum amount for each PHAC grant is $3M – paid annually up to a maximum of $500K. Reporting will be clearly outlined in a grant agreement and will likely consist of annual activity and performance measurement reports. There will be no financial reporting required.

  • Does the total PHAC budget have to be split equally between all years, or can teams request different amounts in different years?

    The annual request for PHAC funding cannot exceed $500K. Varying amounts are acceptable, but they cannot exceed the $500K per year and an overall maximum of $3M over the 6 years of support. PHAC will pay out the amount requested per year in either in one (1) or two (2) installments per year.

  • If receiving both CIHR and PHAC funding, will there be separate reporting to each agency or will both agencies work together and have one reporting system for project progress reporting and expense reporting?

    There will be separate reporting to each agency; however, as indicated in the Conditions of Funding section, all reports to CIHR will be shared with PHAC. Any additional reporting requirements from PHAC will be confirmed at the grant agreement step.

  • Do we need to include "indirect cost" within the $500K per year?

    Yes. As indicated in the PHAC Allowable Costs section, “Indirect costs are eligible on a prorated basis (i.e. accounting, information technology management)” to a maximum of 18% of total grant value, if requested and justified. Indirect costs are included in the maximum $500,000 per year of supplementary funding available. The costs must be based on actual cost/cost recovery; it cannot be a flat percentage of the overall budget.

  • Can PHAC supplementary funds be used to focus on an additional specific population?

    Yes, some examples of how PHAC funds can be used include: Adding intervention elements, increasing the number and type of activities, supporting the scaling of interventions to additional communities, or facilitating more and deeper multisectoral engagement. You can also focus on additional specific populations.

  • Is it acceptable to apply for less than full amount for the PHAC portion? And if so, would these applications be more favorably viewed?

    Yes, you can apply for less than the PHAC maximum amount, and this will not have an impact on how your application is rated by reviewers.

  • PHAC eligible costs are widely varied. Are there programmatic priorities within those eligible costs that are valued more by PHAC?

    No

NHMRC supplementary funding

  • If Australian researchers were not included in the application at the LOI stage, is it possible to apply for NHMRC supplementary funding now?

    Important note: The information conveyed at the webinar was incorrect.

    No. The NHMRC Grant Guidelines outlines that Australian researchers wishing to join a Canadian consortium must be listed on the Letter of Intent stage. The Guidelines also states that the Chief Investigator A (CIA) and their associated Australian Administering Institution must be named as the lead Australian Partner Investigator on the Letter of Intent and full application submitted to the CIHR.

  • Could you please provide more details on NHMRC supplementary funding?

    NHMRC will provide up to AU $5 million for the Australian component of the highest ranked eligible projects across the six thematic areas. The maximum amount of funding is up to AU $1,250,000 per grant over five years, enough to fund a maximum of four grants. Australian applicants must submit to NHMRC the full application submitted to CIHR – there is no separate research proposal for the NHMRC supplementary funding.

  • Is integrating budgets seen as an advantage or disadvantage?

    Please refer to the NHMRC Grant Guidelines for allowable expenses. To allow NHMRC to undertake a budget review of the Australian expenses, the budget submitted through NHMRC’s Sapphire should only reflect the Australian component of the research project.

    For CIHR’s application, Canadian and Australian funds will need to be integrated in the budget. The funding opportunity has been updated to clarify how to integrate the budgets on ResearchNet.

  • Is it possible to get a PDF of the NHMRC application form to know what is required by our Australian collaborators?

    The Australian Investigator (CIA) has access to the Sapphire application and should be able to guide the team. Appendix B of the NHMRC Grant Guidelines provides additional advice on the required sections of the Sapphire application form.

  • Should the interventions and implementation strategies in the Canadian and Australian studies be similar or identical?

    The intervention and implementation strategies in the Australian municipality should be similar in the Canadian municipalities so that they can be compared. However, it is up to the team to justify how the work in Canada and Australia are comparable and will meet the objectives of the funding opportunity.

  • Does the 15-page (English) CIHR research proposal need to include all information of what our Australian colleagues intend on implementing in Australia? Or is there a separate Australian study proposal that should be submitted to NHMRC that includes all study details etc.?

    The 15-page (English) CIHR research proposal needs to include the information about the Australian component as there is no separate research proposal for NHMRC – Australian researchers need to submit an application through Sapphire that includes the Australian budget and a copy of the research proposal that is submitted to CIHR/PHAC.

    The expectation is that the NHMRC component is integrated into the proposal and not a separate proposal (i.e. not introducing an entirely new research focus but rather adding to the CIHR research proposal).

  • How will partners know if they are both successful? Is one partner’s success dependent on the other?

    NHMRC will only fund applications that are successful through the CIHR peer review process – there is no separate peer review process conducted by NHMRC. Once the full applications have been submitted, CIHR will conduct a peer review of the full applications and notify NHMRC of the fundable applications. NHMRC will then undertake a budget review and eligibility check and notify Australian applicants of the outcome.

  • Will potential international partners be notified that they are eligible to apply to NHMRC for funds related to a proposal?

    Yes. Australian applicants associated with Canadian teams that are invited to submit their full applications to CIHR have already been invited by NHMRC to submit an application through Sapphire.

  • When applying for the NHMRC supplementary funding through the Sapphire system, we must enter budget details and justification. Should we also include this information for NHMRC funds into our CIHR application?

    Yes, budget details and justifications for NHMRC funds must be included in the CIHR application as the budget will be peer reviewed. This will allow the reviewers to know that the project is adequately funded. Further instructions have been added to the funding opportunity.

Please submit any additional questions about the HCIS Team Grants Funding Opportunity to CIHR’s Contact Centre.

Date modified: