Search:

• About us
• Contact
• Sitemap
• Links
• Français

Print   Send

Research Funding and Granting Competitions Mythbusters Award LEAD REISS Decision Support Synthesis Program Commissioned Activities Nursing Research Fund OGC Merit Review and Appeals Process Policy on Open Access to Research Outputs Programs Publications and Resources About Us

Home > Funding and Granting Competitions > Open Grants Competition > 2004 Descriptor Statements

Open Grants Competition

Related Information: Highlights and Funding Recommendations Full-Scale Application Merit Review Panel Members Applications Recommended for Funding Descriptor Statements

2004 Descriptor Statements

Potential Impact

1. Significance of the research for decision makers
   1. At the very most the proposed research could have implications for a limited number of managers or policy makers sometime in the future (beyond five years).
   2. The proposed research may interest some managers or policy makers within five years.
   3. The proposed research will be of compelling interest to a significant number of managers or policy makers within five years.
2. Involvement of decision makers as partners in the research
   1. At the very most the proposed research has indirectly incorporated the priorities of managers or policy makers.
   2. Managers or policy makers have directly informed the proposed research and they will be partially involved with the conduct of the research.
   3. The proposed research demonstrates that there is or will be an ongoing collaboration between the researchers and managers or policy makers. There are clear plans for linkages beyond the life of the project.
3. Extent and appropriateness of the communication and dissemination plans
   1. The dissemination of results will not go beyond the use of traditional vehicles (i.e. journal publications and conference presentations).
   2. The dissemination of results will go beyond the use of traditional vehicles.
   3. Dissemination of results will be sensitive to the preferences of the relevant managers and/or policy makers.
4. Nature of co-sponsorship
   1. The matching contributions are predominantly re-allocations of existing resources in the health services research environment and/or there are not yet firm commitments for eligible matching funds. The co-sponsors have some interest in linking researchers with decision makers.
   2. Matching funds represent a combination of new or re-allocated monies for health services research and/or in-kind contributions. The co-sponsors may include decision makers interested in project-specific linkages between researchers and decision makers.
   3. Most of the matching funds are in cash and represent new monies for research and/or significant in-kind contributions from decision makers. The co-sponsors are significantly involved in with the management of, or policy-making for, health services and are interested in using the current project to establish or maintain ongoing links between researchers and decision makers beyond the life of the this project.

Additional Potential Impact criterion for programs of research

5. Potential added value from program funding
   1. The investigative team is fragmented and has come together for this one-time-only activity.
   2. The investigative team is committed to the success of this program, but the members are primarily focused on their own individual areas of research.
   3. The investigative team will remain together, will establish ongoing linkages between researchers and decision makers at the management and policy level, and could develop as leaders on issues relating to the chosen theme.

Scientific Merit

1. Clarity of research questions and objectives
   1. The objectives are unclear and/or may not be achievable.
   2. The objectives are clear, possibly achievable, and may lead to results of importance to others in the general field of health services research.
   3. The objectives are clear and achievable and will lead to results with implications for those within and outside health services research.
2. Appropriateness of the methods and analytical frame/Generalizability and validity of the research results
   1. Given the constraints of the setting, the proposed methods are not completely finalized and there is a question as to their feasibility.
   2. Given the constraints of the setting, the proposed methods are fairly compatible with the production of results with some validity, reliability and generalizability.
   3. Given the constraints of the setting, the proposed methods are the most appropriate and are very likely to produce valid, reliable and generalizable results.
3. Experience and skills of the investigative team
   1. Given the training and skills of the team, it will be pushed to its limits to achieve the research objectives.
   2. The training, skills, disciplinary mix and experience of the team are adequate to achieve the research objectives.
   3. The training, skills, disciplinary mix and experience of the team are exemplary and will ensure that the research objectives are achieved.
4. Institutional environment and administrative capacity
   1. There is some support for the specific project/program by some individuals within the participating organizations, but research is not a priority.
   2. There is support for research in general and the proposed project/program in particular is supported by senior individuals throughout the participating organizations.
   3. Most of the participating organizations are dedicated to systemically supporting and nurturing health services research. As part of their commitment to evidence-based decision making, they support the proposed research in particular.

Additional Scientific Merit criteria for programs of research

5. Track record and capacity of the investigative team in the proposed area of research
   1. The investigative team demonstrates only a cursory knowledge of the chosen theme, and it would be pushed to its limits to support a program of this magnitude.
   2. The investigative team demonstrates the potential to achieve the proposed research and has done some related research.
   3. The investigative team demonstrates a proven track record involving projects related to the chosen theme.
6. Rationale and coherence of the proposed program of research
   1. The program of research addresses a single question outlined in the discussion of themes in the 2004 CHSRF Call for Letters of Intent, and does not go beyond the immediate results of this project.
   2. The program of research addresses a cluster of questions outlined in the discussion of themes in the 2004 CHSRF Call for Letters of Intent, but does not relate them to the results of earlier projects or plans for subsequent projects.
   3. The program of research addresses (concurrently and/or consecutively) a cluster of related questions outlined in the discussion of themes in the 2004 CHSRF Call for Letters of Intent. It discusses how subsequent or concurrent projects will be related to the outcomes of these initial projects and how the results will support evidence-based decision making of interest to managers and policy makers.