Royal society of Canada working group on health research system recovery: strengthening Canada’s health research system after the COVID-19 pandemic
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Knowledge exchange sessions
Recruitment
Data collection
Analysis
Surveys
Recruitment and data collection
Analysis
Results
Survey 1
Function 1—governance/stewardship | Function 2—financing | Function 3—capacity building | Function 4—producing and using research |
---|---|---|---|
• Identified and incorporated key COVID-19-related goals and priorities into organizational plans • Developed new projects and programs to study the impacts of COVID-19 • Created new teams and linkages, both internal and external to the organization • Implemented virtual processes (e.g., peer review meetings) to replace in-person processes • Put new or increased organizational focus on health equity | • Increased funding amount for COVID-19 research • Increased accessibility of funding for COVID-19 research to a broader applicant pool beyond researchers • Changed priorities of funded research to focus on COVID-19 recovery and broader, long-term impacts of COVID-19 • Tracked COVID-19 research funding allocation and needs | • Developed infrastructure and staff positions to support COVID-19 recovery • Supported staff and researchers according to their needs • Modified format and timelines of capacity-building programs • Downsized non-COVID-19 research to support other COVID-19 efforts | • Held COVID-19-related knowledge mobilization events for various audiences • Developed COVID-19-related knowledge mobilization materials • Supported partnerships and integrated knowledge mobilization activities • Modified formats of knowledge mobilization events • Developed new methods to share data (e.g., post publicly when preprints become available in registries) • Focused attention on equity, diversity, inclusion, and anti-racism in knowledge mobilization activities |
Knowledge exchange session 1
Topic | Participant responses |
---|---|
What participants did in this area | • Focused on the public health response and prevention (e.g., vaccine development and distribution), including funding for relevant COVID-19 research, as well as research relevant to future pandemics and natural disasters. • Moved governance committee meetings to virtual platforms. • Did not develop COVID-19-specific funding, focusing instead on a more holistic approach related to comorbidity and multi-morbidity impacts on health. • Developed joint research projects across organizations such as universities, clinical programs, provincial and territorial funders, and federal funders, increasing project coordination among researchers, clinicians, and government. |
What participants plan to do in the future in this area | • Engage in more international research initiatives. • Focus on investigating “long COVID”. • Continue virtual and hybrid models for various meetings (e.g., internal meetings, knowledge exchange events, conferences, peer review meetings, capacity-building sessions). • Maintain the responsive and flexible research administrative infrastructure that was developed during the COVID-19 pandemic, in preparation for future global health crises. |
What participants wish they had done differently in this area | • Change should be initiated by the health care system to integrate research ecosystem changes. This could promote further alignment and collaboration between clinical settings and researchers by increasing health care decision-makers access to researchers. • Have a unified agenda for public and private funders in the health research ecosystem, and increase funding transparency and coordination to minimize duplication while facilitating replication. • Each province/territory should have a strategic research advisory committee, with pan-Canadian linkages. • Find efficiencies in the processes for research ethics and contract approvals (e.g., centralize processes) across regions/provinces/territories, to reduce delays. • Address the gaps in infrastructure that emerged during the pandemic, particularly related to research infrastructure capacity and clinical trial readiness such as cross-institutional and cross-jurisdictional contracts. • Improve clinical trial readiness through trial networks, centralized contracts, and centralized ethics processes, to ensure faster launch. • Enhance relationships among industry, government, and academia to optimize nimble research conduct. • Enhance governance structure (e.g., representation from provincial/territorial research funders and strategic research advisory committees) and create tighter linkages (e.g., through regular communication) between federal and provincial/territorial research funders. This will enhance communication and coordination, and will decrease duplication of efforts and potential research waste. • Ensure interdisciplinary engagement including those from non-health disciplines (e.g., social sciences, education, environment). |
Topic | Participant responses |
---|---|
What participants did in this area | • Highlighted the importance of research into underlying conditions and chronic non-communicable diseases throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. • Facilitated continuity of funds (and extended timelines) for researchers who were unable to do their research because of COVID-19 restrictions. • Created extramural research networks (i.e., research that receives funding from sources other than universities) to enable scientific endeavour in particular areas (such as One Health). • Supported research that led to interdisciplinary research teams across the country. |
What participants wish they had done differently in this area | • Develop better financing strategies for research. • Develop better salary support for researchers working in research institutions. • Pay more attention to supply chain issues in research. • Have a greater balance between COVID-19 research and non-COVID-19 research. • Create more funding opportunities for Indigenous researchers. • Avoid duplication of funding for research projects. |
Topic | Participant responses |
---|---|
What participants did in this area | • Surveyed chief science officers and institutions about their research capacity and created a new funding program to invest in biocontainment laboratories in academic settings. • Targeted capacity building for early- to mid-career researchers. |
What participants plan to do in the future in this area | • Recruit more researchers into government sectors. • Identify strategies to support the career progression of government scientists. • Facilitate rapid data sharing between provinces/territories, and support infrastructure to facilitate such communication and data sharing beyond COVID-19-related research. • Advocate for accessibility of national/provincial/territorial health data to facilitate research. |
What participants wish they had done differently in this area | • Enhance infrastructure for therapeutics development. • Create linked, coordinated transdisciplinary networks in areas such as knowledge synthesis, vaccines, diagnostic testing, therapeutics, and implementation. |
Topic | Participant responses |
---|---|
What participants did in this area | • Worked closely with partners, from co-production of research to dissemination of the results to decision-makers. • Used partnerships and a top-down approach to influence health service delivery through research. |
What participants plan to do in the future in this area | • Change priorities to focus on COVID-19 recovery and broader (e.g., humanities, social science) long-term impacts of the pandemic. • Change the grant peer review process to reduce the delay between grant submission and funding decisions/distribution. • Connect with international institutions and partners with similar research agendas, to avoid duplication and enhance collaboration. |
What participants wish they had done differently in this area | • More focus on coordinated evidence synthesis and dissemination, including to inform priority setting for research. • Fund large randomized trials that use innovative methods to allow for an evolving evidence base. • Link with international partners on randomized trials using pre-approved protocols. • Embed randomized, networked trials within the health care and public health systems. |
Knowledge exchange session 2
Topic | Participant responses |
---|---|
What participants did in this area | • Ensured that researchers and clinicians had access to biological samples for COVID-19 research. • Harmonized research ethics systems across regions. • Hired staff to focus on health equity in COVID-19 research. • Held events online rather than in person, to optimize accessibility. • Developed pan-Canadian networks to respond to research calls (e.g., Coronavirus Variants Rapid Response Network). • Centralized trial recruitment, to facilitate recruitment of participants across multiple COVID-19 trials. • Convened regular meetings of organizations’ research leaders to discuss activities that affected multiple institutions, such as funding and coordinating research. • Revisited research conduct and regulations, including development of standardized procedures for conducting trials in unconventional settings (e.g., patients’ homes). |
What participants plan to do in the future in this area | • Continue to hold online/hybrid events, to maintain the accessibility of these events. |
What participants wish they had done differently in this area | • Create a pan-Canadian data ecosystem to share data to improve the quality and speed of research. • Create a universally accessible biobank, to improve the quality and speed of research. • Centralize and accelerate processes such as ethics and contract approval across institutions and provinces/territories. • Have common electronic patient records across regions, and facilitate access to these data. • Have meaningful relationships with Indigenous leaders, to support their research needs. • Ensure that organizational staff members reflect the diversity of the population. • Facilitate pan-Canadian policy-maker support for clinician involvement in research. • Develop an emergency preparedness plan for research that includes plans for data sharing, cybersecurity, and infrastructure. • Implement a pan-Canadian research coordination infrastructure to support research activities, such as centralized patient recruitment for clinical trials embedded in the health and public health systems. • Work with funders from other countries to prioritize who will do what research according to each country’s specialties and capacities, to distribute priorities and avoid duplication of work. • Create a collaborative, nimble, responsive, pan-Canadian platform for conducting clinical trials. • Create a nimble system for synthesizing and disseminating/implementing clinical trial findings, which could support policy-makers’ and clinicians’ decision-making processes. • Use Canada’s provincial/territorial health and public health care systems to evaluate impact of different mandates/recommendations for COVID-19 management. |
Topic | Participant responses |
---|---|
What participants did in this area | • Tracked and shared with policy-makers existing funding sources, which allowed organizations to advocate for support when COVID-19-related emergencies shut down external research funding, which in turn carried a risk of job loss. • Accessed unrestricted funds and resources so that research projects could be executed quickly. • Accelerated the grant peer review process. • Created a retention program to support salary for research personnel. • Developed pan-Canadian networks on specific research topics, to facilitate collaboration and coordination. • Partnered with federal government agencies to quickly disseminate funding information to these agencies. • Identified opportunities for researchers to collaborate on funding proposals. • Required all funded research to consider the health advancement of those marginalized by systemic injustice and to integrate equity into research funding plans. • Required all funded research to publicly disclose results immediately in line with other international funders to support rapid data sharing. • Streamlined format and timeline flexibility for researchers to complete research grant applications, achieve milestones, and report their findings. |
What participants wish they had done differently in this area | • Provide more funding to support salaries for students, research staff, and researchers, to facilitate retention. • Establish health network research hubs to coordinate start-up research incubators and businesses. • Address how some research sometimes goes unfunded because it does not meet certain traditional standards of methodological excellence. • Increase funding for knowledge mobilization activities. • Provide more dedicated time and funds for clinician-scientists to do research, or build structures that allow them to do both clinical work and research. • Create a pan-Canadian data set on the collective impact of health research investment across all funders (e.g., federal-, provincial- and territorial-level funders and non-governmental organizations). • Fund larger, more coordinated clinical trials, instead of multiple smaller trials on the same topic, to facilitate research impact. • Optimize timelines for funding competitions, to ensure equitable access to each competition among researchers, while still responding to the urgent data needs of decision-makers. |
Topic | Participant responses |
---|---|
What participants did in this area | • Created accommodations for trainee researchers (e.g., allowed Master’s and PhD students living in other countries to enroll virtually and maintained financial support for them). • Supported hospitals (where such support had not previously existed) to rapidly set up research, in particular clinical trials, and trained clinicians in research practices. • Advocated for infrastructure to support integration of research into practice and policy. • Ensured that research trainees and students were paid fairly. • Introduced additional leave days that could be taken anytime, without warning or explanation, in addition to sick days, to facilitate retention. • Implemented additional workplace supports such as flexible work hours. |
What participants wish they had done differently in this area | • Support researchers without Canadian citizenship whose documentation had expired because of backlogged government systems and who consequently lost eligibility for grant funding. • Develop a plan for emergency preparedness, encompassing data sharing across Canada and cybersecurity (including considerations of remote access). • Create infrastructure (e.g., websites) and dissemination strategies to showcase what an organization, region, or country can offer in terms of research, with linkage to the health system. • Create more opportunities for researchers to commercialize their research or to efficiently start small or medium enterprises. • Use data and modelling to predict resource needs (e.g., workforce and equipment). • Use data to understand research workforce needs, including ensuring that research staff reflect the diversity of the population. • Use sustainable funding to invest in knowledge brokers (i.e., individuals who understand the evidence needs of health system leaders and can develop relationships to increase evidence uptake). • Facilitate patient access to clinical trial opportunities as part of treatment options in hospital-based trials, community-based trials, and decentralized trials, especially in rural, remote, and northern areas. |
Topic | Participant responses |
---|---|
What participants did in this area | • Held science communication courses for knowledge users (e.g., policy-makers and members of the public). • Required plans for patient engagement and knowledge mobilization in grant applications. • Developed a knowledge mobilization, consultation, and support service for researchers, to increase patient engagement in the research process from the grant writing stage to knowledge dissemination. • Communicated the research through various media, such as opinion pieces for newspapers, podcasts, and webinars. • Hospital staff and researchers had regular conversations with decision-makers and government to facilitate knowledge mobilization of research findings. • Worked with patients to determine COVID-19-related research questions that the patients and their families cared about. • Co-developed knowledge mobilization materials with the target audience (e.g., children helped to develop videos and related materials on masking and vaccination directed toward other children). • Developed research briefs to disseminate research. • Monitored what non-COVID-19 research was paused or not funded, with a view to determining how to restart or begin the work. • Developed virtual knowledge mobilization activities. • Created roles for knowledge brokers to conduct rapid knowledge mobilization across several projects and to set up a knowledge mobilization network. • Included relationship-building requirements in research grants, to support knowledge mobilization of findings. • Developed a panel of early career researchers doing knowledge synthesis work, to share research, connect researchers to decision-makers, and provide researchers with exposure to the decision-making process. • Held events with researchers to discuss their challenges in building relationships with decision-makers. • Used researchers and patients’ personal impact stories to convey the value of health research to policy-makers and the public. • Developed the Pan-Canadian Health Data Strategy to support sharing of data across organizations. • Developed strategies to link researchers with policy-makers. |
What participants wish they had done differently in this area | • Hold science communication courses and include both knowledge developers and users (e.g., traditional media, patient partners, and the public). • Address the fear of some researchers that they would forgo opportunities to publish if they share data with decision-makers before publication. • Use the pandemic as an opportunity to communicate what science is and what it is not, as well as how changing and evolving evidence can lead to inconsistent and evolving policy decisions. • Link science writers with researchers and patients to craft messages about research findings for the public, and have experienced communicators share these messages with the public. • Invite patient partners to be authors on academic papers. • Tailor knowledge mobilization events such as webinars to specific audiences. • Have a broader patient partner base, to decrease the burden on existing patient partners, and ensure they are fairly compensated. • In funding calls, include links to resources (e.g., people, services, or organizations) related to knowledge mobilization and patient engagement, to facilitate partnerships between researchers and knowledge mobilization services. • Collect and present data on the return on research investment for research users (e.g., decision-makers, patients, members of the public, and clinicians). • Provide time and support (e.g., graphic design, media training, financial support, and legal support) for researchers and clinicians to disseminate their research and to do media work or act as spokespeople for the research, especially when the content is controversial or abusive responses are anticipated. • Maintain strong relationships with patient partners. • Develop a pan-Canadian strategy for implementation science. • Link knowledge synthesis researchers to decision-makers. |
Knowledge exchange session 3
![](/cms/10.1139/facets-2023-0233/asset/images/facets-2023-0233_f1.jpg)
Group | Participant responses |
---|---|
Research funders | • Redefine research excellence to include more than randomized controlled trials and journal publications (i.e., incentivize different ways to create and mobilize knowledge). • Increase collaboration between provincial/territorial ministries of health and national funding agencies like the CIHR, to develop collaborative research projects across ministries. Such projects should be developed with patient partners and should be considered through equity, diversity, inclusion, and anti-racism lenses. • Harmonize research ethics boards across institutions and provinces/territories. • When monitoring and evaluating research projects, include multiple parameters for success, particularly ones that entail asking the communities involved whether they were affected in any way. • Take more responsibility for ensuring that research is conducted ethically, for example, by offering ethics capacity building for researchers and acting as an arbiter for disputes between study participants and researchers. • Allow postdoctoral researchers to be principal investigators on funding applications or allow them to collaborate on applications to give the next generation of researchers relevant experience, including experience in developing programs of research at their institutions. • Specify patient engagement requirements in grant calls, and include requirements to ensure that the patient sample is diverse or representative of the research population. Include suggestions to allow for engagement between policy-makers and patient partners. • Develop a centralized list of health research priorities that includes input from patients/members of the public and policy-makers. Such a list of priorities could act as inspiration for researchers in their choice of topics. • Set up infrastructure to respond to emergency situations (including pandemics) to allow a rapid funding response. • Recognize the role of white supremacy and colonization in shaping health research systems (e.g., through its reward structure). Take steps to mitigate this, for example, by providing communities traditionally excluded from and harmed by research with more funding and autonomy to carry out research themselves, by ensuring more representation from these communities in decision-making positions, and by establishing less competitive grant models. • Increase salary/wages for researchers to keep up with the cost of living and to encourage careers in research. Specifically, funders could increase scholarships and stipends for trainees and postdoctoral researchers. • Require community engagement and relationship development from project onset, so that engagement is not tokenistic; include this goal in organizational mandates and priorities. • When developing priority areas for research or when developing research institutes/departments, have discussions with and recruit community members and those with relevant lived experience into research leadership roles. Gain insight from community members on what is the core problem and whether it is something that needs to be addressed. • Implement a system for peer reviewing the peer reviewers, to allow oversight of the peer review process and address systemic funding issues (e.g., systemic bias in funding decisions). |
Policy-makers | • Update intellectual property policies to encourage work in areas that may not be financially lucrative. • Develop better data-sharing systems and systems of health research collaboration among provincial/territorial ministries in Canada. • Encourage more researchers to enter public health policy, with a view to reducing the political influence on science. • Create an international consultative panel independent of government, to provide recommendations based on health research in times of crisis. • Where possible, include patients as equal partners at the governance decision-making levels. • Facilitate representation of all provinces and territories at decision-making levels to support coordination. • Fund research on how the health care system is operating, to determine how it can better serve the public. • Develop a list of priorities across provinces and territories and determine which locations/research programs are best suited to conduct research in each priority area. • Research funding agencies and government ministries of health are working separately to create engagement opportunities between patient partners and policy-makers; they should increase their collaboration in this area. • To prevent researchers and research staff experiencing marginalization from being pushed out of the workplace, put in place strong policies to investigate, address, and monitor complaints about discrimination or microaggressions. • Develop an independent body of policy-makers to weigh research requirements among COVID-19 research, non-COVID-19 research, and capacity building, and determine how funding should be balanced among these three areas. |
Researchers | • Evaluate the research experiences of patient partners throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. • Aim for research teams that are reflective of the relevant research population, with lived experience in the topics that are being researched. |
Note: CIHR, Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
Group | Participant responses |
---|---|
Research funders | • Include patients and people with lived and living experience on panels for review of research funding calls. • Create or incentivize collaborative rather than competitive grants. To do so, reconsider the common “grant model” for financial support and instead consider models in which researchers are not responsible for bringing funding to their university or hospital. • Consider programmatic funding, as opposed to, or in addition to, project funding. Such funding involves base support, with additional funding for specific research projects. • Encourage research collaboration and joint research funding models across countries and create legal, IP, and data sharing agreements. • Increase flexibility in research project timelines, to ensure that patient engagement and knowledge mobilization activities are conducted with care, while balancing the need for timely responses to urgent research calls during emergencies. This balance could be facilitated through establishing relationships and networks pre-emergency. • Ensure that research priorities and funding allocations are transparent. • Track and publicize which research proposals are funded and which are not funded, to help researchers understand which research questions are more likely to receive funding. • Implement systems at research institutions and funding agencies to allow appropriate funding for patient partners. • Ensure that funding calls include requirements for the research team to have identities similar to those of the research population. • Ensure that funding calls include requirements for diversity among patient partners. • Consider equity, diversity, inclusion, and anti-racism at each step in the research project, including in grant applications. • Balance research on COVID-19, “long COVID”, and other diseases/conditions. • Invest in research into the indirect impacts of COVID-19 (e.g., on education, on mental health, and on health care providers). • Given that health care providers are paid significantly more for clinical work than for research work, provide salary support for clinician researchers, to encourage research and demonstrate its importance. • During emergencies, reduce the intensity of grant requirements, given the amount of time and resources required to prepare grant applications and given that many applications are unsuccessful. • Reduce the competitiveness of funding by reducing application requirements and developing more collaborative grants. • Ensure that a portion of grants is reserved for early career researchers. • Ensure that funding allocation decisions throughout each research competition are transparent. • Reduce the fees for journals’ open-access publication, and impose limits on those fees. |
Policy-makers | • Although there are ethical issues with seeking research funding from private funders (e.g., conflicts of interest and influence on research priorities), ethical issues also arise when research funding for critical health issues is lacking. Weigh these ethical issues to help decide where research funding should be sought. • Encourage standardization of participant compensation across the country. • Adjust rules related to patents and intellectual property for vaccines and other therapeutics, to allow for greater distribution of these research products. • Encourage collaboration among industry partners (e.g., pharmaceutical companies) in the development of therapeutics, diagnostics, vaccines etc., to increase effectiveness and the speed of development and to reduce the funding required. • Encourage industry partners (e.g., pharmaceutical companies) to cycle the profits made from COVID-19-related products and services back into the health research system to fund additional health research. • To increase available research funding, require higher-income individuals and corporations (especially those who profit from population health issues, such as pharmaceutical companies) to pay more taxes. • Take responsibility for the funding cuts made before the pandemic that had harmful effects on the health care and health research systems. Take steps to re-invest in health care and health research. • Increase remote work and work-from-home opportunities for researchers, to increase collaboration across various communities, to bring new perspectives to research questions, and to potentially reduce the cost of some research activities. • Encourage private research funding options, so that researchers have more options when applying for continuation of funds. |
Researchers | • Set up systems for crowd funding of research projects, and ensure that this is done ethically. • Conduct research into public uptake/understanding of science and how this can be improved. • Conduct research on the reasons for migration of health care workers across provinces/territories and why health care workers are lacking in some regions. |
Note: IP, intellectual property.
Group | Participant responses |
---|---|
Research funders | • Expand the pool of patient partners involved in grant peer review. • Ensure that researchers and research staff across experience levels are paid an attractive wage that allows them to support themselves and their families. Support job security for researchers and research staff. |
Policy-makers | • Reduce barriers (e.g., financial and lack of representation) that prevent populations less commonly represented in research and policy-making from entering these fields. Ensure they are aware of the range of research-related positions, including principal investigator, biostatistician, laboratory technician, research coordinator, knowledge broker, and policy-maker. • Invest in engaging young people (e.g., high school age and undergraduates) in research by introducing them to research concepts, fields, and careers through programs such as boot camps and career days, and by providing guidance counsellors with relevant information. • Build capacity among policy-makers to understand and use evidence in decision making. |
Researchers | • Ensure that research teams reflect the identities of their respective research populations, to provide insight on appropriate research questions, methods, inclusion criteria, etc. • Train researchers in the engagement of policy-makers. • Ensure that patient engagement methods have a trauma-informed lens and that engagement activities are safe spaces for individuals to contribute. Conduct training in these areas if needed. • Engage in training or other forms of capacity building to unpack and dismantle individual internal biases or discriminatory beliefs (e.g., racism, sexism, and ableism). |
Group | Participant responses |
---|---|
Research funders | a. Require researchers to provide accessible, lay-language summaries of their research through written materials (e.g., infographics), on social media, or through events (e.g., CIHR’s Café Scientifique). b. Develop communication plans to convey to the public the importance of health research in general and why the public should care about and engage in research. c. Include requirements for meaningful and transparent patient engagement as part of the ethical standards for research projects. d. Consider funding social media or marketing positions in research laboratories and research programs. Consider hiring university students interested in both research and communications for these positions. e. Create educational courses or seminars on research directed toward patient partners, to increase patients’ understanding of their role on a research team and to increase their engagement. f. Develop and fund a pan-Canadian database that allows patients and researchers to connect for patient engagement or project recruitment purposes. g. Allow patient partners to use abbreviated Common CVs when applying to participate in research. Ensure that they are not asked to supply personal information (e.g., home address). |
Policy-makers | • When instituting change in public health practices, invite community leaders (e.g., religious leaders) to attend information sessions where they can ask questions, voice concerns, and build relationships with the policy-makers, with a view to having them disseminate this information to their community members. • Increase public transparency related to investments in and outcomes of health research. • Increase accountability and transparency for determining whether and how policy-makers follow research evidence and apply the evidence to their decision-making. Evaluate whether and how policy-makers’ decisions are informed by evidence. • Develop a centralized list of research opportunities for patient partners by institution and province/territory. • Invest in marketing and promotion of health research in Canada, as well as in removing misinformation. Use a range of approaches (with consideration of the population targeted by the research), such as social media, community leaders, and community organizations (e.g., faith organizations, information centres, and youth centres). Use community connections to disseminate this information, to increase trust. • Consider how to build a future of health care research where every encounter with the health system is an opportunity for research/evaluation. • Build knowledge mobilization capacity among policy-makers. |
Researchers | • Increase accessibility of research to research participants by offering the opportunity for researchers to travel to participants to collect data (as opposed to participants travelling to the researchers), offering evening and weekend options to participate, and providing various language options. Consider using community leaders (e.g., clergy) to support recruitment and data collection. Such efforts could promote diversity in the participant sample, given that the population available to participate in English during daytime hours is typically of higher income, retired, and white. • Increase involvement in health advocacy beyond the researcher’s own research projects. • Treat patient partners as research partners (e.g., include them as authors on manuscripts, ensure they have access to published articles, and engage them in knowledge mobilization activities). Consider giving patient partners concrete roles within the research project. • Invest more time in marketing and promotion of research participation and engagement opportunities to patient/community partners. Promote these opportunities on websites and social media platforms and through posters in community centres, parks, colleges, universities, and other locations where people gather. • When recruiting patients and community members for partnership or participant roles, recognize that some communities have a valid distrust of health care and health research systems due to historic and ongoing harm against certain groups (e.g., racialized and transgender populations). Acknowledge this issue during recruitment efforts, and aim to build collaborative, trusting relationships. • To increase transparency and dissemination, promote research projects to the research community, the public, and policy-makers while they are still in progress, providing updates on preliminary results. Avoid waiting until the end of the project to disseminate results. • Develop living systematic reviews that are accessible to the research community, the public, and policy-makers for specific health topics (e.g., COVID-19), to allow these audiences to stay informed about new evidence. • Budget for patient engagement throughout the project. • Consider engaging patients, particularly those with relevant lived experience, in fundamental or pre-clinical research. These perspectives can help shape the research question. • Incorporate patient partners across research activities, including formulating the question, developing methods, performing data analysis and interpretation, and conducting knowledge mobilization activities. • Evaluate the impact of knowledge mobilization on community health outcomes. • Provide research mentorship for patient partners. • Develop knowledge mobilization materials to communicate research that is transparent and accessible to the public, traditional and social media, and policy-makers. |
Note: CIHR, Canadian Institutes of Health Research; CV, curriculum vitae.
Survey 2
Survey 3
Recommendations
Function 1: governance/stewardship
Recommendation 1: outline research logistics as part of emergency preparedness to streamline research in future pandemics
Recommendation 2: embed equity and inclusion in all research processes
Recommendation 3: facilitate streamlined, inclusive, and rigorous processes for grant application preparation (e.g., by research institutes) and review (e.g., by funders)
Recommendation 4: create knowledge mobilization infrastructure to support the generation and use of evidence
Recommendation 5: coordinate research efforts across local, provincial, national, and international entities
Function 2: financing
Recommendation 6: reimagine the funding of health research
Function 3: capacity building
Recommendation 7: invest in formative training opportunities rooted in equity, diversity, and anti-racism
Recommendation 8: support researchers’ career development throughout their career span
Recommendation 9: support early career researchers to establish themselves
Function 4: producing and using research
Recommendation 10: strengthen Indigenous health research and break down systemic barriers to its conduct
Recommendation 11: develop mechanisms to produce novel research
Recommendation 12: enhance research use across the health research ecosystem
Discussion
Threats to the health research system
Actionable recommendations to meet these challenges
Related work and placing this report in context
Acknowledgement
References
Appendix A. Definitions of the four functions of the WHO health research system framework
Appendix B. Knowledge exchange session discussion guide example
Knowledge exchange session 1 discussion guide
1. Knowledge translation (KT) program introduction (30 min)
1.1 Acknowledgement of traditional land
1.2 Roundtable introductions and competing interests
1.3 Meeting agenda
1.4 Purpose of this initiative
1.5 Purpose of today’s session
1.6 Structure of today’s session
1.7 Overview of survey results
1.8 Terms of consent
1.9 Break out room preparation
2. Survey results and small-group discussion questions (60 min)
Theme 1—governance/stewardship including vision, priority setting, ethics, and monitoring/evaluation | |
1. The first theme we will discuss is governance/stewardship. Pang et al. (Pang et al. 2003) define governance/stewardship as being concerned with oversight of the entire health research system. It is primarily the responsibility of government, but others may have responsibility including national health research councils and professional associations. It includes four components: “definition and articulation of a vision for a national health research system; identification of appropriate health research priorities and coordination of adherence to them; setting and monitoring of ethical standards for health research and research partnerships; and monitoring and evaluation of the health research system itself”. 2. Survey respondents were asked how the strategies have been modified to support pandemic recovery: | |
Modification | Number of participants |
Identified and incorporated key COVID-19 related goals and priorities into organizational plans | 11 |
Developed new projects and programs to study the impacts of COVID-19 | 6 |
Created new teams and linkages both internal and external to the organization | 3 |
Implemented virtual processes to replace in-person processes | 2 |
New or increased organizational focus on health equity | 2 |
1. Discussion questions: • What did you do in this area and why? • Did it work—why/why not? • What do you wish you’d done differently and why? 2. Think about what you did at the beginning of the pandemic and how that has evolved through subsequent waves and now into recovery | |
Theme 2—financing | |
1. The second theme we will discuss is financing. According to Pang et al. (Pang et al. 2003) financing of health research systems refers to “securing of research funds and allocating these accountably” and subsequently monitoring these funds and allocation. This process should be efficient, transparent, and peer-review-based. 2. Survey respondents were asked how the strategies have been modified to support pandemic recovery: | |
Modification | Number of participants |
Changed priorities of funded research to focus on COVID-19 recovery and broader long-term impacts of COVID-19 | 6 |
Increasing amount and accessibility of funding for COVID-19 research | 7 |
Tracking COVID-19 research funding allocation and needs | 2 |
1. Discussion questions: • What did you do in this area and why? • Did it work—why/why not? • What do you wish you’d done differently and why? 2. Think about what you did at the beginning of the pandemic and how that has evolved through subsequent waves and now into recovery |
Theme 3—capacity building encompassing capacity to conduct (including supporting the life cycle of the researcher), receive, and use research | |
1. The third theme we will discuss is capacity building, encompassing capacity to conduct (including supporting the life cycle of the researcher), receive, and use research. Pang et al. (Pang et al. 2003) define this as bringing new researchers and institutions into the health research system, further developing and sustaining the existent human and physical capacity, maintaining good physical facilities to conduct research, an attractive career structure, good research management, availability of funding, opportunities to present and discuss data, rapid access to current research information, and addressing internal or external researcher migration and “brain drain”. 2. Survey respondents were asked how the strategies have been modified to support pandemic recovery: | |
Modification | Number of participants |
Supported staff and researchers based on their needs | 6 |
Developed infrastructure and staff positions to support COVID-19 recovery | 9 |
Modified format and timelines of capacity-building programs | 3 |
Downsized research work to support other COVID-19 efforts | 2 |
1. Discussion questions: • What did you do in this area and why? • Did it work—why/why not? • What do you wish you’d done differently and why? 2. Think about what you did at the beginning of the pandemic and how that has evolved through subsequent waves and now into recovery | |
Theme 4—producing and using research to improve health and strengthen the public, social, and health care systems | |
1. The fourth theme we will discuss is producing and using research to improve health and strengthen the public, social, and health care systems. Pang et al. (Pang et al. 2003) define this as “producing scientifically valid research outputs, translating and communicating research to inform health policy, strategies, and practices, and public opinion, and promoting the use of research to develop new tools (drugs, vaccines, devices and other applications) to improve health”. 2. Survey respondents were asked how the strategies have been modified to support pandemic recovery: | |
Modification | Number of participants |
Held COVID-19-related knowledge translation events | 5 |
Developed COVID-19-related knowledge translation materials | 5 |
Supported partnerships and integrated knowledge translation activities | 4 |
Modified formats of knowledge translation events | 3 |
Developed new methods to share data | 1 |
Attention to equity, diversity, inclusion, and racism in knowledge mobilization activities | 1 |
1. Discussion questions: • What did you do in this area and why? • Did it work—why/why not? • What do you wish you’d done differently and why? 2. Think about what you did at the beginning of the pandemic and how that has evolved through subsequent waves and now into recovery |
3. Break (10 min)
4. Report back in large group and discussion (1 h and 15 min)
Theme 1—governance/stewardship including vision, priority setting, ethics, and monitoring/evaluation |
Areas of focus: 1. Organizational focus on health equity a. And in general, how was equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) considered/not considered? 2. Coordination of research/research funding/research initiatives 3. What was the balance of Covid/non-Covid research/capacity building considerations? 4. Was there a benefit of centralization of priority setting of research? And what were the pros/cons? |
Theme 2—financing |
Areas of focus: 1. Coordination of funding and avoiding duplication of effort 2. Sustainability of initiatives, including research networks, funding 3. How was EDI considered/not considered? 4. What was the balance of Covid/non-Covid research/capacity building considerations? 5. Was there a benefit of centralization of priority setting of research? And what were the pros/cons? |
Theme 3—capacity building encompassing capacity to conduct (including supporting the life cycle of the researcher), receive, and use research |
Areas of focus: 1. Retaining and sustaining a workforce 2. Gaps in training/paths for researchers 3. How was EDI considered/not considered? 4. What was the balance of Covid/non-Covid research/capacity building considerations? 5. Was there a benefit of centralization of priority setting of research? And what were the pros/cons? |
Theme 4—producing and using research to improve health and strengthen the public, social, and health care systems |
Areas of focus: 1. What happens next? How do we sustain/scale/spread? 2. How was EDI considered/not considered? 3. What was the balance of Covid/non-Covid research/capacity building considerations? 4. Was there a benefit of centralization of priority setting of research? And what were the pros/cons? |
5. Next steps (3 min)
6. Thank you! (3 min)
Appendix C. Surveys
Survey 1
Survey 2
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Leverage and extend the use of the Canada Research Coordinating Committee (CRCC) across the TriCouncil Agencies and the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI) to provide research and innovation advice, oversight, coordination, and communication across the TriCouncil Agencies. Please click on the organization/project names to learn more. | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Create a new entity, entitled the Canadian Knowledge and Science Foundation (CKSF) to rapidly address emerging research and innovation needs, deliver TriCouncil Agency programming, and enhance coordination, planning, and policy capacity across the research support system (as suggested in the recent report of the Advisory Panel on the Federal Research Support System) | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Establish a health research funding agency in each province/territory through which the provincial/territorial health ministry and public health agency can connect on research priorities and evidence needs | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Establish a structure whereby the Public Health Agency of Canada and Health Canada connect with provincial/territorial health research agencies and provincial/territorial ministries responsible for health and public health on research priorities and evidence needs | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Through regular and frequent meetings, promote coordination and communication between the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and Health Canada to facilitate research conduct, use, and funding | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Through regular meetings, promote coordination and communication between federal and provincial/territorial funders and relevant federal and provincial policy-makers (e.g., the National Alliance of Provincial Health Research Organizations (NAPHRO)) to align and facilitate research conduct and use | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Develop centralized processes to communicate and coordinate research priorities with knowledge users (such as researchers, academic institutions, charitable organizations, and patient/public organizations including equity-deserving groups) | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Establish a communication platform to outline what research questions/priorities different funders (e.g., provincial/territorial, TriCouncil Agencies) are responsible for to limit duplication and support replication | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Encourage the use of communication platforms between TriCouncil Agencies and international funding agencies to align research priorities in pandemics/health emergencies to coordinate research (e.g., Global Research Collaboration for Infectious Disease Preparedness (GloPID-R)) | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Develop principles of transparent communication around what research is funded | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Develop and publicly report data on research impact and overall impact of research funding | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Create an emergency preparedness research plan that includes data sharing, cybersecurity, research ethics board (REB) approvals, and supply chain procedures | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Ensure the emergency preparedness research plan includes the coordination of research questions with international research funders to prioritize based on capacity, expertise, and infrastructure | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Develop data sharing agreements within and across provinces/territories and between provinces/territories and national partners (e.g., Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI)) for sharing data including health research, health services, and registry data | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Centralize and harmonize research ethics board (REB) processes nationally with a single online form, standardized training, and tracking of timelines | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Prioritize REB for relevant studies during health/public health emergencies | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Harmonize processes (including data collection, privacy, and REB) for biobanks and data sharing within provinces/territories and across provinces/territories to facilitate rapid research | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Use equity and anti-oppression principles in all governance decision making and actions aligned with the TriCouncil Agency’s Dimensions Charter and the rights of First Nations, Inuit, and Métis Peoples | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Include patients/public at all governance levels in the health research ecosystem using an open, transparent recruitment process and publicly report on their inclusion | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Sustain Indigenous-led biobanks and data sharing | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Create national database of ongoing studies for patients to engage with as research partners and research leads | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Monitor grant application and success rates by applicants’ PROGRESS PLUS factors (an acronym used to identify characteristics that stratify health opportunities and outcomes) and report on this information publicly | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Ensure equity and diversity principles are embedded within all grant applications, including the consideration that research team and patient partners should reflect the diversity of relevant population | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Reimburse peer reviewers for any caregiving support required for their dependents, to enable the peer reviewers to attend meetings | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Mandate that principal investigators with peer-reviewed grants must participate in grant peer review for the duration of their grant support | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Use the grant application and success data to revise grant competitions (e.g., to prioritize specific research areas, researchers from equity-deserving groups, etc.) | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Standardize virtual and hybrid processes for grant peer review | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Include patients in grant peer review process | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Use Public Health Agency of Canada’s Strengthening the Integration of Intersectionality Theory in Health Inequality Checklist when reviewing grants to assess if and how they adhere to equity considerations | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Create multidisciplinary grant review panels and provide peer review training for multidisciplinary research | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Create iterative grant peer review process with opportunity for interviews with applicants and peer review panel to clarify questions/responses | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Streamline the grants application process for patients such as reducing requirements for patients to complete letters of support, CVs and sex- and gender-based analysis plus (GBA+) modules (e.g., Women’s College Research Institute’s (WCRI) GBA+) | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Conduct peer review of the grant peer review process (including peer reviewers) and make results of this peer review transparent | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Embed equity considerations in decision making on all research investments | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Ensure long-term funding for successful research enterprises and develop strategies for defunding initiatives that aren't achieving relevant impact | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Assess extent to which research infrastructure and research infrastructure funding exists for therapeutics, vaccine, diagnostic testing development and implementation | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Establish funding for provincial/territorial health research hubs with linkages to health, public health, social care, education and cross-disciplinary collaborations (e.g., National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Clinical Research Networks, Applied Research Collaborations, National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Translational Research Centres, National Institutes of Health (NIH) Implementation/translation Research Centres) | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Develop strategies for sustainability of networks/platforms/hubs through partnerships with national/provincial/territorial funders | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Increase overhead/indirect cost allowance (cost of doing research including space, human resources, contracts support) for research institutes to 50% to completely cover cost of research operations | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Engage with industry to contribute to funding for health research hubs/networks/platforms | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Work with industry to provide unrestricted funds for project research grants and infrastructure grants | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Make research funding allocations transparent, and report on the distribution of funding by applicants’ PROGRESS PLUS factors (e.g., gender, race) | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Make a clear separation between knowledge user-driven versus researcher-driven research; have separate funding for both groups | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Support mechanisms for crowdfunding research | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Develop collaborative grants across the TriCouncil Agencies that support cross-disciplinary training of PhD students and post-doctoral fellows | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Create salary support pathways for scientists (such as salary support awards or embedding salary into grants) throughout their career trajectories from early career to mid- and senior-career | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Create similar salary support pathways for clinician scientists throughout their career trajectories from early career to mid- and senior-career | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Expand joint industry/academic and PhD/post-doctoral training opportunities | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Expand joint government/academic training opportunities for PhD/post-doctoral trainees | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Establish and maintain living wage standards for salaries for graduate students and post-doctoral fellows | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Embed equity, diversity, and anti-racism principles in all research capacity-building activities | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Create opportunities for Postdoctoral Fellowships across academia, industry, and government sectors | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Create opportunities for Postdoctoral Fellows to work in more than one sector (academic, industry, or government) during a fellowship | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Use provincial/territorial/national data to estimate needs for the health human workforce and the research workforce using dynamic modelling (e.g., align training opportunities while monitoring for burnout/lack of retention) | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Create transdisciplinary research training networks for graduate students, fellows and early career researchers to facilitate research and research training in diverse methods and disciplines across all research pillars (e.g., implementation science, one health, artificial intelligence (AI)) | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Create support strategies for those disproportionately affected systematically and during the pandemic such as Black, Indigenous, and people of colour, women, non-binary people, and clinician scientists | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Provide training for researchers on trauma-informed approaches to patient engagement; that is, approaches rooted in an understanding of how trauma impacts people, with the purpose of avoiding potential re-traumatization during the research process. These approaches also acknowledge broader social contexts and how systems of oppression (e.g., colonialism, white supremacy) cause trauma. | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Ensure patient engagement in research uses trauma-informed approaches | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Provide training for researchers, patient partners, and policy-makers on anti-oppression practices in research; that is, practices that name and seek to dismantle injustices and power imbalances in the broader social context and in the research processes (e.g., asking community members most impacted by the research to lead key research activities such as developing the project plan and the budget). | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Provide training for researchers, patients, and policy-makers on knowledge mobilization | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Create a network of chief science advisors in each national/provincial/territorial government department Create opportunities for these advisors via knowledge exchange with researchers across Canada These advisors can interpret and communicate science to policy-makers including communication of evidence uncertainty | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Create funding opportunities such as partnership grants between researchers and knowledge users to focus on research uptake | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Further develop multidisciplinary, collaborative grants across the TriCouncil Agencies (leveraging New Frontiers in Research Fund) that support collaborations across research disciplines including those that range from developing the team/research project through to completion of research and its dissemination | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Create health research hubs within provinces/territories to link health care delivery context with research across all Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) pillars; include patient/public engagement and commercialization | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Create a national network of the provincial/territorial health research hubs and identify focused areas (e.g., methodological, clinical) that each may lead/co-lead nationally (for example, in areas such as pandemic preparedness, healthy aging, climate change, one health, health/social disparities, artificial intelligence (AI) innovation, patient/public engagement, implementation science/knowledge mobilization) | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Embed clinical trials platform(s) within health care delivery/health research hubs | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Enhance science to policy dissemination training for researchers (e.g., in plain language communication) through various approaches including modules and embedded training opportunities | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Enhance science to policy dissemination training for policy-makers (e.g., in plain language communication) through various approaches including modules and embedded training opportunities | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Co-create and deliver public education strategies for increasing health research literacy with members of the public | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Co-create and deliver training for patients on engaging in research | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Co-create and deliver training for patients on interacting with policy-makers | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Create communication/knowledge exchange opportunities across funded networks/platforms/hubs | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ | ◯ |
Survey 3
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
![cover image FACETS](/cms/10.1139/facets.2024.0901/asset/176dd100-1617-dd10-6161-6dd100616176/cover.jpg)
History
Notes
Copyright
Data Availability Statement
Key Words
Sections
Subjects
Authors
Author Contributions
Competing Interests
Funding Information
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Other Metrics
Citations
Cite As
Export Citations
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.
There are no citations for this item