Evaluation of the Regenerative Medicine & Nanomedicine Initiative – Long descriptions
Figure 3 - Scatterplot of average of relative citations (ARC) and specialization index (SI) for top 16 productive countries in regenerative medicine 2004-2010
Country
SI
ARC
N pub
United States
1.275676481
1.29
15047
Japan
1.426434715
0.90
4052
Germany
1.289020109
1.12
3875
United Kingdom
1.018432548
1.22
3212
China
0.886100262
0.59
3195
Italy
1.452760258
1.15
2461
South Korea
1.518072203
0.78
1772
France
0.780405486
1.15
1689
Canada
0.891873641
1.15
1603
Netherlands
1.367043877
1.23
1344
Spain
0.756411262
1.18
1036
Australia
0.862701961
1.14
1034
Switzerland
1.314414337
1.37
930
Sweden
1.304348621
1.38
879
Israel
1.55203224
1.29
657
Singapore
2.213749517
1.36
595
« Back to figure 3
Figure 4 - Scatterplot of ARC and SI for top 16 productive countries in nanomedicine 2004-2010
Country
SI
ARC
N pub
United States
1.240741425
1.217712841
17288
China
1.680308098
0.900848939
7157
Germany
1.014607687
1.08563881
3603
Japan
1.005182004
0.771317169
3373
United Kingdom
0.683914889
1.089460675
2548
South Korea
1.78696199
0.866812872
2464
France
0.814752749
1.014334864
2083
India
1.252785756
0.744606013
1766
Canada
0.724860321
1.039741754
1539
Italy
0.712603192
0.831716032
1426
Spain
0.781870193
0.952083753
1265
Taiwan
1.444283234
0.801319882
1251
Singapore
3.206307659
1.115050624
1018
Switzerland
1.176112207
1.087550896
983
Netherlands
0.763752608
1.184193746
887
Australia
0.593994116
1.076570374
841
« Back to figure 4
Figure 10 - Influence of RMNI on the Development of the Fields of Regenerative Medicine and Nanomedicine
Extent to which researchers feel RMNI has had a positive influence on the development of the fields of:
Regenerative medicine in Canada
Nanomedicine in Canada
Regenerative medicine internationally
Nanomedicine internationally
No influence (1)
0
3%
1%
4%
2
0
6%
1%
4%
3
8%
4%
24%
19%
4
33%
22%
25%
21%
Great influence (5)
47%
33%
29%
14%
DK/NA
11%
32%
19%
38%
« Back to figure 10
Figure 13 – RMNI-Funded Researchers’ Opinions on Multi/Transdisciplinary Research
DK/NA
Disagree
Neither agree/disagree
Agree
The multi/transdisciplinary aspect of my research:
Led to research outcomes that would not have occurred without that kind of collaboration
5%
6%
5%
84%
Produced benefits that outweighed any challenges
5%
2%
9%
84%
Was necessary to accomplish the research objectives
4%
5%
0
91%
I would participate in multi/transdisciplinary research again
1%
2%
0
97%
I would encourage other researchers to participate in multi/transdisciplinary research
0
2%
3%
95%
« Back to figure 13
Figure 14 – RMNI-Funded Researchers’ Opinions on Team Collaboration
DK/NA
Disagree
Neither agree/disagree
Agree
After the grant, I kept in regular contact with other team members
13%
6%
1%
80%
After the grant, the team continued to collaborate as a multi/transdisciplinary group
16%
9%
5%
70%
Overall, my RMNI grant facilitated more collaboration with researchers from different disciplines than would have occurred through other grant funding
5%
3%
12%
80%
Team members frequently shared information with each other
3%
5%
11%
81%
There was trust among team members
4%
2%
8%
86%
Team members capitalized on the different disciplinary perspectives
3%
8%
5%
84%
Team members were open to innovation
3%
0
9%
88%
Conflicts among team members were effectively resolved
30%
6%
13%
51%
Overall, team collaboration was effective
5%
5%
4%
86%
The team had or achieved a common understanding of the research objectives
2%
5%
7%
86%
Prior to joining the team, I had an understanding of the other collaborating disciplines
0
8%
8%
84%
My institution was supportive of my involvement in the multi/transdisciplinary research team
0
6%
11%
83%
« Back to figure 14
Figure 16 - Usefulness of RMNI Workshops for Researcher Attendees
Not at all useful (1)
2
3
4
Very useful (5)
DK/NA
Provided learning opportunities
0
4%
13%
46%
38%
0
Presented relevant information pertaining to my research
0
4%
29%
33%
33%
0
Encouraged me to apply for RMNI funding
4%
17%
21%
29%
25%
4%
Encouraged research collaborations with other attendees
0
8%
38%
33%
21%
0
Opened new directions for my research
0
25%
25%
29%
17%
4%
« Back to figure 16
Figure 17 – RMNI-funded researchers’ satisfaction with peer review
RMNI researchers compared to 2011 CIHR International Review survey respondents (Successful applicants; Theme included pillar 1; Applications included team and/or catalyst grants)
DK/NA
Dissatisfied
Neither satisfied/dissatisfied
Satisfied
Clarity of the evaluation criteria
RMNI overall
4%
0
11%
85%
CIHR International Review
0
32%
15%
53%
Usefullness of the written feedback
RMNI overall
8%
4%
14%
74%
CIHR International Review
0
29%
13%
58%
Clarity of the rating system
RMNI overall
6%
0
12%
82%
CIHR International Review
0
28%
18%
54%
Quality of peer review judgements
RMNI overall
6%
1%
4%
89%
CIHR International Review
0
36%
11%
53%
Consistency of peer review judgements
RMNI overall
8%
3%
11%
78%
CIHR International Review
1%
52%
12%
35%
« Back to figure 17
Figure 19 – RMNI-Funded Researchers’ Opinions on the Impact of the Absence of RMNI
In the absence of future RMNI funding opportunities, RMNI funded researchers would:
Strongly disagree (1)
Disagree (2)
Neither (3)
Agree (4)
Strongly agree (5)
DK/NA
Have more difficulty obtaining funding
4
14
21
35
24
2
Have more difficulty advancing their career
7
15
21
36
14
7
Be able to sustain their research program
1
22
26
39
10
1
Leave the field of health research
32
44
14
3
0
7
« Back to figure 19
RMNI logic model
Inputs
CIHR human and financial resources
Partner human, financial and in-kind resources
Researcher time, knowledge and expertise
Activities
Communications with the RM & N research community
Competition and post-award management
Convening focused workshops and meetings
Communications with other government and NGO partners
Outputs
Funded trans/multidisciplinary collaborative research projects
Funded research projects with potential for generating high impact results
Relevant workshops and meetings held
Exchange of information with government and NGO partners
Outcomes
Immediate
Capacity development in the fields of RM & N
Enhanced approaches to understanding and resolving RM & N health issues through trans/multidisciplinary collaboration
Generation of innovative tools, techniques, proposals, devices, inventions or methodologies
Development of a collaborative RM & N research network
Coordinated policy and funding decisions
Knowledge translation
Intermediate
Canada has a strong and growing presence in the fields of regenerative medicine and nanomedicine
Greater awareness of potential impact of RM & N research
Knowledge translation
Long-term
Improved quality of life for individuals, their families, and populations
Knowledge translation
« Back to RMNI logic model diagram
Date modified:
2013-09-27