Pathways Implementation Research Team – Component 2 – FAQs

  1. Do I have to submit a Component 1 grant to apply for a Component 2 or 3 grant?
  2. Does my intervention need to focus on one of the Pathways exemplars?
  3. Can my application focus on more than one Pathways exemplar?
  4. I work for a Tribal Council or Health Unit, can I apply as a Nominated Principal Applicant (NPA)?
  5. Are community members to be a part of my application? Do I need a letter from the community research partner for the letter of intent?
  6. Will I know if my intervention and/or team is eligible before submitting a full application?
  7. Are there other funding opportunities under Pathways?
  8. Who are the PEKEs? Do we need to interact with them before our Letter of Intent (LOI)?
  9. Is a Common CV (CCV) required from community members? Do community partners need to be applicants, or can they be collaborators? Common CV is a real obstacle for our community partners.
  10. Can we apply to the Component 2 Funding Opportunity if we have submitted a Component 1 grant?
  11. Is it possible to be considered for component 2 with our component 1 application, and if so, under what circumstances?
  12. It would be helpful if you could explain the note in the Funding Announcement below, stating that “Teams cannot submit the same proposal for funding to this call, if they submitted to the Component 1 funding opportunity.”
  13. Is it possible to submit a Component 2 application with different communities than the Component 1 application?
  14. Does there need to have been a formal outcome evaluation of the intervention prior to applying for component 2 or can the evaluation be a part of the process in component 2?
  15. Will it be possible to still apply for the component 2 in 09-2015 if we haven’t submitted an LOI?
  16. Can a same community be the setting for different interventions studied under different components at different times?
  17. Can one of the communities be outside of Canada?
  18. Can 100% the Component 2 budget be used for an RCT?
  19. What is the timeline for component 3?
  20. Will there be 3rd launch of Component 2 in 2017?
  21. If successful in Component 2 can we apply for component 3 when offered in 2016?
  22. Please elaborate on "Accelerating Innovations through e-health"
  23. Does a commitment to launch Component 3 remain on the table?
  24. Can the Principal Investigator be a new investigator?
  25. Can you clarify if the 25% is of the total $225,000 or is it a total of $300,000 if $75,000 is secured from partners/in-kind?
  26. Does that mean that up to 50% of the total budget could be used for enhancement/adaptation of interventions (25% of the budget from CIHR, and 100% of the partner funding?).
  27. In terms of diversity of governance for communities - what is the panel looking for?  Could you provide some examples?
  28. Can we send more people to the Pathways annual gathering (PAG) if funding is secured from somewhere else (e.g. travel grants, work, etc.)?
  29. We had a new investigator in our component I application, but he may have now aged out of the new investigator cohort ... do we need a new one?
  30. What is the point in time to determine if a new investigator is a new investigator?
  31. How many proposals are likely to be funded from the 12 shortlisted?
  32. And will these be spread across the 4 areas?
  33. How do we know there are 12 applications being submitted?
  34. Would the adaptation or enhancement of an existing intervention be able to take place in communities where the initial intervention took place, or does the intervention have to be moved to different communities?
  35. Can you provide examples of "e-health" interventions?
  36. Please provide some clarity on the engagement with PEKEs for the full application and what is required.
  37. Can the following changes be made to Applicant and Community Partner Tables from what was listed on the LOI:
  38. Diversity of Communities:
  39. Ineligible Costs: Please provide clarity on the following statement listed in the grant details:
  40. Please provide some examples on what can be included in the 25% funding request from CIHR for enhancement/adaptation of interventions? (e.g., meetings or workshops?)

1. Do I have to submit a Component 1 grant to apply for a Component 2 or 3 grant?

No. This Component 2 funding opportunity is intended for teams applying directly to Component 2.

Teams who submitted a Component 1 application cannot submit the same proposal (or they must withdraw their Component 1 application).

Submission of a Component 1 and/or Component 2 application is not required to apply for a Component 3.

The requirements for each Component are different.

2. Does my intervention need to focus on one of the Pathways exemplars?

Yes. Each team is expected to have a primary focus on a single Pathways’ exemplar. In recognition of the need for holistic approaches to wellness and the interrelationships across exemplars, proposals may include a secondary focus on one or more of the other Pathways’ exemplars.

3. Can my application focus on more than one Pathways exemplar?

Yes, however all applications must have a primary exemplar of focus.

4. I work for a Tribal Council or Health Unit, can I apply as a Nominated Principal Applicant (NPA)?

It depends on institutional eligibility. Only an NPA’s CIHR Eligible Institution Authorized to Administer Grant and Award Funds can receive CIHR funds directly. If your organization is not eligible, other Institutions can receive transfer payments from the NPA’s Institution.

5. Are community members to be a part of my application? Do I need a letter from the community research partner for the letter of intent?

Yes. Both as a named principal knowledge user and knowledge user and throughout the research process, it is expected that community leaders or members be actively and meaningfully engaged. This must be demonstrated in the application.

A letter of support from the community research partner is not required at the LOI stage; however it is required at the full application stage. Please refer to the ‘How to Apply’ section and the Specific Instructions for each step of the Funding Opportunity: Step 1: Letter of Intent and Step 2: Full Application.

6. Will I know if my intervention and/or team is eligible before submitting a full application?

Yes. An eligibility screen, relevance review and peer review will be conducted on the Letters of Intent. All applicants will be notified of decisions.

7. Are there other funding opportunities under Pathways?

Yes. In addition to the Implementation Research Teams, there are Population Health Intervention Research Grants (2015 competition closed), Applied Public Health Chairs (competition closed), and Partners for Engagement and Knowledge Exchange (PEKEs, now closed).

Pathways is also linked to the following funding opportunities:

8. Who are the PEKEs? Do we need to interact with them before our Letter of Intent (LOI)?

The PEKEs are:

  • National Association of Friendship Centres Pathway Partner for Engagement and Knowledge Exchange
  • Native Women's Association of Canada of Canada Pathway Partner for Engagement and Knowledge Exchange
  • First Nations Health and Social Secretariat of Manitoba Pathway Partner for Engagement and Knowledge Exchange

More information on the PEKEs and their role

You do not have to interact with them prior to your LOI submission, but you will work with them once funded. The PEKEs are in place to facilitate to the work of the implementation research teams in scaling up interventions across communities and translating the findings from research into policies and improved health. The PEKEs will broker relationships with regional, provincial, and local bodies to identify diverse Aboriginal communities to participate in Pathways activities and/or research.

Please also note the following re. the PEKEs:

  • A PEKE can be a partner or co-applicant on a Component 2 application
  • A PEKE cannot provide the required 25% partner leveraging
  • A PEKE cannot receive compensation or payment from a Pathways Implementation Research Team grant

Please also note the following regarding the 25% partner leveraging requirement:

  • Applicants cannot use existing grant funding from federal sources (CIHR, NSERC, SSHRC grants) for the leveraged funding
  • Applicants can use other sources of funding (e.g. provincial funding, federal contributions (ex: PHAC, FNIHB), as well as in-kind (non-financial) contributions from community, NGO, provincial, federal, private sector participants, etc.)

9. Is a Common CV (CCV) required from community members? Do community partners need to be applicants, or can they be collaborators? Common CV is a real obstacle for our community partners.

Principal Knowledge Users & Knowledge Users applicants, other than Collaborators, may submit a brief personal curriculum vitae (CV) (maximum two pages per individual) at the LOI and full application stages. The personal CVs must include 5-10 expertise keywords and other relevant information. CCVs are not required.

All academic applicants, other than Collaborators, must submit a Common CV. The decision to include community partners as collaborators or applicants should be based on their role and should align with the definitions as described in CIHR’s policies.

10. Can we apply to the Component 2 Funding Opportunity if we have submitted a Component 1 grant?

The second launch of the Component 2 funding opportunity is live. It will give successful Component 1 applicants an opportunity to apply for Component 2 funding. The funding will not start until after Component 1 grants are complete. Note that in the Component 1 funding opportunity, we stated in the Eligibility for future IRT Components “Full proposals for either component 2 or 3 will be due after 12 months. Applicants will be notified when the Funding Opportunity will be available to review and apply to.”

11. Is it possible to be considered for component 2 with our component 1 application, and if so, under what circumstances?

Teams who have submitted a full application to the Component 1 funding opportunity cannot submit the same proposal to the Component 2 funding opportunity currently posted per CIHR’s policy on application limits (because the review periods would overlap).The choice of component should be based on the team’s assessment of readiness of the intervention to be scaled up. CIHR will not consider an application submitted to one component for a different component, even if it aligns more directly with the one not applied to. It is up to the applicants to submit their proposal to the component level they feel they best align with. As a reminder, below are the component descriptors:

  • Component 1: team development grants will support research teams to identify promising or effective interventions and build relationships with First Nations, Inuit, and/or Metis communities;
  • Component 2: enhancement and adaptation grants will support research teams aimed at strengthening the effectiveness or scalability of interventions through community-informed enhancements or adaptations, and
  • Component 3: scalability grants will support research teams to study the scale-up of promising interventions across heterogeneous communities and contexts.

12. It would be helpful if you could explain the note in the Funding Announcement below, stating that “Teams cannot submit the same proposal for funding to this call, if they submitted to the Component 1 funding opportunity.”

In the Component 1 announcement, it was clearly stated that applications did not have to sequentially run through components 1, 2 and 3, but could in fact go directly to component 2 or 3. Can we maintain key elements of the component 1 proposal, including chosen exemplar and proposed team (incl. four community collaborators) and only have to adjust the proposed scope of work for a Letter of Intent for Component 2?

Yes, you can submit a letter of intent to the Component 2 funding opportunity. However, if it is for the same proposal the full application submitted to Component 1 will be withdrawn.

The second launch of the Component 2 funding opportunity is live and it will give successful Component 1 grantees an opportunity to apply for Component 2/3 funding. There is no obligation for funded Component 1 grantees to apply to Component 2 or 3 funding, however those that wish to apply for subsequent funding should be aware of the requirements, as follows:

  • If effectiveness or scalability has been demonstrated, submit a grant proposal for component 2; if effectiveness and scalability have been demonstrated, submit a grant proposal for component 2 or 3 funding.
  • Developed a partnership plan for leveraging matching research support for Component 2 applications, this leveraging does not include the cost of the intervention.

13. Is it possible to submit a Component 2 application with different communities than the Component 1 application?

No, as part of the progression from one component to the next, there is an expectation with Component 2 that more/ different communities will be involved who may be at different stages. This is why we have asked for a ‘table summarizing the communities’ under How to Apply for Component 2. We cannot fund the same project in both components because this is what applicants are expected to be working/ progressing towards. If you feel that your project fits better in Component 2, then you can apply there, but that is for you to decide.

14. Does there need to have been a formal outcome evaluation of the intervention prior to applying for component 2 or can the evaluation be a part of the process in component 2?

The focus of research supported through the IRT C2 funding opportunity is on promising or effective population health interventions aimed at one of the Pathways exemplars. In the funding opportunity, we specify that “interventions must have been demonstrated to be promising or effective”. Promising interventions are those which have demonstrated “beneficial effects on select populations, accompanied by a theoretical model for supporting expansion of the intervention to other populations” or where modest effects exist based on wider application, but “a strong theoretical basis is present for expecting improved efficacy by changing the intervention in some way” (Institute of Medicine Committee on Capitalizing on Social Science and Behavioral Research to Improve the Public’s Health, 2000). This is in contrast to proven interventions where the efficacy or effectiveness of a population health intervention is already known based on wide application.”

Yes the intervention must be assessed prior to submitting to the IRT C2 funding opportunity, but it does not need to have been done by the team submitting the Pathways application.

15. Will it be possible to still apply for the component 2 in October 2016 if we haven’t submitted an LOI?

No, you must have submitted an LOI in order to be considered at the full application stage of the 2016 Component 2 competition.

16. Can a same community be the setting for different interventions studied under different components at different times?

Yes

17. Can one of the communities be outside of Canada?

Yes, you can include communities outside of Canada for learning, but no CIHR RESEARCH funding can be spent outside of Canada. The intention of this funding opportunity is to support Aboriginal communities within Canada.

18. Can 100% the Component 2 budget be used for an RCT?

Component 2 is about generating evidence for effectiveness or scalability. The only intervention costs eligible are up to 25% for enhancement/adaptation.

19. What is the timeline for component 3?

We expect to launch Component 3 in 2017.

20. Will there be 3rd launch of Component 2 in 2017?

There is no current plan for a 3rd launch of Component 2 at this time.

21. If successful in Component 2 can we apply for component 3 when offered in 2016?

As stated above, Component 3 is expected to launch in 2017. We expect timing will allow Component 2 teams to apply for Component 3.

22. Please elaborate on "Accelerating Innovations through e-health".

Accelerating Innovations through e-health is certainly a possibility but not a requirement for Pathways. Pathways investigators may choose to incorporate aspects of e-health in the programs or policies they are investigating. i.e. e-health could be used for Suicide prevention, Obesity reduction, Oral health or TB. There are a number of innovative ways e-health can be incorporated in Pathways but it is up to investigator teams on how they would like to incorporate e-health if at all in the work they are doing.

23. Does a commitment to launch Component 3 remain on the table?

Yes, there is a commitment to launch Component 3.

24. Can the Principal Investigator be a new investigator?

Yes, a PI can be a New Investigator. Please see definition of Investigator (new).

25. Can you clarify if the 25% is of the total $225,000 or is it a total of $300,000 if $75,000 is secured from partners/in-kind?

It is a total of $300,000 if $75,000 is secured in partner or in-kind contributions. CIHR is offering up to $225,000.

26. Does that mean that up to 50% of the total budget could be used for enhancement/adaptation of interventions (25% of the budget from CIHR, and 100% of the partner funding)?

Not quite – it’s precisely 43.75%. That would consist of up to 25% of $225,000 and up to 100% of $75,000 in partner funding.

27. In terms of diversity of governance for communities - what is the panel looking for? Could you provide some examples?

There are various degrees or levels of community governance – from management by the community to co-management to management by government agencies. You have a number of indigenous communities in Canada in various locations that are essentially independent in their governance (i.e. BC First Nations, Inuit land claim corporations, while most urban communities have little or no formal structure.

There is a lot of leeway for applicants looking for interventions in communities that have governance diversity. The type of diversity the review panel will be looking for would be for example – if an intervention has been developed or tested in a community with no or little independent governance, will it also work in a community that is in a more advanced stage of management, or vice versa.

28. Can we send more people to the Pathways annual gathering (PAG) if funding is secured from somewhere else (e.g. travel grants, work, etc.)?

There is a capacity issue but we will look into it on a case by case basis.

29. We had a new investigator in our component I application, but he may have now aged out of the new investigator cohort ... do we need a new one?

Yes, you will need a ‘new’ New Investigator if the previous one is no longer considered a new investigator.

30. What is the point in time to determine if a new investigator is a new investigator?

This is the definition of a new investigator.

Send question to contact info & we will get back to you

31. How many proposals are likely to be funded from the 12 shortlisted?

We can fund 6 of these 12 proposals. This number can go up if new partner sources come in.

32. And will these be spread across the 4 areas?

Yes.

Funding pools (at least 1 from each exemplar).

Common pool for remaining applications that are in the fundable range.

33. How do we know there are 12 applications being submitted?

This is the number of applications received at the LOI stage. There might be applications that drop off but we will only know at the Full application stage.

34. Would the adaptation or enhancement of an existing intervention be able to take place in communities where the initial intervention took place, or does the intervention have to be moved to different communities?

It cannot be the same intervention but if there is an adaptation or an enhancement to it, you could go back to the original community where the intervention took place.

35. Can you provide examples of "e-health" interventions?

There have been pilot projects (interventions) in the area of suicide prevention in various parts of the world. Electronic means (e.g. cell phones, texting) have been used directly with youth or community workers working with psychologists or psychiatrists.

Oral Health or TB expertise in central locations often communicates with stakeholders in remote locations.

36. Please provide some clarity on the engagement with PEKEs for the full application and what is required.

  1. Is engaging and having one of the PEKEs listed a partner on the full application a requirement?
    It is not a requirement to partner with a PEKE, but reaching out to one or more of the PEKEs to discuss partnering is strongly recommended. However, it is ultimately up to each team to determine if partnering with a PEKE brings added value to the research process.
  2. If after communication and engagement with the PEKEs it was determined that our partnership would not be applicable or appropriate given the nature of the intervention or otherwise then should there be a statement provided in the full application that outlines our efforts to engage with PEKEs and explain why the partnerships were not applicable/appropriate?
    This is not a requirement for the application. Each team should determine whether or not to include this information.

37. Can the following changes be made to Applicant and Community Partner Tables from what was listed on the LOI:

  1. Are we able to add/remove co-investigator, collaborators and knowledge users from the original LOI application?
    Yes, as long as the eligibility criteria is met as outlined in the FO.
  2. Can we change who are listed Principal Knowledge User is?
    Yes, as long as the eligibility criteria is met as outlined in the FO.
  3. Can we add new community partners?
    Yes.

38. Diversity of Communities:

  1. Please provide definitions and examples for "community readiness for intervention" and "governance of communities"?
    Community readiness does not have a strict definition, and could be defined or determined differently by different communities. For community governance, examples could include hereditary leadership or elected leadership. The key point with the ‘diversity’ of the communities is to ensure the interventions/research is being conducted in different contexts. The best approach would be to defer to the communities to assess this.
  2. For geography, do communities have to vary on a continuum of remote to urban or can they vary on a continuum of remoteness; for example, from semi-remote to remote-isolated?
    The second example would be acceptable if, as stated above, they were determined to provide different contexts for the interventions/research.
  3. Please provide some clarity on the diversity of communities and examples on how they must be different on at least 3 of the 4 different contexts listed. If the intervention was implemented only in First Nations communities (i.e., will not vary on Aboriginal peoples’ composition/indigenous identity) then does each community have to be different from the others for on all of the remaining three factors (readiness, governance, geography)?
    Please see responses above – most importantly the point about deferring to the communities to assess the diversity.

39. Ineligible Costs:
Please provide clarity on the following statement listed in the grant details:

The following costs are not eligible for support through this Funding Opportunity:

  • While it is recognized that some promising interventions will need to be enhanced or adapted to local context, funding cannot be used to develop new interventions or to pay for the cost of interventions or their scale-up.
  • CIHR will not cover costs associated with directly replicating an intervention in a different setting or population

Specifically,

  1. Would like more clarity on what it means that CIHR will not cover costs of "directly replicating an intervention"
    CIHR will not cover costs of implementing an existing intervention into a new community - for example, if an intervention exists in Community A, CIHR funds cannot be used to implement the intervention in Community B. The only exception is that 25% of the CIHR funds can be used to adapt an intervention for community needs (so in the above example, if the intervention being implemented in Community B, 25% of the CIHR funds can be used for the “quantifiable” costs of the adaptation.
    See example below in part b).
  2. Please confirm the following budget example is correct and reflects the statement provided above and that CIHR will not cover the costs of implementing an intervention. Please confirm the 25% monetary provided by a sponsor can be used to support costs of implementing the intervention.
    Example:
    Maximum cost of Project = $900,000
    CIHR maximum cash = $675,000
    Sponsor(s) cash/in-kind = $225,000

    Of CIHR cash ($675,000), 25%, $168,750 can be used to adapt intervention for community needs
    Of CIHR cash ($675,000), 0%, $0 can be used to implement the intervention
    Of Sponsor cash ($225,000), 100%, $225,000 can be used to implement the intervention
    This example is correct

40. Please provide some examples on what can be included in the 25% funding request from CIHR for enhancement/adaptation of interventions? (e.g., meetings or workshops?)

Yes, examples include costs for meetings and workshops, materials, local costs to ensure community participation in the adaptation process.

Date modified: