Answers to questions from HCIS Team Grants Applicant Webinars (held on June 23 and July 13, 2021)

Funding/allowable costs

  • If the cost associated with an intervention are not eligible for funding, does that mean you need a partner who is planning to fund an intervention anyway, and then this CIHR grant would fund the evaluation?

    Yes. The purpose of this funding opportunity is to study the interventions that are in the works. Ideally, researchers would identify partners who are planning to implement an intervention so that co-design is possible.

  • Can a provincial partner pay for the intervention in partnership with a municipality in-kind contribution?

    Yes. There is no restriction on who pays the costs associated with the intervention except that the intervention cannot be paid for with CIHR funds.

  • To clarify, the CIHR Healthy Cities funding is for the study/data collection/analysis and the PHAC supplement can be used to fund the actual intervention?

    Correct. Applicants are encouraged to review the Allowable Costs section of the funding opportunity for more information, and to reach out to the Contact Centre for any expense eligibility questions.

  • It is not clear what the funding is to be used for, if the costs associated with the implementation of the intervention are not eligible. Are the following costs eligible for funding: costs to get access to data (e.g., ICES), costs for research personnel to collect data, costs for database creation, costs to pay partners to pull data (e.g., pay to pull data from EMR), trainees involved in evaluating interventions, costs to support partner time to engage with researchers, time to train partners to implement intervention, materials used for training.

    CIHR cannot fund an intervention. However, the costs listed above related to the evaluation of the intervention (e.g., personnel costs, evaluation, materials) are considered eligible by both CIHR and PHAC. Applicants are encouraged to review the Allowable Costs section of the funding opportunity for more information, and to reach out to the Contact Centre for any expense eligibility questions.

  • Understanding that expenses will be principles-based per the Tri-Agency Guide on Financial Administration (TAGFA), what falls under intervention vs implementation science?

    There is nothing in the TAGFA that can answer this question. Since all research projects are different and that the intervention is one part of the implementation science research, it is not possible to answer this question directly. Costs associated with the intervention are not eligible expenses for this funding opportunity. Applicants are encouraged to review the Allowable Costs section of the funding opportunity for more information to consult with their administering institution and/or to reach out to the Contact Centre for any expense eligibility questions.

  • If the costs related to the intervention are not allowed under CIHR eligible costs, besides research staff, what else can be covered under CIHR costs?

    CIHR funds can be used for many purposes in the research project. Applicants are encouraged to review the Allowable Costs section of the funding opportunity for more information, and to reach out to the Contact Centre for any expense eligibility questions.

  • Are expenses related to knowledge exchange activities eligible to be claimed from the grant funds? For example, would expenses related to holding an in-person meeting be considered eligible expenses?

    Costs of the knowledge exchange activities that are associated with the evaluation of the intervention are normally considered eligible by CIHR. Applicants are encouraged to review the Allowable Costs section of the funding opportunity for more information, to consult with their administering institution and to reach out to the Contact Centre for any expenses-related questions.

  • Can funds from Canada go to other countries like USA?

    The Nominated Principal Applicant must be Canadian and the grant funds must be held in Canada and administered at a CIHR eligible administering institution. However, funds can be transferred to institutions outside of Canada through an agreement. For more information about transfer of funds between institutions, consult Part 3: Financial Matters, section "Transfer of Funds" of the Tri-Agency Guide on Financial Administration.

Eligibility

  • Can you have more than one PKU (one for each municipality)?

    Yes, there is no maximum.

  • Would independent community centres qualify as "community-based organizations” under the PKU criteria, or must they come under the administrative responsibilities of a city mayor?

    Yes, a community centre would qualify as a PKU (community-based organization) as long as it is directly involved in the intervention roll-out. As stated in Eligibility section of the funding opportunity, "The PKU must also hold an active position in policy development, senior community leadership or management at a municipal or community-based organization (e.g. community health centres, community-based primary healthcare practices, Indigenous representative organizations, etc.) that developed the intervention of study and/or will be involved in testing/rolling out the intervention".

Application process

  • On ResearchNet, it says that budget information is optional. The presenter said to submit. Which is it, please?

    As per the How to Apply section (Letter of Intent step) of the funding opportunity, budget information is necessary at LOI only if a Development and Engagement grant of $25,000 is requested.  At the Full Application step, the budget information is mandatory.

  • If teams do not ask for LOI funds, could CIHR invite more than 3 projects to submit a full application?

    No. Only 18 teams will advance to the full application stage, regardless of if the teams applied for LOI funds.

  • Are the CIHR and PHAC components based on the same application or two parallel applications separately assessed?

    CIHR and PHAC components are based on the same application submitted to CIHR. Should applicants wish to receive PHAC supplemental funding, at the Full Application step they will need to include the PHAC supplemental funding documentation as part of their CIHR’s application. Note that peer reviewers will evaluate the PHAC supplementary funding portion of the applications concurrently with the full CIHR proposal resulting in two independent rankings.

  • What is the difference between the letter of support for PHAC and the Partner letter for CIHR? Should they come from different organizations?

    The PHAC letters of support can be from the same organizations as those providing support to the CIHR portion of the project, or from different organizations. They should be official, signed letters from the partner, confirming their role and support to the PHAC portion of the project. Letters of support should be provided from all partners confirmed at this stage. As per the How to Apply section of the funding opportunity, the CIHR Partner letter should describe the agreement with the partner(s) (i.e.: municipality, industry, charity, etc.) who will cover the cost of the intervention should their team grant application be successful. For more details about writing a letter, please visit CIHR Writing Letters of Support.

  • At the LOI stage, how many teams will be invited into the full application process? Will teams be invited and/or introduced to work together when projects are similar in nature to submit a full application?

    Funding is available for up to 18 Development and Engagement grants (three in each thematic research area) up to $25,000 each. These 18 teams will be allowed to apply for the Full Application stage. While there will not be a strengthening workshop for this funding call between the LOI and Full Application stages, we encourage all applicants to take advantage of the partner linkage tool before and after LOI results are announced to collaborate. The CIHR funding decision database is a useful tool to confirm if there are similar or complementary projects advancing to the Full Application stage.

  • Is CIHR able to extend the LOI deadline to a later date to give researchers more time to prepare their applications?

    CIHR has decided to extend the LOI application deadline by nine weeks. The new deadline date is October 13, 2021. This change is now reflected in the funding opportunity.

  • Do PKUs have to submit an Applicant Profile CV and complete Equity and Diversity Questionnaire at LOI stage?

    Yes. At the LOI stage, PKUs have to submit either an Applicant Profile CV or a CIHR Biosketch CV. They also have to complete the Equity and Diversity Questionnaire.

  • If you have more than one Canadian municipality/PKU identified at LOI stage, do all have to complete the Sex & Gender training, provide Letters of support, etc. by the LOI stage to be eligible?

    Correct. CIHR recognizes that these requirements could be burdensome for community-based organizations, however, these documents must be provided by the LOI deadline in order for the application to be considered. Please note that a minimum of one (1) municipality and PKU need to be identified at the LOI stage, additional participants can be added at the Full Application stage.

  • At the LOI stage, are we limited to listing only the partners that we’ve already secured endorsement from? Or can we mention those that we have informal connections with and will get endorsement from by the full application stage?

    At the LOI stage, you should only list the partners you have already secured endorsement from. You will be able to list additional partners at the Full Application step.

Partner Letters

  • According to the application instructions, the NPI is required to identify a PKU and include a partner letter. The NPI is required to identify a municipality that the PKU is affiliated with and include a partner letter. However, what remains unclear is if the municipality must be a PKU and provide a separate letter.

    The municipality does not need to be the PKU but the partner letter from the PKU must describe the agreement with the partner(s) (i.e. municipality, industry, charity, etc.) who will cover the cost of the intervention should their team grant application be successful.

  • If the (non-municipality) PKU is self-financing the intervention roll-out, must the Partner Letter be from the municipality?

    No. As per the Eligibility section of the funding opportunity, the Partner Letter must describe the agreement with the partner(s) (i.e. municipality, industry, charity, etc.) who will cover the cost of the intervention should their team grant application be successful. So, in this case, the Partner letter would come from the community-based organization the PKU is affiliated with.

  • If the (non-municipality) PKU is self-financing the intervention roll-out, must the Partner Letter be from the community-based organization the PKU is affiliated with?

    Yes. As per the Eligibility section of the funding opportunity, the Partner Letter must describe the agreement with the partner(s) (i.e. municipality, industry, charity, etc.) who will cover the cost of the intervention should their team grant application be successful. So, in this case, the Partner letter would come from the community-based organization the PKU is affiliated with.

Involvement of Early Career Researchers (ECRs)

  • If the NPA is an ECR, does the team still require an additional ECR?

    No, the team does not need to have an additional ECR if the NPA is an ECR. To re-iterate, the NPA can be an ECR.

  • Concerning the eligibility criterion “the core team must include an ECR identified as a PA”: does this applicant need to be an ECR both at the LOI and full application stages to fit the criterion? What if their ECR status changes in the meantime?

    ECR must be eligible by the LOI deadline. CIHR will verify that the applicant is within 0-84 months from their first eligible appointment as Independent researcher and consider any extension related to leaves and Covid-19.

  • Hasn’t the ECR window been extended from five years to six years due to COVID

    We are actually extending the ECR status to 7 years. Due to impacts of COVID-19, CIHR has extended the time considered ECR by two years. Please note, however, that this applies only to those who held ECR status as of March 1, 2020, or who secured their first academic appointment after this date.

  • Does the ECR need to be a Canadian researcher?

    The ECR do not need to be Canadian unless applying as the NPA.

Sex and Gender-Based Analysis+

  • Can you comment on sex and gender-based analysis (SGBA+)?

    If you are referring to eligibility requirements in terms of SGBA+, the NPA and PKU (and Sex and Gender Champion - if this individual is neither the NPA nor the PKU co-leading the funded activities) must have successfully completed at least one of the sex and gender-based analysis training modules available online through the CIHR Institute of Gender and Health and have submitted a Certificate of Completion. If you are referring to how to integrate sex and gender in research, please consult the "How to integrate sex and gender in research" section on the CIHR website.

  • What makes someone a Sex/Gender champion?

    The Sex and Gender Champion must have experience in sex and gender-based analysis or with gender diversity in the community. More detailed information on Sex and Gender Champions can be found on CIHR Website.

  • Will you be adding an SGBA+ learning module created for Knowledge Users? The ones currently included are targeted to researchers, yet KUs are required to complete one for the application.

    There currently is no SBGA+ training module specifically for KUs. Therefore, KUs will need to complete one of the SGBA+ training modules for researchers.

  • Why are Principal Knowledge Users (PKUs) who are from community-based organizations/municipalities, required to complete the sex & gender module?

    The HCIS Team Grant was designed to ensure PKU participation from the onset of project and throughout the duration of the grant. As such, they are required to complete the sex & gender module and understand the sex & gender impacts, as they are considered an integral part of the research team.

Site/city

  • Can you please expand on the ResearchNet Opportunity details’ definition of municipality? Can it be an organization within a city? Not-for-profit? For-profit? Or does municipality presume government? What about health authorities?

    For the purposes of this funding opportunity, "cities" and "municipalities" are used interchangeably and are defined as being located wholly or partly within medium or large population centres as defined by Statistics Canada. The Principal Knowledge User (PKU) must be affiliated with a municipality i.e., have an appointment with an organization (municipal/provincial, community-based, etc.) within that municipality and have the ability to implement, or have influence over the implementation of the intervention.

  • When you say multi-sites do you mean 2 or more cities and/or 2 or more sites within a local/ city such as a community center and clinic etc.?

    By multi-site we mean two (2) different municipalities, located wholly or partly within medium or large population centres as defined by Statistics Canada. Additional study site can be situated in municipalities located outside of medium or large population centres and can include small, non-rural municipalities or international sites.

  • Can we include more than two municipalities at the full proposal stage?

    Yes.

  • Can you define urban? Is there a minimum population in a municipality to be considered?

    The research activities described in the application must relate to an intervention in a municipality located wholly or partly within medium or large population centres as defined by Statistics Canada. Please see the definition of a medium or large population centre and a ranking for population centres in Canada on Statistics Canada Website.

Supportive environments

  • Do supportive environments include accessible environments (i.e., with a ramp or handrail to access the building) so people can connect with others?

    Yes, supportive environments include accessible environments. Please note that PHAC has limitations on what it is permitted to cover as per the Program’s Terms and Conditions. The Healthy Canadians and Communities Fund, the program supporting the PHAC Supplemental Funding portion of the Healthy Cities Implementation Science Team Grants, is not authorized to cover capital costs such as the purchase of buildings (including renovations/construction), land, and vehicles.

  • For the supportive environments - I am wondering if the PHAC considers removing all barriers (physical and social) to social participation part of supportive environments

    PHAC does consider removing barriers to social participation as part of supportive environments. Please note, however, that this does not apply to barriers such as anything related to capital cost such as actual infrastructure. PHAC has limitations on what it is permitted to cover as per the Program’s Terms and Conditions. The Healthy Canadians and Communities Fund, the program supporting the PHAC Supplemental Funding portion of the Healthy Cities Implementation Science Team Grants, is not authorized to cover capital costs such as the purchase of buildings (including renovations/construction), land, and vehicles.

Research intervention

  • At what stage does the intervention need to be? Must it have already been implemented in one city or area, or can it be a developed intervention that has been piloted with individuals but not within a community?

    It is important that the research intervention featured in the application be evidence-based, meaning there is evidence that the intervention was successfully implemented and achieved desired outcomes in another context which can include a pilot study in whole or (in part) of a community. With this determined, in the context of this competition, applicants would research this evidence-based intervention in a new (i.e., different) context. The stage of the intervention in the new context is not relevant, meaning it may not have been implemented in the new study context yet, or it may exist at an early stage of implementation in the new study context. What is important is that an implementation science approach is able to be applied to the intervention in the new setting as it rolls out.

  • Can an intervention be something that was done by non-public sector? An example may be a housing provision by a private sector.

    Yes, it can be.

  • Under the PHAC Supplemental Funding, can we apply for multiple intervention projects related to the same thematic priority? Can the NPA delegate authority to more than one KU and/or implementation partners?

    Multiple intervention projects can be related to the same thematic priority under PHAC Supplemental Funding. However, each application for PHAC Supplemental Funding must be directly connected to one CIHR application. If you are submitting multiple CIHR applications, then you could potentially apply for multiple PHAC supplemental funding arrangements.

  • Would social support offered through an interactive digital platform be eligible, or does social support need to be offered in person?

    An online platform would be eligible.

  • The Principal Knowledge User (PKU) is supposed to have been involved in the piloting/testing of the intervention. Is that accurate?

    No. The PKUs don’t need to have been involved with and/or have any background on an intervention that was previously piloted/tested. The PKUs must show that they have leadership to ensure that the study intervention will roll out in the chosen municipalities. This requirement is around feasibility and it aims to maximize the success of the project.

  • The funding opportunity states that the intervention has to be one that has shown promise or is evidence-based. Can you make a distinction between the evidence for an intervention vs the implementation strategy/intervention i.e., which one has to have some evidence that it works?

    There must be evidence that the intervention under study is effective for the health outcome in some context. There does not have to be evidence around the implementation strategy.

Thematic research area questions

  • Is primary prevention of cognitive decline among community-dwelling older adults eligible?

    Provided that all other criteria and eligibility noted in the funding opportunity are met, this area is eligible. However, the Letter of Intent and Full Application would need to be evaluated fully.

  • Is the call focused on primary prevention or would it also include secondary prevention: reducing occurrence of chronic conditions among people with disabilities?

    It depends on the pool applied to. For instance, PHAC’s supplemental funds are very specifically focused on primary prevention.

  • Can a health service and policy researcher be mainly affiliated with non-health service discipline (e.g., urban planner but focusing on health service policy)?

    Yes. The funding opportunity eligibility criteria at the LOI stage specify that applications relevant to the Healthcare Systems, Services and Policies thematic area must include the following 2 participants:

    • A health services and policy researcher; and
    • A primary healthcare provider OR a healthcare decision maker.

    The eligibility criteria do not specify whether the health services and policy researcher must be from a specific discipline, as the community is diverse in its disciplinary composition. As per the relevant research area details, the project must focus on the implementation and evaluation of interventions designed to integrate population health approaches within urban PHC delivery settings to improve health and well-being.

  • Do we have to choose one or many research thematic areas (in order of relevance) based on the proposed research project?

    You can include one or more thematic areas but, if you choose more, you have to rank them in order of relevance.

  • Can you provide clarity on the point about applications automatically being considered for the IPPH award? It sounded like you said that even if the applicant did not identify their proposal as relevant to IPPH, it would still be considered by that institute if the reviewers felt it was relevant. Does this not put researchers submitting to the IPPH pool at a disadvantage?

    Since the entire funding opportunity is focused on population health interventions to improve the environmental, social, cultural and/or structural determinants of health, all applications must be relevant to the Institute of Population and Public Health (IPPH) in order to align with the objectives and goals of the funding opportunity. The IPPH pool constitutes a ‘general pool’ and therefore all applications that meet the eligibility criteria to this competition will be considered for the general pool. The IPPH pool will be funding the best research project that was not funded within the other pools including the projects that are solely relevant to the IPPH pool. It is up to the applicants to decide if they wish to apply to additional pools or not depending on their area of interest.

National Health and Medical Research Council supplemental funding

Eligibility

  • Australian “team” or Australian site? Or both?

    Both. Applications applying for the NHMRC supplemental funding will require the participation of at least one Australian researcher, and a minimum of one Australian site. For more information about the NHMRC supplementary funding, please consult the funding opportunity.

  • Can Canadian applicants nominate more than one Australian partner on their applications, and can they submit more than one LOI (with each application having a different project/partner from Australia)?

    Canadian applicants can nominate more than one Australian partner as part of their application. Please note that Canadian teams are required to have at least two Canadian cities involved in their projects, and if there is an Australian component, there is a requirement to have at least 3 cities (2 Canadian and 1 Australian). Yes, Canadian applicants can submit more than one LOI.

  • Would other authorities (such as Local Health Districts in New South Wales, Australia or Regional Health Authorities elsewhere) that shape the health of urban environments be eligible instead of a municipality?

    While these are acceptable authorities to include in the project as Principal Knowledge User (PKU), they must represent a specific urban environment(s) (i.e., city) where the intervention will be tested. The PKU must be affiliated with a municipality i.e., have an appointment with an organization (municipal/provincial, community-based, etc.) within that municipality and have the ability to implement, or have influence over the implementation of the intervention. For the purposes of this funding opportunity, “cities” and “municipalities” are used interchangeably and are defined as being located wholly or partly within medium or large population centres as defined by Statistics Canada.

Letter of Support

  • What information do you require within the Letter of Support from the Australian partner? Do you name the primary applicant or Chief Investigator A (CIA) on the Australian side?

    The letter(s) of support provided at the LOI step should speak to the Australian partner’s commitment and how they will contribute to the application. To apply for the NHMRC component there is a requirement to submit at least one letter of support from the CIA or their institution. For guidance on how to write letters of support, please visit this page.

  • In regard to the NHMRC Letter of Support, and given the focus on answering what is asked for in the CIHR Letter of Intent from the Canadian NPA, what is the maximum number of pages permitted for the NHMRC Letter of Support?

    The page limit for the Australian partner letter of support is 99 pages.

How to Apply

  • Must the Australian Chief Investigator A (CIA) be named Principal Applicant in Researchnet (CIHR) and submit their CCV?

    No. At both the LOI and Full Application steps, the Canadian NPA must identify the Australian Chief Investigator A (CIA) as Collaborator in ResearchNet (CIHR) on the participant table and specify the CIA role in the Description of Role column. In addition, to apply for the NHMRC component there is a requirement to submit at least one letter of support from the CIA or their institution. The letter(s) of support provided at the LOI step should speak to the Australian partner’s commitment and how they will contribute to the application.

    At the Full Application step, the CIA will be required to submit a NHMRC application through Sapphire, NHMRC’s grant management system. This includes the completion of mandatory sections of ‘My Profile’.

  • Is a focus on comparative research expected if an Australian partner works with a Canadian team?

    Yes, the focus is on implementation science and requires a focus on how context impacts the effectiveness and uptake of the intervention in question across sites.

Allowable Costs/Funding

  • Does NHMRC have the same restriction that requires the partner to fund the intervention, such that NHMRC funds can only be used for evaluation and for knowledge exchange, or are the allowable costs different?

    Funding provided by NHMRC for a grant activity must be spent on costs directly incurred in that grant activity that satisfy the principles and requirements outlined in the Direct Research Costs Guidelines on the NHMRC website. NHMRC-CIHR HCIS Team Grant funds are for research cost expenditure in Australia and NHMRC will only fund Australian components of the project. NHMRC will not fund any components of the projects that relate to the Canadian municipality or city research funded by the CIHR.

    For more information, refer to Section 5 What the grant money can be used for in the grant guidelines.

  • If a CIHR application is funded and the NHMRC funds are exhausted, is the Australian partner expected to seek supplementary funding elsewhere (e.g., from other funding agencies)?

    If it’s possible to find funding elsewhere then yes, it can be done. However, for this competition, it is important to make sure that the Canadian application is not dependent on the Australian component because funding from CIHR does not guarantee funds from NHMRC.

  • Are expenses related to knowledge exchange activities eligible to be claimed from the grant funds? For example, would expenses related to holding an in-person meeting be considered eligible expenses?

    Costs of the knowledge exchange activities that are associated with the evaluation of the intervention are normally considered eligible by CIHR. Applicants are encouraged to review the Allowable Costs section of the funding opportunity for more information, to consult with their administering institution and to reach out to the Contact Centre for any expenses-related questions.

    Funding provided by NHMRC for a grant activity must be spent on costs directly incurred in that grant activity that satisfy the principles and requirements outlined in the Direct Research Costs Guidelines on the NHMRC website. NHMRC-CIHR HCIS Team Grant funds are for research cost expenditure in Australia and NHMRC will only fund Australian components of the project. NHMRC will not fund any components of the projects that relate to the Canadian municipality or city research funded by the CIHR.

    For more information, refer to Section 5 What the grant money can be used for in the grant guidelines.

Other

  • Does the Australian funding extend to New Zealand cities or is it strictly Australia?

    NHMRC funding is for Australian cities only.

  • For Canadian teams, will engaging an Australian partner help demonstrate research potential at the LOI stage?

    No, this is not considered as a factor when demonstrating research potential. Canadian teams are not required to engage an Australian partner to apply or be successful.

  • Will Canadian research teams who engage an Australian partner at the LOI stage increase their chance of making it to the full application stage (compared to Canadian teams who do not engage an Australian partner in their proposal)?

    No. Evaluating the partnership potential is referring to the partnership with the cities and potential to complete the project.

  • How similar to the Canadian intervention does the intervention in Australia needs to be?

    The intervention in the Australian municipality needs to be similar to the intervention in the Canadian municipalities so that they can be compared.

  • Will the peer review of both LOI and Full Application steps be conducted by CIHR, with NHMRC only checking specific information?

    Correct. Peer review for both LOI and Full Application steps will be managed by CIHR. NHMRC will only be reviewing Indigenous research criteria and budgets for Australian applications.

Date modified: