Back to Search Start Over

An output evaluation of a health research foundation's enhanced grant review process for new investigators.

Authors :
Hammond GW
Lê ML
Novotny T
Caligiuri SPB
Pierce GN
Wade J
Source :
Health research policy and systems [Health Res Policy Syst] 2017 Jun 19; Vol. 15 (1), pp. 57. Date of Electronic Publication: 2017 Jun 19.
Publication Year :
2017

Abstract

Background: We assessed the ability of the Manitoba Medical Service Foundation (MMSF, a small not-for-profit foundation affiliated with Manitoba Blue Cross) to determine the best candidates for selection to receive research funding support among new researchers applying to the Research Operating Grants Programme (ROGP).<br />Methods: Using bibliometric and grants funding analyses, we retrospectively compared indices of academic outputs from five cohorts of MMSF-funded and not MMSF-funded applicants to the annual MMSF ROGP over 2008 to 2012, from 1 to 5 years after having received evaluation decisions from the MMSF enhanced grant review process.<br />Results: Those researchers funded by the MMSF competition (MMSF-funded) had a statistically significant greater number of publications, a higher h-index and greater national Tri-Council (TC) funding, versus those not selected for funding (not MMSF-funded). MMSF-funded applicants and the Manitoba research community have created a strong and rapid (within 1 to 5 years of receiving the MMSF grant) local economic return on investment associated with the MMSF ROGP that supports new investigators, of approximately nine-fold for TC grants by the principal investigator, and of 34-fold for the principal investigator on collaborative (total) TC grants.<br />Conclusions: The use of small amounts of seed money for competitive research grants at early stages of an MMSF-funded applicant's career correlates with future short-term success of that applicant. The ability to correctly select promising candidates who subsequently demonstrate greater academic performance after the MMSF funding shows the selection process and the ROGP to be of merit. Multiple components may have contributed to this outcome, including a direct presentation and interview process of the candidate with five-person selection subcommittees, plus an assessment by an external reviewer (the enhanced grant review process). The selection methods used here may add value to the research grant selection processes of new researchers.

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
1478-4505
Volume :
15
Issue :
1
Database :
MEDLINE
Journal :
Health research policy and systems
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
28629438
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-017-0220-x