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

Activities

Outputs

Outcomes

Immediate

Intermediate

Long-term

« Back to RMNI logic model diagram

Date modified: