Canadian Institutes of Health Research is the major federal agency responsible for funding health research in Canada. It is the successor to the Medical Research Council of Canada. It aims to create new health knowledge, and to translate that knowledge from the research setting into real world applications. The CIHR was created by an Act of Parliament on June 7, 2000; bringing together existing government activities. In 2009-2010, CIHR's budget was just over 1 billion dollars.CIHR is a Departmental Corporation listed in Schedule II of the Financial Administration Act. As an arms length agency of government, it is accountable to Parliament through the Minister of Health.CIHR is managed by the Prime Minister and the Governing Council, who are assisted by various Standing and Advisory Committees. The current appointed president of CIHR is Dr. Alain Beaudet.CIHR consists of 13 "virtual" institutes, each headed by a Scientific Director and assisted by an Institute Advisory Board. They work together to shape a national health research agenda for Canada. The institutes bring together researchers, health professionals and policy-makers from voluntary health organizations, provincial government agencies, international research organizations and industry and patient groups from across the country with a shared interest in improving the health of Canadians.The work of the institutes embraces the four pillars of health research: biomedical; clinical; research respecting health systems and services; and the social, cultural and environmental factors that affect the health of populations.A major challenge for the institutes is to forge relationships across disciplines to stimulate integrative, multifaceted research agendas that respond to society's health priorities while adhering to the highest ethical standards.CIHR supports more than 14,000 researchers and researchers in training as part of the federal government's investment in health research. The peer review process is a vital part of CIHR. Review by panels of peers from the research community ensures proposals approved for funding by CIHR meet international accepted standards of scientific excellence.In 2008 CIHR also organised a series of Café Scientifique events across Canada.CIHR is supplying funding for PubMed Central Canada in partnership with the United States National Library of Medicine and Canada Institute for Scientific and Technical Information .In November 2009, controversy arose over the appointment of a senior executive of Pfizer to CIHR's governing council. Wikipedia.
Heaman M.,Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Birth | Year: 2010
Background: The increasing pregnancy rate at advanced maternal age is contemporaneous with the increasing rate of cesarean birth. Several studies have found that advanced maternal age is a risk factor for cesarean birth. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the relationship between advanced maternal age and cesarean birth among nulliparous and multiparous women. Methods: To identify relevant studies, we searched the literature for articles published from January 1, 1995 to March 1, 2008, using Medline, EMBASE, PsychINFO, and CINAHL. We also hand-searched the bibliographies of retrieved articles to identify additional related studies. We included all cohort studies and all case-control studies that examined this association in developed countries. The Cochrane Collaboration's Review Manager software (5.0) was used to summarize the data. Results: Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. All studies demonstrated an increased risk of cesarean birth among women at advanced maternal age compared with younger women, for both nulliparas and multiparas (relative risk varied from 1.39 to 2.76). Because we found extreme heterogeneity (both statistical and clinical) among the included studies, we did not provide a pooled estimate of the risk of cesarean birth. Conclusions: All included studies illustrated an increased risk of cesarean birth among older women. Fifteen studies adjusted this association for potential confounders, which suggests that a valid and independent association is likely to exist between advanced maternal age and cesarean birth. However, the associated factors for this increased risk are not totally understood in the literature. (BIRTH 37:3 September 2010) © 2010, Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Source
Stein D.J.,University of Cape Town |
He Y.,Shanghai Mental Health Center |
Phillips A.,Canadian Institutes of Health Research |
Sahakian B.J.,University of Cambridge |
And 2 more authors.
The Lancet Psychiatry | Year: 2015
Global mental health has emerged as an important specialty. It has drawn attention to the burden of mental illness and to the relative gap in mental health research and services around the world. Global mental health has raised the question of whether this gap is a developmental issue, a health issue, a human rights issue, or a combination of these issues-and it has raised awareness of the need to develop new approaches for building capacity, mobilising resources, and closing the research and treatment gap. Translational neuroscience has also advanced. It comprises an important conceptual approach to understanding the neurocircuitry and molecular basis of mental disorders, to rethinking how best to undertake research on the aetiology, assessment, and treatment of these disorders, with the ultimate aim to develop entirely new approaches to prevention and intervention. Some apparent contrasts exist between these fields; global mental health emphasises knowledge translation, moving away from the bedside to a focus on health systems, whereas translational neuroscience emphasises molecular neuroscience, focusing on transitions between the bench and bedside. Meanwhile, important opportunities exist for synergy between the two paradigms, to ensure that present opportunities in mental health research and services are maximised. Here, we review the approaches of global mental health and clinical neuroscience to diagnosis, pathogenesis, and intervention, and make recommendations for facilitating an integration of these two perspectives. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. Source
Morgan D.G.,Canadian Institutes of Health Research |
D'Arcy C.K.,University of Saskatchewan
Journal of the Medical Library Association | Year: 2013
Objectives: The research determined (1) the information sources that family physicians (FPs) most commonly use to update their general medical knowledge and to make specific clinical decisions, and (2) the information sources FPs found to be most physically accessible, intellectually accessible (easy to understand), reliable (trustworthy), and relevant to their needs. Methods: A cross-sectional postal survey of 792 FPs and locum tenens, in full-time or part-time medical practice, currently practicing or on leave of absence in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan was conducted during the period of January to April 2008. Results: Of 666 eligible physicians, 331 completed and returned surveys, resulting in a response rate of 49.7% (331/666). Medical textbooks and colleagues in the main patient care setting were the top 2 sources for the purpose of making specific clinical decisions. Medical textbooks were most frequently considered by FPs to be reliable (trustworthy), and colleagues in the main patient care setting were most physically accessible (easy to access). Conclusions: When making specific clinical decisions, FPs were most likely to use information from sources that they considered to be reliable and generally physically accessible, suggesting that FPs can best be supported by facilitating easy and convenient access to high-quality information. Source
Agency: Cordis | Branch: H2020 | Program: CSA | Phase: HCO-02-2014 | Award Amount: 2.03M | Year: 2015
J-AGEII, the Coordination Action for implementation and alignment activities of the Joint Programming Initiative (JPI) More Years Better Lives the Challenges and Opportunities of Demographic Change, will support and foster the overall management of the JPI, update the Strategic Research Agenda and support implementation through joint activities between Member States. Furthermore, the work plan will include dissemination and information exchange with scientific and societal stakeholders, policy makers and research funders as well as an evaluation and monitoring exercise. Ultimately, the project and the JPI seek to stimulate the alignment of relevant national programmes and EU initiatives, strengthen the base of multi-disciplinary and holistic ageing research in Europe and to provide scientific evidence for policy responses to demographic change.
Agency: Cordis | Branch: H2020 | Program: ERA-NET-Cofund | Phase: ISIB-12f-2015 | Award Amount: 15.59M | Year: 2016
ERA-HDHL is a proposal of ERA-NET Cofund in the field of nutrition and health to support the Joint Programme Initiative Healthy Diet for a Healthy Life (JPI HDHL). Nowadays, there is a high burden of non-communicable diseases due to unhealthy diet and lifestyle patterns. The 24 members of the JPI HDHL are working together to develop means to (1) motivate people to adopt healthier lifestyles including dietary choices and physical activity, (2) develop and produce healthy, high-quality, safe and sustainable foods and (3) prevent diet-related diseases. Between 2012 and 2015, JPI HDHL had implemented 7 JFAs with 40 M funds from national funding. The JPI HDHL is now set for further enhancement in tight coordination with the EC through the ERA-NET Cofund instrument. ERA-HDHL will provide a robust platform for implementing joint funding actions (JFAs) that address the needs identified in the JPI HDHL strategic research agenda and strengthen the research funding activities of JPI HDHL. An EC cofunded call on the identification and validation of biomarkers in nutrition and health will be implemented. For this foreseen action, the member countries of the JPI HDHL have doubled their financial commitment comparing to previous JFA implemented on a similar topic. Moreover, ERA-HDHL will launch at least 3 additional JFAs in line to fulfil the JPI HDHL objectives.