Table 3 Summary of key findings per grant life cycle step and recommendations

Design/redesign

• The identification of research topics for the AHEAD-HPSR program is mainly based on the DOH MTRA and NUHRA, with additional consideration given to the DOH Integrated Health Agenda, health priorities set by the National Objectives of Health or Secretary of Health, and urgent concerns from the administration due to public health emergencies

• The different DOH bureaus, as end users of research, conduct their own prioritization process, and HPDPB compiles the priorities and needs of each bureau to produce a shortlist of topics to be presented to PCHRD

• The TOR endorsement process takes an average of six weeks, but can be delayed by more than two months due to factors such as availability, responsiveness, and changes in leadership or grant management

Pre-award

• Calls for Proposal are announced online through the PCHRD website and email blasts to research institutions. The standard information included in the Call are the TOR, application forms, and budget ceiling

• Researchers with a working relationship with either PCHRD or DOH receive Calls for Proposals through email or are contacted directly to submit a proposal. First time applicants rely on announcements through other channels to begin proposal development

• The selection of grantees is based on a system using an evaluation form or scorecard that assesses the significance, relevance, and technical soundness of the proposal

• Grantees noted that technical review board comments tend to focus on the budget instead of the methodological aspects of the proposal. Reviewer availability and responsiveness were identified as barriers in the timely release of technical clearance

Award

• PCHRD communicates grant decisions to applicants formally through an approval or rejection letter, and informally via email. Program staff reported that legal clearance causes delays in MOA preparation, which results in a longer waiting time for grantees to receive the final MOA

• Most grantees complain about having to go through the process of two review boards: technical and ethics. The ethics review process is slow and causes delays to project implementation, and grantees reported minimal improvement in ethics clearance turnaround time even with new guidelines

• Grantees also noted an unnecessary overlap in the review process, since ethics boards also comment on technical aspects of the proposal which were supposedly under the purview of the technical review panel

Implementation

• Familiarity or previous experience in being a grant recipient allowed grantees to directly contact AHEAD-HPSR managers for questions and grant issues without going through their assigned project officers

• Delays in receiving funds are caused by 1) errors in entry of forms, financial reports, and the line item budget, 2) delayed ethics approval, 3) bureaucratic institutional processes, and 4) meticulous scrutiny of reimbursement receipts

• Changes in scope of work such as expanded deliverables not included in the approved proposal, grant management policy changes during implementation, and other varying ethical requirements also hinder time-bound research implementation

Closeout

• Grantees find the completion of the terminal financial report as the most challenging part of the grant process due to auditing requirements

• In rare cases of failure to submit financial reports and other requirements, the project could be suspended, terminated, and have its funding discontinued

Research dissemination and utilization

• The research dissemination and utilization activities occur after the submission and approval of the final report. Funding is available for publication and conference presentations through PCHRD

• Dissemination materials are shared with relevant DOH bureaus to support health policy and program development, and utilization is monitored by both PCHRD and DOH

Recommendations

• Informants recommended seminars on grant policies to ease the bureaucratic burden of grant management

• Simplifying the bureaucracy and the release of funds is necessary to enable researchers to focus on their work

• Both technical and ethical reviews can be accelerated through the hiring of in-house reviewers, and agreements with review boards should be initiated to expedite these processes

• Improving research dissemination is a key recommendation. The grant program can publish its own journal to increase publication from its grantees, simplify the information produced by research, and cultivate a research culture among policymakers that will encourage them to practice evidence-based policymaking