Inside the Grant Review Process: A Patient Partner’s Perspective

It’s grant reviewing season, and I wanted to share my experience as a person with lived experience who has been involved in reviewing many research grants. If you’ve never signed up to do this before, I hope this gives you a sense of what’s involved, what to expect, and why your voice matters.

Grant review panels play a critical role in deciding which research projects get funded. Reviewers assess the scientific merit, feasibility, and relevance of applications, while also considering equity, diversity, and inclusion. By bringing together people from different backgrounds—including those with lived experience—panels help ensure that research funding supports projects with the greatest potential for real-world impact.

Since 2007, I have been a patient reviewer on research grants, starting with the Canadian Arthritis Network/Arthritis Society trainee grant applications. Since then, I’ve reviewed grants for CIHR, the Saskatchewan Centre for Patient-Oriented Research (SCPOR), and the Evidence Alliance. Each group has a slightly different process; some have us look at only the patient collaboration part of the application and some have us look at the entire application. Either way, the process can be time-consuming and should not be left to the last minute.

No matter the format, one thing is always clear: patient reviewers are included because they value our voice and opinion. I’ve seen firsthand how our feedback can influence the way scientific reviewers score applications. I think this is why it is important for patient partners to volunteer to do grant reviews, to let your voice be heard.

Each group has a training session and assigns a specific number of applications to each patient partner. The final adjudication meeting can last for a few hours to several days, depending on how many applications each organization receives. One thing I have found frustrating is seeing so many really strong applications not get funded because of a lack of funding dollars. Some of the smaller granting agencies, such as charities, serve a vital purpose to fill this gap. I have heard researchers say that without their smaller funded applications, they would not have grants and publications that would help them apply for CIHR grants, which are usually the most significant funding opportunities.

Being part of this process can take effort, but it’s incredibly rewarding to know your input helps shape which research moves forward.