Occupational exposure to vapours, gases, dusts and fumes and the development of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Proposal instructions

WSIB Research and Grants Program

On this page

Section 1: Funding overview

Updated as of October 4, 2021

The objective of the WSIB Research and Grants Program is to enhance workers’ compensation system outcomes by supporting innovative proposals that are aligned to the WSIB’s strategic mandate.

This is accomplished through highly practical, expert research studies and training initiatives delivered by professional individuals and organizations that address current and emerging challenges, and strengthen Ontario's workers' compensation system now and in the future.

Systematic review grants support research issues of immediate relevance to occupational health and safety, and may help to answer key questions in workers' compensation. Outcomes from systematic reviews may be considered by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) to determine whether the scientific evidence meets the recommended standards for scheduling, policy development or for adjudicative support in case-by-case decision-making.

Section 2: Funding opportunity

Updated as of October 4, 2021

The WSIB is interested in awarding a grant for a systematic review of the scientific evidence examining if occupational exposure to vapours, gases, dusts, and fumes causes the development of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Specifically, the review must address:

  • Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
  • Occupational exposure to vapours, gases, dusts and fumes, such as 
    • Occupations with vapours, gases, dusts and fumes exposure including hard rock miners, coal miners, cement manufacturing, aluminum smelting and refining, cadmium alloy production, asbestos workers, foundry workers, and welders, 
    • Occupational vapours, gases, dusts and fumes exposures including silica, asbestos, cement dust, coal dust, cadmium dust and fumes, foundry exposure, aluminum smelting and refining, welding fumes and dust, smelting involving the production of sulphur dioxide
    • Any other occupations with known vapours, gases, dusts and fumes exposures (e.g., agricultural workers) or occupational vapours, gases, dusts and fumes exposures (e.g., organic dusts) associated with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, not mentioned above.
  • Identification of
    • subgroups of exposed workers who have an increased risk of developing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
    • any exposure-response trends of increasing risk with increasing duration, frequency or intensity of exposure, including whether there is a minimum cumulative dose of exposure associated with increased risk 
    • minimal interval (latency) between the first exposure and the development of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
    • any interdependent causes or synergistic relationships with other risk factors

The review must follow established principles for conducting systematic reviews. The research team may indicate if they plan on registering the systematic review and research protocol with the International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO).

Refer to Proposal Instructions Appendix C for detailed requirements for the systematic review.

Required outputs

For the purpose of this grant competition, a systematic review is considered to be a review of a clearly formulated research question that uses systematic and replicable methods to identify, select and critically appraise all relevant scientific research, and to collect and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. Methods used should also minimize bias and ensure results are reproducible. Statistical methods such as meta-analyses should be used, if appropriate, to analyze and summarize the results of the included studies. A rationale and the appropriate supporting analysis should be clearly identified to validate the inclusion or exclusion of meta-analytic techniques.

This information may be considered by the WSIB to determine whether the scientific evidence meets the recommended standards for scheduling, policy development or for adjudicative support in case-by-case decision-making.

Section 3: Eligibility Criteria 

Updated as of October 4, 2021

1. Who can apply to the WSIB Research and Grants Program?

The research team will require a minimum of three (3) team members including:

  • At least one member with a doctorate in epidemiology
  • At least one member who has formal training in toxicology or industry hygiene (Masters level or PhD)
  • At least one member of the team must have demonstrated experience conducting systematic reviews including meta-analyses related to disease etiology

Expert researchers affiliated with an eligible applicant organization: 

  • Publicly funded universities or colleges 
  • Public hospitals with a specialized research area 
  • Not-for-profit or registered charitable organizations with the capability and capacity to conduct research 
  • Canadian non-governmental organizations with the capability and capacity to conduct research 
  • Other organizations that have the capability and capacity to conduct research and are not privately owned and operated may also be eligible for a WSIB grant 

Private organizations are not eligible to apply for a WSIB research grant as a project or secondary lead. Private organizations may be identified as a partner or collaborator of an eligible applicant organization. 

2. What legislation guides the WSIB Research and Grants Program?

Proposals must be consistent with Section 159(5) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, which provides the WSIB with the authority to offer grants for the purposes of research, training and investigations  in amounts and subject to such conditions as the Board considers acceptable.

3. What is the duration of the grant funding for this initiative? What is the maximum funding limit per year for this initiative?

One grant will be awarded in the amount of $175,000 for a term of up to 18 months.

Refer to Appendix B for detailed funding use restrictions.

Project team descriptions

Project Lead
The Project Lead must be based in or formally affiliated with an eligible host organization (university, college, hospital, research institute or other qualified not-for-profit organization).

The Project Lead is responsible for managing and monitoring the proposed activities, including administrative and financial responsibility for the grant. The Project Lead is not eligible to receive salary support from a WSIB grant.

Secondary Lead (Co-lead)
The Secondary Lead shares responsibility for the grant and, in most cases, should be able to assume Project Lead responsibilities as necessary. The Secondary Lead is not eligible to receive salary support from a WSIB grant.

Co-applicant
Co-applicants may or may not have a formal affiliation with the project host organization, but will take responsibility for specific administrative and scientific aspects of the project. Co-applicants may be eligible to receive salary support from a WSIB grant.

Project Personnel
Project Personnel include undergraduate and graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, research assistants, technicians, programmers, analysts, etc., who may contribute to the activities of the Project Lead. Project Personnel may receive salary support or honoraria from the grant in keeping with the funding use restrictions.

Collaborator
The project may include collaborators who are central to the project and not otherwise identified in the categories above. Their role in the proposed activities is to provide a specific service (e.g., access to equipment, training in a specialized technique, statistical analysis, access to a patient population, etc.). Collaborators may be eligible to receive project funds for specified services or resources if it can be demonstrated that their contribution is essential to the work being undertaken and not otherwise available to the project team. Project advisory committee members are generally viewed as collaborators and may not be eligible to receive grant funds for the time they may contribute to the project.

Evaluation and selection process

The current funding initiative is a competitive process and all applicants are required to submit a detailed proposal for consideration of funding. Each application will undergo a rigorous multi-stage review process designed to assess scientific credibility, transparency and accountability, and emphasize relevance to the funding objective and workers’ compensation system. 

Stage 1: Peer review by external experts to ensure the validity of the research project and design. Applications that fail peer review will not proceed.
Stage 2: Relevance review by an internal panel of WSIB staff to ensure alignment to the funding objectives and requirements. This review may happen concurrently with Stage 1 in order to address questions regarding methodology and outputs.
Stage 3: Final funding decision by WSIB Grants Advisory Committee, including the project sponsor.

Refer to Appendix A for detailed requirements of the evaluation criteria.

Managing and measuring progress

WSIB grant recipients will be required to regularly report on their progress to ensure we can support the recipient in early identification and removal of barriers.

The successful applicant will be required to complete a final report as a condition of funding, which will be subject to a peer-review. Responses to the peer review comments must be provided to the WSIB, and for substantive peer review issues, corrections to final report may be required. Additionally, a requirement to present the overall findings of the systematic review to WSIB management will occur following the peer review of the final report. 

The final report delivered to the WSIB will be in electronic format and published within the WSIB Reference Centre.  

Refer to Appendix C for detailed requirements of the final report.

Submission instructions

Carefully review the information in the application form and provide comprehensive answers to the application questions. 

Email a PDF copy of your completed form to grants@wsib.on.ca. Please ensure the package is complete, including all sections and required signatures, and adheres to the established page limits.

Deadline for the proposals is December 1, 2021 at 5:00 p.m. (ET).

Proposals received after the deadline will not be included in the application and selection process. Incomplete proposals will not be accepted.

Appendices

Please include references in this section. Please attach and number the additional pages and clearly identify the section that the pages belong to.

Program contact information

If you have questions regarding the WSIB Research and Grants Program, please contact us by: 
Email: grants@wsib.on.ca 

The WSIB appreciates the time and effort it takes to submit a proposal. Thank you for your dedication to Ontario’s workers’ compensation system.

Appendix A

Proposal evaluation criteria

Proposals will be evaluated based on criteria and considerations aligned to the following categories: 

  • Workplan and accountability 
  • Scientific merit
  • Research design and methodology
  • Experience of the research team
  • Budget
  • Project risk assessment

The major emphasis of the evaluation will be on the project’s ability to deliver clear outcomes that align to the required objectives and can be successfully communicated at the end of the project.

The evaluation process also considers reputational risk to the WSIB. This assessment is inclusive of any partners or collaborators identified in the proposal.

Appendix B

Additional considerations

Funding restrictions

Grant recipients are prohibited from using WSIB funds (“Funds”) for the following purposes; and therefore, applicants should ensure the costs outlined below are not included in a proposal to the WSIB Research and Grants Program:

Salaries and stipends

The Funds may not be used towards salary support for any key research team member who is a full-time researcher, a full-time faculty member of a college or university, or a full-time educator, trainer or healthcare professional at a Canadian research institution. However, Funds may be used to provide salary support for other co-applicants who are not in a salary supported role within their institution and/or project team members such as coordinators, statisticians, and technical and other support staff. All positions will be reviewed and further clarification may be required prior to accepting the budget. Funds may only be used towards direct salaries, not charge out rates (i.e. the amount paid to an employee and specified in the budget). The WSIB reserves the right to set a ceiling on its contribution to salaries on a classification basis.

If the person for whom support is being requested is a full-time employee of the grant recipient, the Funds may be used towards a salary value based on the number of days or part days that the individual will work on the project and that such amount will not exceed a reasonable amount based on the grant recipient’s regulations, policies, or guidelines.

If a person is to be employed on a contract basis, then Funds can be used towards compensation calculated on an hourly, daily, weekly or monthly basis. The Funds may only be used towards compensation received by the employees and may not include an allowance for overhead and/or benefits.

The Funds may be used towards a salary contribution for graduate students and postdoctoral fellows engaged on the project, provided such amount will not exceed an amount determined by following normal university or college regulations, policy or guidelines.

Employee benefits

No more than 20 per cent of salaries can be used towards the cost of benefits for employees (e.g., E.I./U.I.C., C.P.P., health benefit coverage), but not in respect to any key research team member who is a full-time researcher, a full-time faculty member of a college or university or a full-time educator, trainer or healthcare professional.

Indirect or overhead costs

The Funds may not be used towards capital expenditures, overhead costs, maintenance costs, and other incidental expenses. Please contact the Grants Team for approval of questionable IT hardware or software purchases prior to submitting your budget. 

Publications, reports and memberships

The Funds may not be used to purchase subscriptions to or individual copies of scientific journals, computer manuals, books or other publications. The Funds may not be used towards membership fees to societies. However, the Funds may be used towards reasonable costs incurred in the publication of research results, which includes printing material for presentation at conferences, (with acknowledgement of the WSIB) to the extent explicitly set out in the proposed budget and approved by WSIB.

Conferences

No more than $1,500.00 of the total Funds may be used to support knowledge and dissemination at a conference (registration and/or publication fees). The funds may not be used towards travel, or accommodation for conferences.  

Personnel hiring

The Funds may not be used towards costs associated with hiring of project personnel, including advertising and travel costs.

Hiring of consultants

Funds may not be used towards consulting fees. If additional expertise is required to fulfill a study objective and an external expert is hired for this purpose (i.e. a statistician), the expert should be included as a part of the project personnel and their role and salary clearly outlined, if it is not being completed by the study lead.

Administration fees

The Funds may not be used towards administration or tuition fees.

Materials and supplies

The Funds may not be used towards materials and supplies, including office supplies, at a fixed rate; they may only be used on an “as used basis”.

Entertainment and hospitality

The Funds may not be used for entertainment or hospitality of any kind (and for greater certainty, the Funds may not be used for the purchase of alcohol).

Incidental expenses or gifts

The Funds may not be used towards costs associated with any incidental expenses while traveling, such as tips, dry cleaning, and long distance calls; or gifts, including gifts for investigators, research staff, or participants.

Purchasing equipment

No more than 10 per cent of the total Funds may be used towards equipment purchase expenditures. Provided an equipment purchase is explicitly included in the proposed budget and approved by the WSIB, any equipment purchased with the Funds becomes the property of the grant recipient.

Travel, meals and hospitality expenses

Grant recipients shall comply with the terms of the Travel, Meal and Hospitality Expenses Directive (the “Directive”) published by the Government of Ontario (or in any addenda or successor policies associated therewith), as though the recipient’s personnel were employees of a government ministry. For greater certainty, any WSIB funds budgeted by the recipient for travel, meals or hospitality must not exceed the amounts permitted in the Directive for employees of government ministries. Where the Directive requires ministry approval for an activity or expenditure, the recipient shall seek approval from the WSIB.

The WSIB, at its discretion, may require terms that are more strict than those of the Directive as a requirement of awarding a grant.

Conflicts of interest

The applicant organization must acknowledge if there is a perceived, potential, or actual conflict of interest (a “Conflict of Interest”) associated with the proposal. The applicant organization must also promptly inform the WSIB in writing if a Conflict of Interest becomes known at any time.

A conflict of interest includes, without limitation, the following:

  • situations, circumstances, or conduct that could give a grant candidate an unfair advantage during the proposal selection process or compromise the ability of the candidate to perform its obligations under a contract with the WSIB
  • the offer or giving of a benefit of any kind, by or on behalf of a grant candidate to anyone, employed by, or otherwise connected with, the WSIB, and
  • additional circumstances described in the WSIB’s Code of Business Ethics and Behaviour (available at www.wsib.on.ca).

The WSIB reserves the right to:

  • solely determine whether any situation or circumstance constitutes a Conflict of Interest
  • require grant candidates participating in the proposal selection process to declare any Conflict of Interest
  • disqualify grant candidates from the proposal selection process due to a Conflict of Interest, and/or
  • prescribe the manner in which a grant candidate should resolve a Conflict of Interest in order to avoid disqualification.

Confidentiality and Freedom of Information

The information submitted in connection with this proposal may be disclosed by the WSIB in accordance with FIPPA (the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, R.S.O.
1990, c.F.31, as amended).

Intellectual property rights

A component of the Grant Agreement will be provisions that provide the WSIB with a non-exclusive, perpetual and irrevocable right to use, reproduce, display and distribute copies and prepare derivative works of all material produced from the grant activities. The WSIB may do so in any manner it considers useful or helpful to the administration of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

Grant agreement

Successful applicant organizations must complete a grant agreement satisfactory to the WSIB (“Grant Agreement”) prior to receiving grant funds.

Appendix C

Funding objectives – Guidance to researchers

Detailed requirements

The review should follow generally accepted methods for the reporting (i.e., Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020) and conduct of systematic reviews. The systematic review should specifically evaluate the evidence for an association between occupational exposure to vapours, gases, dusts and fumes (VGDF) and the development of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). NOTE: For the remainder of this appendix, please note that the term “VGDF” refers to all types together as well as individual vapours, gases, dusts and fumes.  The WSIB specifically requests that the systematic review examine the evidence for:

  • occupations with VGDF exposure including hard rock miners, coal miners, cement manufacturing, aluminum smelting and refining, cadmium alloy production, asbestos workers, foundry workers, and welders,
  • occupational VGDF exposures including silica, asbestos, cement dust, coal dust, cadmium dust and fume, foundry exposure, aluminum smelting and refining, welding fumes and dust, smelting involving the production of sulphur dioxide
  • Identification of:
    • subgroups of exposed workers who have an increased risk of developing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
    • any exposure-response trends of increasing risk with increasing duration, frequency or intensity of exposure, including whether there is a minimum cumulative dose of exposure associated with increased risk 
    • minimal interval (latency) between the first exposure and the development of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
    • any interdependent causes or synergistic relationships with other risk factors

The above lists are not exhaustive. The WSIB is also interested in the evidence for any other occupations with known VGDF exposure (e.g., agricultural workers) or occupational VGDF exposures (e.g., organic dusts) associated with COPD.

Please review the final report detailed requirements for additional details.

Final report 

The final draft report is due within 18 months of the effective date of agreement, and will be subject to a peer-review as arranged by the WSIB. The final report will need to address peer-reviewer comments and be delivered within 2 (two) months of receipt of peer-reviewer comments .  
The final report should include the following elements:
a) Executive summary
b) Lay language summary (i.e. short summary describing the project and findings in simple, non-technical language suitable for sharing with a wider audience)
c) Background and scope;

  • outline of the research questions and project description 
  • background information on COPD (e.g., recommended guidelines for diagnosing COPD, non-occupational risk factors, latency, incidence, and prevalence rates, if available)
  • summary of VGDF exposures encountered in different occupational settings (e.g., mining industry, foundry, manufacturing, etc.) 
  • information on the potential pathological mechanisms through which VGDF may lead to the development of COPD
  • summary of previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses for COPD and occupational VGDF exposure
  • overview of evidence for COPD and non-occupational VGDF exposure (e.g., indoor and outdoor air pollution) 
  • a discussion on biological plausibility
  • overall objectives of systematic review

d) Methods;

  • search strategy for sources of evidence, including keywords, databases, and resources used (e.g., librarian)
  • inclusion and exclusion criteria (e.g., study design, year of publication, human studies, study populations, grey literature, etc.) with supported rationale; eligibility criteria applied independently by two or more reviewers 
  • data extraction (e.g., study authors, publication date, country/region of study, study design, study population characteristics and size, outcome assessment (e.g., diagnostic criteria used to identify COPD cases/deaths), type of VGDF, VGDF exposure assessment method (e.g., use of job exposure matrix, ever/never exposed, duration, frequency and/or intensity of exposure, acute versus chronic exposure, respirable dust versus total/inhalable dust), effect estimates with confidence intervals, adjustment for important confounders)
  • approach used for critical appraisal of study findings (e.g., quality assessment tool/checklist), including how issues such as bias, confounding and study quality will be considered/addressed in the analysis
  • description of how subgroup analysis will be conducted (e.g., those involved in particular tasks, employed during specific time periods, exposed to specific types of VGDF, or have comorbidities that may predispose to certain adverse health effects with VGDF exposure)
  • examination of exposure-response relationships, by cumulative exposure, duration, frequency and/or intensity of exposure, or whether there is a minimum threshold of exposure below which no elevation in COPD risk was reported (provide exposure measurements such as number of years, milligram per cubic meter (mg/m3, for dust and fumes), parts per million (ppm, for gases and vapours), mg/m3-years or ppm-years, where available)
  • description of statistical analyses used, including any statistical software, and approach for quantitative assessment of study findings, if appropriate, such as meta-analysis (fixed effects versus random effects model) or other weight of evidence approach; should include assessment of bias in meta-analysis, such as publication bias
  • assessment of any interdependent causes or synergistic relationships with other risk factors (e.g., smoking or other occupational exposures) and occupational exposure to VGDF in the development of COPD
  • approach used for determination of a causal relationship, using accepted principles for assessing causation
  • approach used for overall synthesis of the evidence
  • explanation of the criteria/framework/scale used to determine a level of evidence including a description of each level 

e) Results and analysis;

  • results of the literature search
  • presentation of the systematic review findings for the development of COPD and occupational VGDF exposure, both quantitatively and qualitatively (e.g., evidence table) 
    • include study characteristics such as study design, geographic region, study population, diagnostic criteria used to identify COPD cases/deaths, type of VGDF exposure, as well as effect estimates
      • if study provided more than one risk estimate for COPD, indicate which risk estimate was used in analysis
    • results of the quality appraisal, including examination of methodological issues of individual studies (i.e., bias, confounding) 
      • specifically examining how issues such as smoking history or exposure misclassification were addressed and their impact on study results
    • consideration of findings for all studies in comparison with those studies deemed to have higher methodological quality 
    • graphical representation of systematic review findings, such as funnel plots, forest plots, etc.
  • identification of any subgroups of workers with occupational exposure to VGDF who have an increased risk of developing COPD, as described under methods above  
  • presentation of any exposure-response trends (by type of VGDF, if available) and any evidence for a minimum cumulative dose (in mg/m3-years or equivalent, as appropriate) associated with increased risk of COPD, as described under methods above
  • examination of any evidence for a minimum interval (latency) between the first exposure to VGDF and the diagnosis of COPD
  • statistical analysis, including test of heterogeneity and quantitative assessment of study findings, if appropriate, such as meta-analysis; if possible, additional meta-analyses by study design (cohort, case-control), industry or occupation, and subgroup analyses (e.g., by type of VGDF)
  • identification of the presence and nature of any interdependent causes or synergistic relationships of other risk factors (e.g., smoking, other non-occupational or occupational exposures) with occupational exposure to VGDF in the development of COPD

f) Discussion;

  • overall findings of systematic review of risk of developing COPD in VGDF-exposed workers, including:  
    • any subgroups of VGDF-exposed workers who have an increased risk of developing COPD
    • any exposure-response trends of increasing risk with increasing duration, frequency or intensity of VGDF exposure (by type of VGDF, if available)
    • minimum cumulative dose of VGDF exposure (by type of VGDF, if available) associated with increased risk of developing COPD
    • minimal interval (latency) between the first exposure to VGDF and the development of COPD
    • any interdependent causes or synergistic relationships and nature of those relationships with other risk factors
    • evaluation of the limitations of the included studies (e.g., selection bias, information bias, and confounding), and how these may have impacted the overall conclusions
    • how the results of the quality assessment, any sensitivity analyses and overall weight of evidence factored into the assessment of causality
    • determination of whether a causal relationship can be established for COPD with any occupational VGDF exposure based on the available scientific evidence, using accepted principles for assessing causation
    • comparison of systematic review findings in relation to previous reviews of COPD and occupational or non-occupational VGDF exposure
    • presentation of the strengths and limitations of this review and their potential impact on the findings

g) Conclusions;

  • Statements about the overall level of evidence for COPD by type of VGDF, where appropriate 
  • Explanation of the criteria/framework/scale used to determine a level of evidence including an explanation of how the level of evidence was reached in each analysis 

h) Appendices - Supplementary tables of the individual study results
i) References