1

Research Quality Assessment CoRPS – Center of Research on Psychology in Somatic Diseases End-term Evaluation Report 2008 – 2012 Committee chair: Prof. J.C.J.M. de Haes

Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences Tilburg University Tilburg, NL March 2013

2

Report of the Evaluation Committee for Research Quality Assessment Committee chair: Prof. J.C.J.M. de Haes Research Review CoRPS 2008 – 2012 CoRPS – Center of Research on Psychology in Somatic Diseases Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences Tilburg University March 2013 Submitted to: Tilburg University Warandelaan 2 P.O. Box 90153 5000 LE Tilburg The Netherlands www.tilburguniversity.edu

3

Preface As chair, it is a pleasure to present the report of the Evaluation Committee that was assigned the task of assessing the quality of the research and research management of CoRPS – the Center of Research on Psychology in Somatic Diseases – an interdisciplinary research institute within the Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences. This committee assessment considers the first funding period of CoRPS, namely the period 2008 – 2012. The Committee members were impressed by the open and constructive communication during the site visit, on January 18 2013 at the university campus, at meetings with the Rector of Tilburg University, the Board of the Tilburg school of Social and Behavioral Sciences (TSB), the Director and Program Coordinators of CoRPS, and during the high-level conversations with researchers and PhD students at CoRPS. The already positive opinion that the Committee had formed from the written materials it received was reinforced during the day of the visit. On behalf of our Committee, I wish to thank the University administration, the management of the Institute, and the faculty, staff and PhD students, for their open dialogue with us and for providing the detailed information necessary to complete our task. As a committee, we received a warm welcome and are grateful for the support encountered during our visit. We hope that our assessment and comments will support the future of CoRPS and, thus, to understand better and possibly improve the health of diseased people in our society. Prof. Hanneke de Haes Chair to the CoRPS Evaluation Committee 2013

4

Structure of this report The Evaluation Committee assessed the research and management quality of CoRPS – the Center of Research on Psychology in Somatic Diseases – which is housed within the Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences of Tilburg University. This was the ‘end-term’ research review 2008 – 2012.

Chapter 1 provides a short introduction to the report, a brief description of the Netherlands System of Research Quality Assessment, information on the current review of CoRPS, the composition of the review Committee and the procedures employed by the Committee.

Chapter 2 presents the reader of this report with a brief description of the CoRPS Institute and its program, based on the self-evaluation report from the period 2008 – 2012.

Chapter 3 presents the Committee’s assessment according to SEP (Strategic Evaluation Plan) of the quality of research management at CoRPS – the Center of Research on Psychology in Somatic Diseases.

Chapter 4 is made up of appendices that relate to aspects of the evaluation, the members of the Review Committee, and the visit to CoRPS at the Tilburg University campus site.

5

Contents

1. Introduction  ...............................................................................................................................  6  The Netherlands System of Quality Assessment of Publicly funded Research  ........................................  6  The Evaluation of CoRPS  .............................................................................................................................................  7  The Review Committee  ..................................................................................................................................................  8  

Data provided to the Committee  ......................................................................................................................  8  Procedures followed by the Committee  .........................................................................................................  8  Assessment Aspects and Assessment Scale  .................................................................................................  9  

2. CoRPS – Center of Research on Psychology in Somatic Diseases  ...............................  11  Information on CoRPS Institute and Program  .................................................................................................  11  

3. Assessment  ...............................................................................................................................  17  Assessment of the Institute  ........................................................................................................................................  17  Assessment of the Research Program  ...................................................................................................................  18  Additional evaluation criteria for CoRPS  ..........................................................................................................  20  

4. Appendices  ...............................................................................................................................  21  Aspects of the Assessment  .........................................................................................................................................  21  

Preliminary assessment Institute  ...................................................................................................................  21  Preliminary assessment Program  ..................................................................................................................  23  The Five-Point Scale  .........................................................................................................................................  24  

CoRPS – Evaluation criteria and deliverables  .................................................................................................  25  Target Journals  ....................................................................................................................................................  26  

Curricula vitae of the members of the Review Committee  ...........................................................................  28  Program for site visit CoRPS, Tilburg University, January 17 – 18 2013  ............................................  31  

6

1. Introduction In 2007 Tilburg University funded CoRPS – Center of Research on Psychology in Somatic Diseases – for the five-year period 2008 – 2012. It was agreed that during this period an international committee of experts would review the Center’s research and management quality twice, according to the Standard Evaluation Protocol (SEP) 2009 – 2015 and additional criteria formulated by CoRPS, thus performing a ‘mid-term’ and an ‘end-term’ review. An external committee chaired by J. Blumenthal, PhD, submitted its assessment report in June 2011, thus completing the ‘mid-term’ review. This report was provided as information to the committee for the ‘end-term’ review. This ‘end-term’ review, which was performed by an external committee chaired by Prof. J.C.J.M. de Haes, again according to the requirements of the Standard Evaluation Protocol (SEP) 2009 – 2015 and the additional evaluation criteria formulated by the Institute for CoRPS (see Appendix 4).

The Netherlands System of Quality Assessment of Publicly funded Research The evaluation of publicly funded research in the Netherlands is performed according to the Standard Evaluation Protocol for Public Research Organisations (SEP)1. This protocol provides common guidelines for evaluating and improving research and research policy based on expert assessments. The SEP 2009 – 2015 evaluation is based on two objectives regarding research (including PhD training) and research management:

• to improve the quality of research through external peer review, including the scientific and societal relevance of research, research policy and research management;

• to ensure the accountability of the board of the research organization vis-à-vis funding agencies, government and society at large.

The SEP consists of a self-evaluation component and an external review, including a site visit once every six years and a mid-term review between two external reviews. The Evaluation Committee reports to the board of the research organization. The results of the evaluation are made up of both the evaluation report and the position of the board. The external evaluation of scientific research applies at two levels: the research institute as a whole and its individual research programs. The three main tasks of the research institute and its research programs are subject to assessment: the output of results relevant to the scientific community, the output of results relevant to society, and the training of PhD

1 Standard Evaluation Protocol 2009 – 2015: Protocol for Research Assessment In The Netherlands, VSNU, NWO, KNAW, Published VSNU, KNAW and NWO 2009 (Updated June 2010), www.knaw.nl/content

7

students. Four main criteria are considered in the assessment: 1) quality, 2) productivity, 3) societal relevance, and 4) vitality and feasibility. The SEP protocol is primarily directed toward the evaluation of scientific research, but the scope of the term ‘research’ is not limited to the research results. Research management, research policy, research facilities, PhD training and the societal relevance of research are also considered integral parts of the quality of work of an institute and its programs. These elements broaden the scope of the evaluation of research. An institute may be defined as ‘a group of researchers with an articulated shared mission, operating within one or more research programs under the same management’. Each ‘institute’ will have a director and/or research leader(s) with final responsibility. The board under whose jurisdiction a research institute falls is responsible for organizing the evaluation of that institute and following the appropriate procedures.

The Evaluation of CoRPS This evaluation of the research program of the Center of Research on Psychology in Somatic Diseases (CoRPS) was commissioned by Tilburg University’s Executive Board. The period under review is 2008 – 2012.

The board appointed an external committee of national and international peers, assisted by a secretary to help the committee chair to prepare their visit to the institute and the committee’s evaluation report. This report will cover the findings, in accordance with requirements from the SEP protocol (Appendices 1-3) and additional criteria from the institute (Appendix 4). In accordance with the Standard Evaluation Protocol (SEP 2009 – 2015), and looking at the requests from the board, the tasks of the appointed Evaluation Committee were as follows:

• to assess the quality of research and research management of the institute on the basis of the information provided by the institute and through interviews;

• to assess the realization of additional criteria and deliverables from the institute (Appendix 4);

• to advise how CoRPS research and research management might be improved, regarding the international standing of the research group and program.

During a visit at the campus of Tilburg University on January 18 2013 (Appendix 6), the Committee held interviews with members of the board of Tilburg University, the Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, the management of CoRPS, program directors, researchers and PhD students working on the research program. Before this visit, the Committee had received the CoRPS End-term Self-evaluation Report 2008 – 2012, with appendices covering specific information, such as a complete list of all CoRPS publications for the period 2008 – 2012, the mid-term review report 2011, and a copy of CoRPUS Magazine.

8

The Review Committee The Review Committee, appointed by the Board of the Tilburg University, consisted of the following members: Chair:

• Prof. J.C.J.M. (Hanneke) de Haes (Academic Medical Center / University of Amsterdam)

Members:

• Prof. J. (Johannes) Siegrist (Heinrich-Heine-Universität, Düsseldorf)

• Prof. A.A. (Ad) Kaptein (Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden University) Secretary:

• Dr R.R. (Robert) Braam (Utrecht) More details relating to the experience of the Committee members are included in Appendix 5.

Independence The Committee assessed the quality of the CoRPS Institute and its research program carefully, objectively, and independently. The Committee as a whole decided and agreed on the assessment of the Institute and its research program (including research themes) described in this document. The members of the Committee worked in close partnership.

Data provided to the Committee The Committee received the following documentation on the CoRPS institute and its research program from the CoRPS institute board:

• End-term Self-Evaluation Report 2008 – 2012: CoRPS – Center of Research on Psychology in Somatic Diseases, Tilburg University, School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, December 2012;

• Mid-Term Evaluation Report 2008 – 2010: CoRPS – Center of Research on Psychology in Somatic Diseases Tilburg University, School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, J. Blumenthal, PhD, committee chair, June 2011;

• a copy issue of the CoRPUS Magazine June 2010, published by the Institute; • a document pertaining to the renewed tenure track regulations and criteria that the

Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences put in place in 2012, at the Committee’s request during the site visit.

The above documentation included all the information required by the SEP 2009 – 2015 protocol and required by additional criteria.

Procedures followed by the Committee The Committee proceeded according to the SEP Protocol (SEP 2009 – 2015).

9

The Committee members read the self-evaluation report with the appendices, carefully examined the list of publications of the program faculty, and reviewed its themes and target groups. The Committee members also carefully examined the mid-term review report and read the CoRPUS Magazine. The Committee made a preliminary assessment of the program using the SEP checklist for internal committee use (see Appendices 1 – 3 of the SEP). This preliminary assessment was discussed within the Committee at a preparatory meeting the evening prior to the site visit and again during a breakfast meeting on the day of the official visit. The Committee then also discussed the process by which the interviews would be conducted during the site visit on January 18 2013. The Committee was welcomed by the Rector of Tilburg University and met with the board of the Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences – i.e. the Dean of the Faculty, the Vice Dean of research and the Director of the Education and Research Institute (ERI) – on the university campus on the morning of the visit. On the same day, the Committee held meetings and interviews with the academic director and program coordinators of CoRPS, researchers and PhD students of the research program, in consecutive meetings throughout the day. At the end of the day, after internal deliberations, the Committee informally presented its first impressions and findings. The Committee, assisted by the Committee secretary, prepared an initial draft report of the evaluation for the CoRPS Institute and the research program, which was distributed electronically shortly after the site visit. The final draft version of the report was sent to the Institute Board for factual corrections and comments, which were received in good order and processed by the Committee to produce the final report. This was then sent to the Faculty Board’s Vice Dean of research and to CoRPS’s academic director.

Assessment Aspects and Assessment Scale The Standard Evaluation Protocol requires the Review Committee to assess the research on the following four main aspects:

• quality (policy and management, international recognition and innovative potential); • productivity (productivity policy, scientific output); • societal relevance (societal orientation, societal impact, valorization); • vitality and feasibility (orientation, flexibility, management). At the level of the Institute, the four criteria are employed focusing on policy and strategy, preferably in a qualitative manner, identifying the main issues of praise and criticism and putting forward recommendations for improvement. The focus/emphasis here was on future planning.

10

At the level of the research group or Program, the four criteria are used to focus on performance, both in terms of scientific achievements and societal relevance. The group evaluation ends with a summary in which the four main criteria are rated on a five-point scale. The Committee applied the full range of the five-point scale according to the SEP 2009 – 2015 descriptions: excellent (5); very good (4); good (3); satisfactory (2); unsatisfactory (1). A description of the five-point scale as used can be found in Appendix 3. Using the above research quality criteria and the managerial aspects listed, the Committee acquired a comprehensive picture of the performance of the research institute and the research program (including its themes and target groups).

11

2. CoRPS – Center of Research on Psychology in Somatic Diseases2 Management: - Prof. J. Denollet, director - Prof. S. Pedersen, research - Prof. A. Roukema, societal relevance - Ms. K. Boermans, operations

Information on CoRPS Institute and Program To inform readers of this report on the Institute and its program, a brief overview of the structure and function of CoRPS now follows, derived from the self-evaluation report. The Center of Research on Psychology in Somatic Diseases CoRPS is one of the multidisciplinary research institutes accommodated in the School of Social and Behavioral Sciences of Tilburg University (TSB). In particular, CoRPS relates to the Department of Medical Psychology and Neuropsychology of TSB. The educational and research activities of the TSB departments are coordinated by the Education and Research Department (ERI).3 The Dean of TSB, the Vice Dean of education and the Vice Dean of research, together with the director of ERI, manage the activities in the TSB. The Education and Research Institute ERI is concerned with educational and research policy, the supervision of students, international affairs, and organizing and scheduling education. The mission of the CoRPS research program is: ‘To further uncover the nature of the interface between the human mind and body, in order to achieve optimal health care for patients with chronic medical or psychological conditions’. The institute is one of the leading research institutes in Europe in the area of psychology and somatic diseases. The theoretical framework that drives this research agenda is the biopsychosocial model (of G.L. Engel, 1977), which states that human functioning in the context of health and disease is influenced by the interplay of biological, psychological and social factors. The self-evaluation report by CoRPS states that the research program focuses primarily on four groups of patients with chronic medical conditions, including: 1) cardiovascular disorders; 2) diabetes and hypertension; 3) cancer & cancer survivorship; 4) neurological disorders.

2 The information in this chapter is taken from the CoRPS Self-Evaluation Report, December 2012, pp. 7-12.

3 Formerly, the research activities were organized in the Oldendorff Institute, now in ERI.

12

The research program further covers the following thematic areas that guide the development of the research program across the different target groups of patients with chronic medical conditions: 1. risk assessment; 2. patient-centered outcome assessment; 3. mediating mechanisms; 4. clinical care; 5. theory and methods. In order to achieve its research aims, CoRPS is based on cooperation between the departments of Medical Psychology, Cognitive Neurosciences, and Methodology and Statistics of Tilburg University. CoRPS has an ongoing collaboration with two teaching hospitals, St. Elisabeth and TweeSteden in Tilburg, a long-term partnership with the Cancer Registry South (IKZ), and a General Practitioners Support Collaboration (POZOB) in the region. In addition, by sponsoring chairs and PhD projects, these partnerships have offered CoRPS researchers the necessary access to specific expertise, data and infrastructure. In return, CoRPS has seconded research officers, providing methodological-epidemiological support for the two above-mentioned hospitals. Researchers from the Department of Methodology and Statistics of TSB participate in CoRPS to enhance the methodological quality of studies of a complex nature (longitudinal design, repeated measurements, experimental manipulation) in CoRPS’s research program. The management of CoRPS has appointed program coordinators who serve informally as key-advisors across the various research domains. These program coordinators supervise the researchers and the PhD students, and contribute to the research agenda of CoRPS. The research staff of CoRPS grew from 29 FTE [full time equivalent] in 2008 to 45 FTE in 2010, and after a peak of 50 FTE in 2011, it was at a level of 44 FTE in 2012. Tenured positions (full professors, associate professors and assistant professors) grew from 7 FTE in 2008, to nearly 9 in 2010 and 11.5 FTE in 2012. Non-tenured staff included about 2 FTE assistant professors and researchers, and 30 FTE PhD students in 2012 (compared to 7 FTE assistant professors and 30 FTE PhD students in 2010). The self-evaluation report characterizes the academic staff as a young, dynamic and motivated team of researchers who cooperate with colleagues from other academic centers in the Netherlands, Europe, and the United States. The senior staff was strengthened in 2012 by the appointment of professors in three of its core areas: diabetes, cancer, and cardiology, following the earlier appointment of two part-time professors in neurological disorders, and the appointment of three staff members with tenured positions as assistant professors. The number of junior staff increased due to a large amount of external funding. Since 2008, the self-evaluation report states, 45 PhD students and 15 postdoctoral fellows have been appointed (these 45 PhD students include 5 students that had started earlier, in 2005 or 2007. Another student discontinued in 2009). The board of CoRPS plans to appoint two additional associate professors to enhance the teaching and supervision of junior staff.

13

The funding received by CoRPS from within Tilburg University, the Department of Medical Psychology & Neurology, the Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, and the Education and Research Institute (ERI) – formerly the Oldendorff Research Institute – varied from €483,000 in 2008, to €359,000 in 2010 and to €584,000 in 2012. About €2,000,000 is contributed annually to the CoRPS program from partner organizations, the two hospitals and POZOB. Research grants and contract research increased from €528,000 in 2009 to €1,372,000 in 2010 and has remained at this level. The funding of CoRPS thus grew from €650,000 in 2008 to €2,000,000 in 2010, to €2,100,000 in 2012. The CoRPS research environment and embedding is described in the self-evaluation report. The CoRPS faculty contributes to the interdisciplinary field of Medical Psychology. Multiple international partnerships have been developed, leading to joint publications and exchanges of PhD students and post-doctoral fellows. CoRPS faculty is involved in the leading academic societies of Medical Psychology and Behavioral Medicine, including the European Society of Cardiology and the American Psychosomatic Society. One of CoRPS’s professors is Editor-in-Chief of Psychosomatic Medicine. Nationally, CoRPS managed to secure research funding for junior and senior faculty, and its faculty participates in the scientific review centers of the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO), the Netherlands Heart Foundation, and the Dutch Cancer Society. CoRPS has also established partnerships with academic centers (Rotterdam, Utrecht, Groningen, Maastricht) in the Netherlands and with local teaching hospitals (TweeSteden Hospital and St. Elisabeth Hospital in Tilburg, Catharina Hospital in Eindhoven and Amphia Hospital in Breda). The institute has welcomed international visiting scholars and it co-sponsors a national series of lectures. Responses to two earlier reviews are mentioned in the self-evaluation report: a mid-term review of CoRPS in 2011, and a national evaluation of psychology departments in 2011, including the department of Medical Psychology at Tilburg. CoRPS implemented the recommendations that related to organization (appointing an administrator), research (adding focus to interventions), presence in national research organizations, and activities to encourage outreach to the general public. Furthermore, the national psychology review suggested that more attention be given to the theoretical background of the research program. This issue was taken into account by CoRPS in its SWOT analysis (see below). CoRPS had a total research output of 791 items in the review period 2008 – 2012, including 630 refereed articles (ISI), 58 other refereed articles, 9 books, 36 book chapters, 26 PhD theses and 32 professional publications. For each of its thematic areas, a list of five prototypical examples of publications is included in the self-evaluation report document:

1. publications on risk stratification; 2. publications on outcome assessment; 3. publications on mediating mechanisms; 4. publications on behavioral intervention and clinical care;

14

5. publications on methodology and medical statistics. The institute also lists examples of publications covering meta-analyses and narrative reviews. Furthermore, in the appendices, the institute presents a complete list of all its publications from 2008 – 2012, as well as lists of scientific lectures, oral presentations and media appearances. The distribution of the output over the target groups and thematic areas is included in a separate table in the self-evaluation report, with the largest numbers of publications in thematic areas combined with medical conditions related to cardiovascular problems and cancer. The CoRPS institute contributes to research training in two ways. The research carried out by CoRPS is linked to the education of students at Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, in particular the Master’s program in Medical Psychology, and the enrolment of PhD candidates within CoRPS. The two-year Master’s program includes writing a thesis in English while contributing to ongoing CoRPS research projects. In the period 2008 – 2012, CoRPS enrolled 41 PhD candidates, in addition to the five PhDs who started in 2005 – 2007 in projects related to the CoRPS institute. By the end of 2012, twelve PhD students had graduated, and 33 PhD projects are currently ongoing. The earning capacity of researchers from CoRPS as to external funds and personal grants, totals over €7,600,000 for the period 2008 – 2012. External funding has increased to about two-thirds of the total income of CoRPS since 2010, exceeding internal funding from Tilburg University. The self-evaluation report lists approaches to implementation and results on societal relevance in these categories: • maintaining regular contact with the boards of the two participating hospitals; • translating research findings into publications for specific patient groups and for

professionals in clinical practice and health care, and for the wider public audience; • providing scientific staff and graduate students of CoRPS to train and assist physicians

and other health care professionals in hospitals in the region; • translating research findings into applications for everyday clinical practice; • transferring knowledge to primary and high school education by presentations and

publications. The self-evaluation report lists the numbers of presentations at meetings for the academic community and health professionals; of professional publications; and media appearances, both nationally (345 items) and internationally (255 items). As for viability, CoRPS’s management organizes supervision for researchers and PhD students, regular discussions between the board of directors and program coordinators, weekly meetings for all staff and PhD students addressing operational and scientific issues. Moreover, the appointment of additional professors is helping to broaden the research scope and enlarge the capacity for supervision. Finally, CoRPS plans to appoint an advisory board of stakeholders and an independent scientific council to monitor and guide scientific quality and operational aspects.

15

CoRPS provides support for the development of the next generation of researchers by teaching doctoral students who are following the Master’s program, PhD students working within Tilburg University in TSB/ERI and PhD students who are working outside universities at their employers. The self-evaluation report includes results of a SWOT analysis: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats, a related Strategy paragraph, and an overview of positive results regarding all the deliverables mentioned in the additional criteria. All the targets listed in the deliverables – namely academic research, external funding, PhD education, networking, and validation – have been achieved, as pointed out in the report. According to the self-evaluation report, the future of CoRPS is seen as a continuous development of novel strategies to further improve the quality of research. Given its strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and threats, CoRPS’s strategy from 2013 onwards will be as follows: • appoint an internal committee to advise the director of CoRPS on supporting research

integrity and quality; • appoint an Advisory Board, including stakeholders, to translate findings into clinical

practice; • appoint an external Scientific Council, consisting of international scholars, to provide

advice on the quality of research and operational matters within the research program; • shift the focus in the program from empirical, clinical research to psychological work, to

substantiate and validate behavioral constructs and method, and theoretical models; • add studies addressing clinical intervention trials, ambulatory monitoring of potential

mechanisms of disease, and experimental laboratory research in medical and clinical psychology;

• emphasize patient-oriented research, directed at issues such as the self-management of chronic medical conditions, adherence to medical advice, communication in medical settings, intervention studies related to novel psychotherapeutic modalities, coping skills training, and web-based interventions;

• further integrate the research program of CoRPS to bring in insights from the field of clinical psychology, in response to the recent merger of the former departments of medical psychology and clinical psychology into one unified Department of Medical and Clinical Psychology;

• study the role of social inhibition as a behavioral factor in increasing the risk of adverse cardiovascular events (ERC Advanced Grant proposal, November 2012).

The Appendices to the self-evaluation report provided the Committee with information on:

1. organizational embedding 2. thematic areas of research groups & target groups 3. external funding 4. acquired grants for participating centers

16

5. completed PhD projects 6. current PhD projects 7. the organization of academic meetings 8. visibility: keynotes, invitations for lectures and presentations 9. academic reputation 10. media appearances 11. affiliates 12. the societal relevance of CoRPS research and valorization

Finally, the self-evaluation report lists all publications in the period 2008 – 2012, by year and type, and presents a table showing the numbers of publications in the various areas of research.

17

3. Assessment

Assessment of the Institute Given the relatively short period of institutional development within the Program’s lifetime, CoRPS has reached impressive achievements at different levels. (1) It has significantly advanced original research in core areas of psychological aspects of somatic diseases (see below Research Program). (2) It has been consistently successful in attracting competitive research grants. (3) It has extended collaborative research activity with clinical centers in the region. (4) It has developed an extensive PhD program. (5) It has built up networks of international scientific cooperation. CoRPS must be regarded as a leading center in clinically oriented medical psychological research at the national and European levels. There is a strong leadership within CoRPS as well as a highly productive faculty of tenured staff. The scope, quality and quantity of scientific contributions is, overall, excellent. Judging from the evaluation report and the site visit, the organization of the Institute seems to function very well. The PhD program affiliated with the TSB Graduate School offers a broad spectrum of dissertation projects (Self-evaluation Report, Appendices 5 and 6) for internal and external doctoral students. There are also well-established structures and procedures for supervising and monitoring dissertations. The career prospects of PhD students who gain their doctorate at the CoRPS Institute are relatively limited, given the present staff structure and the resources available elsewhere. Creating additional possibilities for tenured positions may help remedy this situation. The Institute’s capacity and track record in attracting extra-mural research grants is very good. However, there is some imbalance between the four clinical research teams, not only in terms of the amount of funding, but also in terms of receiving funding from prestigious research agencies. In this respect there is one case of clear excellence (cognitive neuroscience). One point that the Committee sees as meriting additional attention is how to secure the continued existence of research in groups that are less successful in attracting competitive grants. Is there any intra-mural funding forthcoming to overcome periods of uncertain funding? This could help to initiate new research developments that do not yet attract external funding. The Institute’s efforts to reach a broader public and contribute to society are very valuable, not only with regard to media coverage and publications for larger audiences, but also when it comes to improving the quality of patient-centered health care, the continued and integrated provision of health services, and early risk detection and preventive efforts. Newly developed scientific knowledge is transferred to patients, strengthening their coping skills and both the technical and the social support systems that they draw on. Innovative monitoring procedures and continued administrative data collection (especially the Cancer Registry South) are excellent examples of potential benefits to the broader public. Societal

18

relevance could be supported and reinforced by focusing on intervention development and testing. The Institute is essential and has a clear vision of the future. In a self-critical way, it has shown its capacity to monitor and discuss its own strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. It is currently establishing an Advisory Board and an independent Scientific Council to strengthen this process.

Assessment of the Research Program The Committee assesses the program results as follows: Quality: 4 – 5, very good to excellent. Productivity: 5, excellent Societal Relevance: 4, very good Feasibility: 5, excellent Building a research program on George Engel’s biopsychosocial model of disease provides a theoretical basis for transdisciplinary research. At the same time, however, the model is so broadly formulated that it provides little support when it comes to bringing focus to the research program. The program made substantial progress by exploring the psychological and biomedical links in cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, cancer, and, to some extent, neurological disorders. The social dimension within this model has remained relatively underdeveloped in the first period of CoRPS. At the same time, this might well be justified given the need to limit the scope of the program’s endeavors. While each clinical team has made impressive advances, the cross-over between the study of these disorders, and specifically the study of co-morbidity with potential common mediating mechanisms, has yet to be given high priority. This could be a fruitful area for future development. Likewise, the outstanding expertise of the cognitive neuroscience team could usefully be integrated in collaborative research. The quality of this program’s research is highly impressive. Several significant results were published in leading international journals. More progress was made in the fields of ‘risk stratification’ and ‘outcome assessment’ than in the remaining fields. The team working on cardiovascular disorders benefits from clear leadership, judging from the originality, cumulative evidence, clinical significance and international diffusion. Clearly, its long local tradition and strong scientific leadership contributes to this success. However, research that has developed more recently in the fields of diabetes and oncology also has significant potential for international visibility and clinical relevance. Research on mediating mechanisms focuses heavily on cardiovascular disorders, but no systematic research agenda could be identified for this component. Research on clinical care and behavioral interventions is an important part of the program, with immediate benefit for patients and, thus, societal relevance. Although intervention research by social scientists in medical settings is a complex field, extending these activities – as announced in the Self-Evaluation Report (p.20) – would be welcome.

19

The Committee discussed with all groups the balance between quality and quantity in science, which is important for universities today. The Committee found a shared idea that quality is more important than quantity and suggests that this notion be elaborated in future policy guidelines. At the same time, the Committee observed an open and collaborative atmosphere, with a large degree of academic freedom for researchers and PhD students to develop their own ideas and research lines. Some measures taken within the organization, such as providing a list of target journals or putting too much emphasis on journal impact factors, have the potential to undermine motivation and collaboration within the group if not handled carefully. Regarding CoRPS’ vision of its research program in the longer run, the Committee welcomed the development from descriptive studies to a stronger focus on mechanisms and interventions. This means that more emphasis can be given to elaborating theoretical models developed in the field of – for example – health psychology. The program has a well-established relationship with the medical field and with the Master’s program in medical psychology of the department. Respect is gained from both sides, medical practice and psychology. The Committee found that the need for societal relevance is taken seriously at CoRPS, not only in terms of spreading knowledge to a broader audience, but also more directly by improving patient treatments and working with patient groups. The Committee welcomes this very much, and thinks it is an important challenge for CoRPS to measure and evaluate these efforts more explicitly in the next round. The Committee discussed the issue of integrity in science with all parties and found this was taken very seriously. It supports the establishment of processes to prevent fraudulent science and promote good research conduct. It found a number of examples of good practice at CoRPS in this respect, such as data checking, saving, and transparency of data handling. The Committee welcomes the attitude found at CoRPS and welcomes the further development plans in this area. The Committee heard a number of examples of organization principles at CoRPS that facilitate the exchange between different areas of research, such as mixed room sharing, an open attitude to asking for advice and collaborating with researchers and PhD students within and between areas, and opportunities for PhD students to attend international meetings and conferences. The Committee was impressed by the enthusiasm and commitment of the PhD students for their own and each other’s research work in the program. This provides a sound basis on which to strengthen the synergy between the various research groups, as the Committee advises. The Committee understands the time pressure that is a fundamental part of work of this nature. In particular, the teaching responsibilities of junior staff and PhD students may hamper their efforts to secure funding through grants or write research publications. It seems most important at the current point of development of the CoRPS program to take time to reflect on the research questions to be answered in future projects and on the theoretical impact of these findings.

20

The management of the research program is seen in a positive light. The Committee found a great deal of respect for it at all levels within the group.

Additional evaluation criteria for CoRPS The Committee notes that in the self-evaluation report, CoRPS clearly met all the criteria and deliverables on the list of additional evaluation criteria. The next phase of CoRPS will see a shift in emphasis to revealing mechanisms, clinical interventions and a stronger emphasis on a theoretical basis in – for example – behavioral medicine or health psychology. This could serve as the next level goal to help guide research efforts going into the future and facilitate the realization of the high standards established by the CoRPS investigators. The Committee is of the opinion that, given the strength of the leadership and the commitment of the faculty, a more focused strategy on the part of CoRPS will help bring it to this next level. The contribution of PhD students and junior staff in realizing this strategy is important and as such, additional teaching obligations related to the integration of Clinical Psychology should be kept limited for PhD students and junior staff.

21

4. Appendices

Aspects of the Assessment According to the Standard Evaluation Protocol (SEP 2009 – 2015), the following checklists and five-point scale have been used to rate research quality. The Committee has applied the checklists for internal use only.

Preliminary assessment Institute (Only for internal use by the Committee) Reviewer: ………………………

Institute name: 5 = Excellent, 4 = Very good, 3 = Good, 2 = Satisfactory, 1 = Unsatisfactory. See the Five-Point Scale (below) for a full explanation of scores. How do you evaluate the institute with respect to: Institute level

Quality

A1 Quality and scientific relevance of the research (Assess at program level)

A2 Leadership

A3 Academic reputation

A4 Organization

A5 Resources

A6 PhD training

Productivity

B1 Productivity strategy

B2 Productivity

22

Relevance

C1 Societal relevance: policy measures aimed at:

• C1.1 enhancing societal relevance of the research, and/or:

• C1.2 enhancing societal orientation of researchers, and/or:

• C1.3 knowledge transfer to other than academic users.

Vitality and Feasibility

D1 Strategy

D2 SWOT analysis

D3 Robustness and stability

Overall assessment of institute vitality and feasibility

23

Preliminary assessment Program (Only for internal use by the Committee) Reviewer: ………………… Program title (short): 5 = Excellent, 4 = Very good, 3 = Good, 2 = Satisfactory, 1 = Unsatisfactory. See the Five-Point Scale (below) for a full explanation of scores. How do you evaluate the research group or program with respect to:

Research group or Program level

Quality

A1 Quality and scientific relevance of the research

A2 Leadership

A3 Academic reputation

A4 Organization

A5 Resources

A6 PhD training

Productivity

B1 Productivity strategy

B2 Productivity

Relevance

C1 Societal relevance

• C1.1 Societal quality: interaction with stakeholders, and/or:

• C1.2 Societal impact: how research affects stakeholders, and/or:

• C1.3 Valorization: application, availability, usage

24

Vitality and Feasibility

D1 Strategy

D2 SWOT analysis (Assess at institute level)

D3 Robustness and stability

The Five-Point Scale The Five-Point Scale The five-point scale used in the assessment is described in the Standard Evaluation Protocol 2009 – 2015 as follows: 5 Excellent Research is world-leading. Researchers are working at the forefront

of their field internationally and their research has a significant and substantial impact in the field.

4 Very good Research is nationally leading. Research is internationally

competitive and makes a significant contribution to the field. 3 Good Research is internationally visible. Work is competitive at the

national level and makes a valuable contribution to the international field.

2 Satisfactory Research is nationally visible. Work adds to our understanding and is

solid, but not exciting. 1 Unsatisfactory Work is neither solid nor exciting, flawed in its scientific and or

technical approach, repeats other work, etc.

25

CoRPS – Evaluation criteria and deliverables Academic Research

i. The main general criteria to be used in the evaluation are derived from the Standard Evaluation Protocol (SEP criteria).

Other, more specific, criteria are: ii. There will be a steady stream of high-quality papers published in English-

language journals. At the end of year five, a sufficient number of articles should have been published, or should have been accepted for publication, in the leading journals in the field. A motivated list of these journals is presented at the end of this appendix.

iii. CoRPS researchers will regularly be invited to present keynote speeches at international conferences.

iv. The interdisciplinary approach of the Institute and its research program will be based on the combination of the disciplines involved (psychology and medicine).

v. The Institute should be continued if the output after the first three years is considered to be very good and excellent after five years.

Outside Money (NWO, EU and the market) vi. After five years, the institute should have demonstrated the ability to receive

sufficient funding from NWO and other organizations that support health care research in order to live up to the financial agreement as stated in the CoRPS regulations. After three years, there should be clear indications that these targets will be met.

PhD Education vii. CoRPS will set up four new PhD projects in the first two years and three per

year in the last three years. viii. At the end of the PhD contract, 80% of the PhD manuscripts should have been

approved. ix. All PhD proposals are submitted to the regular procedures of the Oldendorff

Research Institute in order to safeguard the academic quality of the research proposals.

x. The PhD educational program is based at the programs of the Graduate Schools of the Oldendorff Research Institute.

xi. CoRPS will enable PhDs to follow courses outside the university when these courses are not offered within the curricula of Tilburg University.

Networking xii. After three years, Tilburg University will be viewed as being at the cutting edge

of research in the field of psychology and medicine in the Netherlands. xiii. After three years, the institute will be part of a formal international network. xiv. After three years, the institute will be recognized as a leading institute in the

world, in particular in Europe and North America. Validation

xv. Research seminars, workshops and/or conferences bringing together researchers from various disciplines as well as practitioners in order to exchange ideas and benefit from different types of knowledge.

26

xvi. The research activities and output of CoRPS will be recognized as very relevant for disease care management by stakeholders in the field of health care and health care policy.

Target Journals

Medical Psychology Medicine

Psychology General

- Psychosomatic Medicine - The Lancet

- Psychological Medicine - Journal of the American Medical Association

- Brain, Behavior & Immunity - Annals of Internal Medicine

- Psychotherapy & Psychosomatics - Archives of Internal Medicine

- Health Psychology - Journal of Internal Medicine

- Biological Psychology*

Psychiatry Surgery

- Archives of General Psychiatry - Archives of Surgery

- American Journal of Psychiatry - British Journal of Surgery

- Biological Psychiatry - Journal of the American College of Surgeons

- Journal of Clinical Psychiatry - Journal of Vascular Surgery

- Journal of Affective Disorders - Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation

Medical Specialties Basic Sciences

Clinical Cardiology Neuroscience - Psychology

- Circulation, incl. Circulation Specialty Journals - Trends in Cognitive Science

- Journal of the American College of Cardiology - Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human: HPP

- European Heart Journal - Cognition

27

- Heart - Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

- American Journal of Cardiology - Psychophysiology

Clinical Oncology Neuroscience - Medicine

- Journal of Clinical Oncology - Nature Reviews Neuroscience

- The Lancet Oncology - Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews

- Annals of Oncology - Cerebral Cortex

- International Journal Of Cancer - Journal of Neuroscience

- European Journal Of Cancer - Neuroimage

Diabetes Multidisciplinary

- Diabetes - Science

- Diabetes Care - Nature

- Diabetologia - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

- Nature Reviews Endocrinology - Clinical Science

- Psychoneuroendocrinology - Psychological Science*

* Added Journals, since Mid-term Review

28

Curricula vitae of the members of the Review Committee

Committee chair: Prof. Hanneke de Haes (Academic Medical Center / University of Amsterdam) After graduating in psychology at the University of Groningen, Hanneke de Haes (1949) worked as a psychologist and researcher in an oncology clinic in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, and in the University Hospitals of Leiden, Rotterdam and Amsterdam. She gained her doctorate at the Medical Faculty of Leiden on a thesis investigating the quality of life of cancer patients. She became a full professor and chair at the Department of Medical of Psychology at the University of Amsterdam Academic Medical Center in 1995. Professor de Haes was and is a member of national and international committees concerning psychosocial oncology, quality of life research, communication research, ethics in health care and of research review boards of the European Organization of Research on Treatment of Cancer, the Dutch Organisation for Scientific Research, the Dutch Aids Fund and the Netherlands Cancer Foundation. Prof. de Haes was senior editor of Social Science and Medicine and involved in other editorial boards and international site visitation committees. She teaches medical students on health psychology as well as communication skills. She has received fellowships and awards from the Netherlands Institute for Assessment Development (CITO), the Dutch Cancer Society, the Union Internationale Contre le Cancer (UICC), the Royal Dutch Academy of Sciences, and the Dutch-Belgian Cultural Treaty. Professional address: Prof. J.C.J.M. de Haes, University of Amsterdam, Department of Medical Psychology, Academic Medical Center, Meibergdreef 15, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands Phone: +31 20 566 7730 E-mail: j.c.dehaes@amc.uva.nl Committee members: Prof. Johannes Siegrist (Heinrich-Heine-Universität, Düsseldorf) Johannes Siegrist (1943) studied Sociology, Philosophy and History at the Universities of Basel and Freiburg. After graduating in 1969 (doctoral degree) he gained his Habilitation in Sociology in 1973 in Freiburg. From 1973 to 1992 Johannes was professor of Medical Sociology at the Faculty of Human Medicine at the Philipps-Universität Marburg, and from 1992 to 2012 he held a professorship in Medical Sociology at the Faculty of Medicine of the Heinrich-Heine-University in Düsseldorf, and was head of the teaching program ‘Master of Science’ in Public Health at the same university. Since June 2012, he has been senior professor in Psychosocial Work Stress Research at the Medical Faculty of this University. Visiting professorships have brought Johannes Siegrist to the Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, USA, Utrecht University and the Institute for Higher Education in Vienna. From

29

2008 to 2012, he was a member of the Review Board of the German Research Foundation. Professor Siegrist received the Salomon Neumann Award of the German Society of Social Medicine and Prevention, is fellow of the European Academy of Occupational Health Psychology 2003, and Honorary Member of the German Society of Medical Sociology. He received a Research Award from the European Society of Health and Medical Sociology, and is a Corresponding Member of the Heidelberg Academy of Sciences. Since 2012 Johannes has also been a member of the council of the Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf.

Professional address: Prof. J. Siegrist, Heinrich-Heine-Universität, Düsseldorf Life-Science-Center, Merowingerplatz 1a, 40225 Düsseldorf Phone: +49 211 385 428 111 E-mail: johannes.Siegrist@med.uni-duesseldorf.de Prof. Ad Kaptein (Leiden University Medical Center) Ad Kaptein (1949) studied Psychology at Leiden University, and gained his PhD on Illness behavior of patients with asthma in 1982 from VU University Amsterdam. He was appointed professor in 2005. Professor Kaptein’s areas of interests are: the psychosocial aspects of chronic respiratory disorders; living with chronic illnesses; literature & medicine - medical humanities; perceptions of illness; quality of life; and self-management. The area of application of his research is self-management by patients with chronic respiratory disorders and other chronic somatic disorders, which also translates into his teaching of medical psychology to medical students. He was Editor-in-Chief of Psychology & Health and President of the European Health Psychology Society. He is a Fellow of the International Association of Applied Psychology and the European Health Psychology Society. Professional address: Prof. A.A. Kaptein, Section Medical Psychology, Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), P.O. Box 9600, 2300 RC Leiden, The Netherlands Phone: +31 71 526 2905 E-mail: a.a.kaptein@lumc.nl Committee secretary: Dr Robert Braam (Utrecht) Robert Braam (1958) graduated as physical geographer at Utrecht University and obtained a PhD in Social Studies of Science from Leiden University, at the Center for Science and Technology Studies CWTS. He worked at the Science System Assessment department of the Rathenau Institute of the KNAW (Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Science). Robert regularly serves as committee secretary in research evaluations at Netherlands

30

Universities, for QANU and as independent secretary. Contact: E-mail: rrbraam@telfort.nl

31

Program for site visit CoRPS, Tilburg University, January 17 – 18 2013 Review Committee: Prof. Hanneke de Haes (chair)

Prof. Ad Kaptein Prof. Johannes Siegrist

Secretary: Dr Robert Braam Thursday, January 17 2013 Location: Hotel Auberge du Bonheur 18.00 – 20.30: Committee dinner and opportunity for internal preparatory meeting on:

• Procedures, roles. etc. • Discussion of first impressions • Prepare meeting on January 18

Friday, January 18 2013 Location: Cobbenhagen building room C 186 (Ruth First room) 09.00 – 09.30 Welcome Committee, by the Rector, Prof. Philip Eijlander (room C20) 09.30 – 10.00 Meeting with Board Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences

• Prof. Klaas Sijtsma (Dean) • Prof. Willem Kop (Vice Dean of research) • Hans Dieteren (director)

10.00 – 10.15 Break 10.15 – 11.15 Meeting with Director and Program coordinators CoRPS

• Prof. Johan Denollet • Prof. Susanne Pedersen • Prof. Frans Pouwer • Prof. Anne Roukema • Prof. Bea de Gelder

11.15 – 12.00 Tour of the research labs and ICT Services (Prisma Building) 12.00 – 13.00 Lunch and opportunity for internal deliberation of the Committee in “Tilbury” (Food Plaza Building)

13.00 – 14.00 Meeting with researchers CoRPS

• Dr Kim Smolderen • Dr Karin Gehring • Dr Brenda den Oudsten • Dr Melissa Thong • Dr Paula Mommersteeg

14.00 – 14.15 Break 14.15 – 15.15 Meeting with PhD students

• Giesje Nefs MSc • Dionne Kessing MSc • Mariëlle Rijsbergen MSc • Marjan Traa MSc

15.15 – 16.00 Internal deliberations by the Committee to formulate first impressions and make

appointments for writing the evaluation report 16.00 – 16.30 Informal presentation of the Committee’s first impressions and findings 16.30 Drinks