Postdoctoral Clinician Researcher Salary Award

This award will provide $45,000 of salary support for 2 years maximum.

All awards are provided without benefits. Successful awardees are expected to organize their own benefits with the host institution. Stipends are valued in Canadian dollars and are not subject to income tax.

Parental leave: 

Learners for the doctoral award are eligible to receive paid parental leave up to a maximum of 6 months if (a) interrupting the ENRICH award within six months of childbirth or adoption, (b) the learner will be the primary caregiver for the child, AND (c) the learner is not eligible for and will not be receiving employment insurance or other parental benefits from any other sources.  The leave must be requested at minimum 30 days in advance of leave start date. The maximum benefit payable by ENRICH is $12,500 for 6 months. This is equivalent to $2083.33 per month of the requested leave. Host institutions are not required to match parental leave funds. Any additional benefit-matching amounts are payable at the discretion of the learner’s host university/training center.   For further information regarding your eligibility and requirements, please contact the ENRICH Program Staff and/or your Regional Leader.

Individuals who hold faculty positions (fellows and new investigators) are eligible to receive Employment Insurance (EI) benefits and/or parental leave benefits based on the salary received at the host center.  Under these circumstances, ENRICH will not provide additional parental leave benefits on the ENRICH award amount.

The award paid from the ENRICH’s grant will be placed “on hold” for the duration of the leave, and will resume upon the return of the individual to the training environment.  The term of the award will be extended by the length of the approved leave up to but not exceeding twelve months.

Medical or Family Caregiver Leave: Learners are eligible for medical or a family caregiver’s leave. The latter is to provide care or support to certain family members who have a serious medical condition. Awards will be placed “on hold” for the duration of the leave with supported documentation from the local institution. Awards will resume upon the return of the individual to the training environment.

Research Allowance:  No research or travel allowance will be provided. However, the Award recipients and their supervisors will have their expenses paid to attend the ENRICH Annual National Symposia and relevant Regional Mini Symposia. A written commitment from the supervisor/mentor stating his/her agreement to attend National Symposia, for each year that the learner is in the program, is mandatory with the application.

Deadline to apply:

A letter of Intent will be due November 1st at 5pm PST.  Candidates will be notified via email whether they can proceed to the full application within 1-2 weeks after the LOI deadline.

A Full application will be due January 10th of each year at 5pm PST. Late or incomplete applications will not be considered. If the application competition date falls on a weekend or statutory holiday, applications will be due on the first business day following at 5 pm PST.

When you are ready to submit your application click on the “APPLY NOW” button on our website to complete the online form. You will be asked to upload each of the required documents below.

A complete full application that is due January 10th consists of:

1. Proof of citizenship or permanent residency: A pdf of your passport, birth certificate, or residency card are all acceptable forms of verification.   Please name it “1 CandidateLastname_Identity”.  The identity documentation will not be circulated to the Selection Committee, and only used to review eligibility.
2. Proof of Canadian licensure: Documentation of general or academic license by an appropriate licensing body. Must be valid within the province you are studying. Please include expiration date or proof of renewal on uploaded document. If you are in a combined clinical and research program, please upload a letter of proof of clinical training, end date and intent to apply for a license from your clinical supervisor.  Please name it “2 CandidateLastname _License”.
   
3. Itemized Response (for resubmissions only): If you submitted an application within the last 12 months, please upload an itemized response to the ENRICH reviewer comments (2-page limit).  Please name it “3R CandidateLastname _Reviewer Response”
4. Research Proposal: This document should state a rationale for your proposal, an outline of the research objectives, goals and timelines, the scientific methods (data analysis, interpretation, indicators, research rigor, etc.) to be used, your evaluation plan (potential challenges and mitigation strategies), along with relevant knowledge translation and patient engagement plans. Your role in the project should be made evident within this description. This summary should be written in general scientific language. (A maximum of 5 pages including figures and tables is allowed with one (1) additional page for references. Please use any standard 12 point font, single-spaced, 2 cm margins) and include your name in the right side of the header. Please name this file “3 CandidateLastname Research Proposal”
5. Common CVs: CIHR Academic Common CVs for yourself and all your supervisors and Mentors should be ready for upload. Please name them as follows:4 CandidateLastname_CV
   4a Mentor/Supervisor 1 Lastname_CV
   4b Mentor/Supervisor 2 Lastname_CV, etc.
6. Letter from host institution: All candidates must be nominated by their Institution. A letter of support is to be completed by the Head of the Department or Research Institute that includes:
   1. Expression of support of the candidate’s research training within the institution
   2. The space, facilities, and personnel support for the candidate.
   3. The interdisciplinary nature of the candidate’s research.
   4. Commitment to 50% protected research time for the applicant
   5. Kindly name it “6 CandidateLastName_HostLtr”.
7. Indigenous Research: Applicants conducting Indigenous research must provide a letter of support from the community which they are engaging with, for this research. We define Indigenous Research as research in any field or discipline that is grounded in or engaged with First Nations, Inuit, Métis or other Indigenous nations, communities, societies or individuals, and their wisdom, cultures, experiences or knowledge systems, as expressed in their dynamic forms, past and present. Please name this support letter “8 Candidate Lastname_Indigenous Community Support”
8. Signature page. Please name it “9 CandidateLastname Sig Page”. 
9. Sponsor Assessments:  Candidates must have three (3) individuals provide assessments on their behalf. Additional assessments will not be considered. This should include the current local supervisor (for doctoral or postdoctoral learners) or mentor (for New Investigators) and 2 other individuals of the candidate’s choice. It is the responsibility of the candidate to ensure that their sponsors complete the appropriate assessment form. Sponsors should email their assessments directly to Program Staff (contact email to be updated). Assessments are confidential and should NOT be seen by the candidate.

   Doctoral and Post-Doctoral Supervisors: Please include the following information in your assessment:

   1. 1. Endorsement of the candidate.
      2. The space, facilities and personnel support for the candidate.
      3. The interdisciplinary nature of the training.
      4. The commitment of the learner to participate in the core curriculum.
      5. The commitment of the learner to participate in ENRICH annual symposium.
      6. Mentorship Plan: This portion of the letter should outline the commitment of the supervisor towards the candidate’s research training. It should explain step by step what you will mentor the candidate in, how you will accomplish this, and how often this will take place. 

French applications: Applications may be submitted in French. Please note, you are requested to advise the ENRICH Program Office of your intent to submit in French a minimum 4 weeks prior to the application deadline.  If you are successful in the written portion, interviews can be accommodated in French at the candidate’s request.

Issues/Questions? Email Program Staff (contact email will be updated September 2024)

Important Dates:

Letter of Intent (clinician-researcher applications only):

1. Program Staff will review the application to ensure the candidate meets all the eligibility requirements.
2. If eligible, a subcommittee of the selection committee will evaluate in detail the relative strengths and weaknesses of submitted LOIs, based on the evaluation criteria. The Review Panel provides recommendations applicants to invite to submit a full proposal.

Reviewer Assignment and Conflict of Interest:

1. Upon application deadline, the Program Staff collates applications and ensures that each applicant meets all eligibility requirements.

2. An email is sent to all Selection Committee members with a list of applicants and their demographics, for conflicts of interest and declaration of expertise.

3. The Program Staff sends the Selection Committee Chair, Co-Chair and Director the list of applicants with demographics, project title, abstract, and conflicts of interest. Individuals with a conflict of interest for certain applicants, and from the same centre will not be assigned to the applicant in question.

4. The Selection Committee Chair, Co-Chair, and Program staff assign the following reviewers to each candidate:
   • Scientific review: 3 reviewers consisting of selection committee members, ENRICH mentors, or external reviewers if needed
   • Patient Engagement review: 1 patient partner
   • EDI review: EDI Champion
   • The Selection Committee Chair, Co-Chair and Director will not be assigned any applications to review.

Emails are sent to the reviewers to accept or decline and declare any conflict of interest. A new reviewer will be assigned if a reviewer declines or has a conflict. Reviewers who accept a review will also be required to join the Selection virtual meeting. The Program Staff sends each reviewer the applications they will be reviewing with an evaluation form.

Reviews and Scoring:

5. Reviewers are given approximately 4-6 weeks to complete their reviews and return the evaluation form with scores one week before the Selection Committee virtual meeting.
6. Scoring

Scientific Review: Reviewers will score the candidates based on (1) research proposal (clarity, feasibility, rationale) (2) research training environment (research team, resources, interdisciplinary nature) and (3) applicant qualifications (research experience, publications, productivity, honours, awards and sponsor assessments). The distribution of weight for each award will be as follows:

• Research Proposal: 25%
• Training Environment: 25%
• Applicant Qualification: 50%

Patient Partner Review: Reviewers will be asked to read through the lay summary and patient engagement section. The candidates will receive a pass, revision, or major revision rating based on the relevance and impact to perinatal and child health and well-being, communication in plain language, and the patient engagement plan.

EDI Review: An EDI champion will review the lay summary and EDI section of the application. The candidates will receive a pass, revision, or major revision rating based on the CIHR Best Practices in Equity, Diversity and Inclusion in Research guide.

Preparation for panel review (Selection Virtual Meeting):

7. The Program Staff sends out a personal scorecard to each Selection Committee member one week before the meeting.

8. The Program Staff shares the reviewer scores and their averages with the Selection Committee Chair, Co-Chair and Director. If scores for a candidate are highly variable, the Selection Committee Chair, Co-Chair and Director may request to see the reviews.

9. Based on (a) the compatibility of the scores among reviewers for each candidate and (b) conflicts of interest among Selection committee members, the Selection Committee Chair and Co-Chair will determine the order of discussion for each candidate. Reviewers with a conflict of interest will be asked to leave the meeting when reviewing the applicant in question and prompted to return when the discussion is complete. Should the Director have a conflict, the Director will leave the call and the Selection Chair will act as the Director and Selection Co-Chair as the Chair. Should the Selection Chair have a conflict, they will leave the call and the Selection Co-Chair will act as the Selection Chair.

Selection meeting and consensus scoring:

10. At the Selection Committee meeting, each candidate will be reviewed in the order determined by the Selection Committee Chair and Co-Chair.

11. Streamlined applications: For applicants who attained low scores, the Selection Committee Chair and Co-Chair may request to streamline the application. If approved by all reviewers, this application will not be discussed. Candidates can be streamlined if

• Scientific Review:
  • Two reviewer scores are under 4.0
  • The average of all 3 reviewer scores is under 4.0.

Should there be a copious number of applications, the boundary for streamlining applications may change to ensure that only 15 applications maximum are discussed by reviewers. The scores reported to streamlined candidates will be the average score for each review category and will be identified as “Streamlined: score.”  Candidates whose applications are not streamlined are identified with only a score in the feedback report.

12. Discussed applications:
    • Scientific review: Reviewers 1, 2, and 3, will each state their scores and then respectively outline their reviews of the proposed application.
    • Patient Partner review: The patient partner will state their rating, providing reasoning.
    • EDI Review: The EDI Champion will state their rating, providing reasoning.

13. A discussion then follows with the rest of the selection committee who may have additional questions, concerns or insights.

14. The 3 scientific reviewers agree on a consensus score based on the application discussion, taking into consideration both the patient partner and EDI Champion feedback. If the reviewers cannot reach a consensus, the Selection Co-Chairs will negotiate a consensus score. All scientific review members of the selection committee are then asked to (a) record the consensus score on their scorecards; (b) score the candidate plus or minus (+/-) 0.5 of the consensus score.

15. Items 11 to 14 are repeated for each candidate until all candidates have been reviewed. Selection Committee members with conflicts are asked to leave before and return after (via text message) the conflicting application.

16. Immediately following the virtual meeting, each reviewer emails the Program Staff their completed personal scorecards. Any revisions to reviews must be submitted within 24 hours of the Selection Committee virtual meeting.

17. A tally and average of the personal scores is created by the Program Staff. The Selection Committee Chair, Co-Chair, and Director are sent the final average only of the tally for each candidate. Candidates who have scored 4.0 or above are considered for an interview approximately 4 weeks later. Should many candidates have attained a score of 4.0 or higher, at least two candidates will be interviewed for each award. These candidates will be the two candidates with the highest score for each award.

18. Candidates who have not been selected for an interview will be sent copies of each reviewer’s forms, along with official notes from the Selection Committee detailing any constructive feedback that came up during the discussion. These notes will be drafted by the Program Staff, then reviewed by the Selection Committee Chair, Co-Chair and Director. 

Interview preparation:

19. Candidates who will be interviewed may will be sent official constructive feedback in the form of a letter. This will include feedback from the scientific reviews, patient partner, and EDI Champion. Candidates will be requested to submit a brief 2-page response before their interview.

Interview day and ranking:

20. The Interviews will be conducted by a representation of the Selection Committee panel consisting of the Selection Chair, Co-Chair, Director, 2 other Selection Committee members, a patient partner, and the Program Staff (ex-officio). Any member of the interview panel with conflicts will be asked to leave during the interview. Should the Director have a conflict, the Director will leave the room, and the Selection Chair will act as the Director and Co-Chair as the Chair. Should the Selection Chair have a conflict, they will leave the room and the Co-Chair will act as the Chair.

21. Candidates will be scored on a 5-point scale based on their vision for a scientific career, ability to clearly articulate the research project to the non-expert and discuss the project in the broader context of research in the field, address any reviewer comments raised in the written feedback, mentorship plan, discuss interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary integration potential for their project, and explain their patient engagement and EDI plan for the research. Panel members will also ask follow-up questions as they may arise during the discussion.

22. Based on post-interview discussions and average panel scores, a rank order will be determined for fundable candidates.

Executive Committee Approval:

23. The rank order will be presented, and funding cut-off will be discussed and approved at the Executive Committee. This decision will be based on funding availability and recommendations from the Director and Selection Committee Chair and Co-Chair.

Notice of Award:

24. Following the Executive vote, notification letters will be sent to the interviewed candidates. These letters will be drafted by the Program Staff, then vetted by the Selection Committee Chair, Co-Chair, and Director.

Grievances:

25. All grievances with the selection process can be brought to the Executive Committee via the Chair or Co-Chair of the committee.
26. A follow-up telephone call with the Selection Committee Chair can be requested if a candidate has specific questions regarding feedback provided by the selection committee and the outcome of the competition.