Developing a mentorship program for clinical researchers

Research translation mentoring for emerging clinician researchers in rural and regional health settings: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Building clinician and organisation-level research translation capacity and capability is fundamental for increasing the implementation of research into health practice and policy and improving health outcomes. Research translation capacity and capability building is particularly crucial in rural and regional settings to address complex problems impacting these socially and economically disadvantaged communities. Programs to build clinicians' research translation capability typically involve training and mentoring. Little is known about the features of and influences on mentorships in the context of training for emerging clinician-researchers working in rural and regional healthcare settings. Research translation mentorships were established as part of the Supporting Translation Research in Rural and Regional settings (STaRR) program developed and delivered in Victoria, Australia from 2020 to 2021. The study sought to address the following research questions: 1) What context-specific types of support do research translation mentors provide to emerging researchers?. 2) How does the mentoring element of a rural research translational training program influence research translation capacity and capability development in rural emerging researchers and mentors, if at all?. 3) How does the mentoring element of the program influence translation capacity and capability at the organisational and regional level, if at all?

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative descriptive study. Interviews with individuals involved in the STaRR program took place approximately 12 months after the program and explored participants' experiences of the mentored training. Interviews were undertaken via telephone, audio-recorded, and transcribed. Data were analysed using a team-based five-stage framework approach.

RESULTS

Participants included emerging researchers (n = 9), mentors (n = 5), and managers (n = 4), from five health services and two universities. We identified four themes in the interview data: (1) Mentors play an educative role; (2) Mentoring enhanced by a collaborative environment; (3) Organisational challenges can influence mentorships, and (4) Mentorships help develop research networks and collective research and translation capacity.

CONCLUSIONS

Mentorships contributed to the development of research translation capabilities. The capabilities were developed through mentors' deepened understanding of the rural and regional healthcare contexts in which their emerging researchers worked, the broadening and strengthening of rural and regional research networks, and building and sharing research translation knowledge and skills.

Mentorship of young researchers in resource-limited settings: experiences of the mentees from selected health sciences Universities in Tanzania

INTRODUCTION

Mentorship is an essential component of research capacity building for young researchers in the health sciences. The mentorship environment in resource-limited settings is gradually improving. This article describes mentees' experiences in a mentorship program for junior academicians amid the COVID-19 pandemic in Tanzania.

METHODS

This is a survey study that examined the experiences of mentees who participated in a mentorship program developed as part of the Transforming Health Education in Tanzania (THET) project. The THET project was funded by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) under a consortium of three partnering academic institutions in Tanzania and two collaborating US-based institutions. Senior faculty members of respective academic institutions were designated as mentors of junior faculty. Quarterly reports submitted by mentees for the first four years of the mentorship program from 2018 to 2022 were used as data sources.

RESULTS

The mentorship program included a total of 12 mentees equally selected from each of the three health training institutions in Tanzania. The majority (7/12) of the mentees in the program were males. All mentees had a master's degree, and the majorities (8/12) were members of Schools/Faculties of Medicine. Most mentors (9/10) were from Tanzania's three partnering health training institutions. All mentors had an academic rank of senior lecturer or professor. Despite the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the regular weekly meetings between mentors and mentees were not affected. By the fourth year of the mentorship program, more than three-quarters of mentees had published research related to the mentorship program in a peer-reviewed journal, over half had enrolled in Ph.D. studies, and half had applied for and won competitive grant awards. Almost all mentees reported being satisfied with the mentorship program and their achievements.

CONCLUSION

The mentorship program enhanced the skills and experiences of the mentees as evidenced by the quality of their research outputs and their dissemination of research findings. The mentorship program encouraged mentees to further their education and enhanced other skills such as grant writing. These results support the initiation of similar mentorship programs in other institutions to expand their capacity in biomedical, social, and clinical research, especially in resource-limited settings, such as Sub-Saharan Africa.

Introduction to effective mentorship for early-career research scientists

Diversifying the scientific workforce remains a national priority due to the continued lack of representation from underrepresented individuals in STEM fields. Quality mentoring has been identified as a stimulus to enhance not only research success, but also recruitment and retention of underrepresented groups pursuing STEM careers. Utilizing the Entering Mentoring training curriculum framework, this report provides a brief synopsis and key takeaways from the 2019 NIH-ASCB Accomplishing Career Transition (ACT) workshop, “Introduction to Effective Mentorship for Scientists” for 30 senior postdoctoral and early-career faculty researchers from historically underrepresented racial and ethnicity backgrounds. In addition, effective strategies and best practices to enhance STEM mentoring for early-career researchers are provided, which have practical applications for diverse mentoring relationships across disciplines, career stages, and mentee types.

A new Mentor Evaluation Tool: Evidence of validity

Background

Mentorship plays an essential role in enhancing the success of junior faculty. Previous evaluation tools focused on specific types of mentors or mentees. The main objective was to develop and provide validity evidence for a Mentor Evaluation Tool (MET) to assess the effectiveness of one-on-one mentoring for faculty in the academic health sciences.

Methods

Evidence was collected for the validity domains of content, internal structure and relationship to other variables. The 13 item MET was tested for internal structure evidence with 185 junior faculty from Schools of Dentistry, Medicine, Nursing, and Pharmacy. Finally, the MET was studied for additional validity evidence by prospectively enrolling mentees of three different groups of faculty (faculty nominated for, or winners of, a lifetime achievement in mentoring award; faculty graduates of a mentor training program; and faculty mentors not in either of the other two groups) at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) and asking them to rate their mentors using the MET. Mentors and mentees were clinicians, educators and/or researchers.

Results

The 13 MET items mapped well to the five mentoring domains and six competencies described in the literature. The standardized Cronbach’s coefficient alpha was 0.96. Confirmatory factor analysis supported a single factor (CFI = 0.89, SRMR = 0.05). The three mentor groups did not differ in the single overall assessment item (P = 0.054) or mean MET score (P = 0.288), before or after adjusting for years of mentoring. The mentorship score means were relatively high for all three groups.

Conclusions

The Mentor Evaluation Tool demonstrates evidence of validity for research, clinical, educational or career mentors in academic health science careers. However, MET did not distinguish individuals nominated as outstanding mentors from other mentors. MET validity evidence can be studied further with mentor-mentee pairs and to follow prospectively the rating of mentors before and after a mentorship training program.

A scoping review of mentor training programs in medicine between 1990 and 2017

Effective mentoring enhances the personal and professional development of mentees and mentors, boosts the reputation of host organizations and improves patient outcomes. Much of this success hinges upon the mentor's ability to nurture personalized mentoring relationships and mentoring environments, provide effective feedback and render timely, responsive, appropriate, and personalized support. However, mentors are often untrained raising concerns about the quality and oversight of mentoring support.To promote effective and consistent use of mentor training in medical education, this scoping review asks what mentor training programs are available in undergraduate and postgraduate medicine and how they may inform the creation of an evidenced-based framework for mentor training.Six reviewers adopted Arksey and O'Malley's approach to scoping reviews to study prevailing mentor-training programs and guidelines in postgraduate education programs and in medical schools. The focus was on novice mentoring approaches. Six reviewers carried out independent searches with similar inclusion/exclusion criteria using PubMed, ERIC, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Google Scholar, and grey literature databases. Included were theses and book chapters published in English or had English translations published between 1 January 1990 and 31 December 2017. Braun and Clarke's approach to thematic analysis was adopted to circumnavigate mentoring's and mentor training's evolving, context-specific, goal-sensitive, learner-, tutor- and relationally dependent nature that prevents simple comparisons of mentor training across different settings and mentee and mentor populations.In total, 3585 abstracts were retrieved, 232 full-text articles were reviewed, 68 articles were included and four themes were identified including the structure, content, outcomes and evaluation of mentor training program.The themes identified provide the basis for an evidence-based, practice-guided framework for a longitudinal mentor training program in medicine and identifies the essential topics to be covered in mentor training programs.

What Mentors Tell Us About Acknowledging Effort and Sustaining Academic Research Mentoring: A Qualitative Study

INTRODUCTION

Continuing education is necessary to foster new and effective research mentoring skills. We asked faculty about their research mentoring practices and what would support their skills and abilities as ongoing and effective research mentors.

METHODS

Twenty-two experienced mentors were interviewed and asked about perceived areas for improvement, and challenges and facilitators to continued research mentoring. Responses were analyzed with qualitative techniques using semistructured interviews, grounded theory, and a constant comparative analytic strategy.

RESULTS

The average time since the completion of the doctoral degree was 26 years. Twenty-one participants believed that more comprehensive institutional acknowledgment for their efforts would enhance research mentoring. This specifically included acknowledging their time spent and service (ie, effort) in multiple in-person and behind-the-scenes tasks. These research mentoring efforts were largely viewed as overlooked by the traditional focus on the achievement of tangible outcomes. Participants thought that a formal plan to organize research mentoring (such as a mentor's charter, and continuing education tailored to both novice and experienced research mentors) was needed to promote evolution of skills and documentation of time and service. Possible methods to support research mentors were suggested and included financial support for travel to national meetings, assistance in developing new projects, and consideration of mentoring activities in the process for academic promotion.

DISCUSSION

Research mentors wanted their achievements, time spent, and service (ie, effort) to be acknowledged by the institution. A formal written mentoring charter and corresponding continuing education could facilitate acknowledging achievements, time, and service and thus help to sustain academic research mentoring.

Training scholars in dissemination and implementation research for cancer prevention and control: a mentored approach

BACKGROUND

As the field of D&I (dissemination and implementation) science grows to meet the need for more effective and timely applications of research findings in routine practice, the demand for formalized training programs has increased concurrently. The Mentored Training for Dissemination and Implementation Research in Cancer (MT-DIRC) Program aims to build capacity in the cancer control D&I research workforce, especially among early career researchers. This paper outlines the various components of the program and reports results of systematic evaluations to ascertain its effectiveness.

METHODS

Essential features of the program include selection of early career fellows or more experienced investigators with a focus relevant to cancer control transitioning to a D&I research focus, a 5-day intensive training institute, ongoing peer and senior mentoring, mentored planning and work on a D&I research proposal or project, limited pilot funding, and training and ongoing improvement activities for mentors. The core faculty and staff members of the MT-DIRC program gathered baseline and ongoing evaluation data regarding D&I skill acquisition and mentoring competency through participant surveys and analyzed it by iterative collective reflection.

RESULTS

A majority (79%) of fellows are female, assistant professors (55%); 59% are in allied health disciplines, and 48% focus on cancer prevention research. Forty-three D&I research competencies were assessed; all improved from baseline to 6 and 18 months. These effects were apparent across beginner, intermediate, and advanced initial D&I competency levels and across the competency domains. Mentoring competency was rated very highly by the fellows--higher than rated by the mentors themselves. The importance of different mentoring activities, as rated by the fellows, was generally congruent with their satisfaction with the activities, with the exception of relatively greater satisfaction with the degree of emotional support and relatively lower satisfaction for skill building and opportunity initially.

CONCLUSIONS

These first years of MT-DIRC demonstrated the program's ability to attract, engage, and improve fellows' competencies and skills and implement a multicomponent mentoring program that was well received. This account of the program can serve as a basis for potential replication and evolution of this model in training future D&I science researchers.

Grant Success for Early-Career Faculty in Patient-Oriented Research: Difference-in-Differences Evaluation of an Interdisciplinary Mentored Research Training Program

PURPOSE

Since 2004, the Clinical Faculty Scholars Program (CFSP) at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus has provided intensive interdisciplinary mentoring and structured training for early-career clinical faculty from multiple disciplines conducting patient-oriented clinical and outcomes research. This study evaluated the two-year program's effects by comparing grant outcomes for CFSP participants and a matched comparison cohort of other junior faculty.

METHOD

Using 2000-2011 institutional grant and employment data, a cohort of 25 scholars was matched to a cohort of 125 comparison faculty (using time in rank and pre-period grant dollars awarded). A quasi-experimental difference-in-differences design was used to identify the CFSP effect on grant outcomes. Grant outcomes were measured by counts and dollars of grant proposals and awards as principal investigator. Outcomes were compared within cohorts over time (pre- vs. post-period) and across cohorts.

RESULTS

From pre- to post-period, mean annual counts and dollars of grant awards increased significantly for both cohorts, but mean annual dollars increased significantly more for the CFSP than for the comparison cohort (delta $83,427 vs. $27,343, P < .01). Mean annual counts of grant proposals also increased significantly more for the CFSP than for the comparison cohort: 0.42 to 2.34 (delta 1.91) versus 0.77 to 1.07 (delta 0.30), P < .01.

CONCLUSIONS

Institutional investment in mentored research training for junior faculty provided significant grant award gains that began after one year of CFSP participation and persisted over time. The CFSP is a financially sustainable program with effects that are predictable, significant, and enduring.

Building reproductive health research and audit capacity and activity in the Pacific Islands (BRRACAP) study: methods, rationale and baseline results

BACKGROUND

Clinical research and audit in reproductive health is essential to improve reproductive health outcomes and to address the Millennium Development Goals 4 and 5. Research training, mentoring and a supportive participatory research environment have been shown to increase research activity and capacity in low to middle income countries (LMIC). This paper details the methods, rationale and baseline findings of a research program aimed at increasing clinical research activity and audit in the six Pacific Islands of Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, Vanuatu, Cook Islands and the Solomon Islands.

METHOD

Twenty-eight clinician participants were selected by the five Ministries of Health and the Fiji National University to undergo a research capacity building program which includes a research workshop and mentoring support to perform research and audit as teams in their country. Data on the participants' characteristics, knowledge and experiences were collected from structured interviews, questionnaires, focus groups, and an online survey. The interviews and the two focus groups were audio-recorded and all replies were analysed in a thematic framework.

RESULTS

The 28 participants included 9 nurses/midwives, 17 medical doctors of whom 8 were specialists in reproductive health and 2 other health workers. Most (24, 86%) were required to perform research as part of their employment and yet 17 (61%) were not confident in writing a research proposal, 13 (46%) could not use an electronic spreadsheet and the same number had not analysed quantitative data. The limited environmental enablers contributed to poor capacity with only 11 (46%) having access to a library, 10 (42%) receiving management support and 6 (25%) having access to an experienced researcher. Barriers to research that affected more than 70% of the participants were time constraints, poor coordination, no funding and a lack of skills.

CONCLUSION

Building a research capacity program appropriate for the diversity of Pacific clinicians required research evidence and collaborative effort of key stakeholders in the Pacific Islands and the region. The participants had limited research knowledge, skills and experience and would require individualized training and continuous intensive mentorship to realize their potential as clinician researchers for their services in the Pacific.

Mentoring in pediatric oncology: a report from the Children's Oncology Group Young Investigator Committee

A formal Mentorship Program within the Children's Oncology Group (COG) was established to pair young investigators (mentees) with established COG members (mentors). Despite the American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement promoting mentorship programs, there are no publications describing and evaluating national mentorship programs in pediatric subspecialties. In this study, a series of internal program evaluations were performed using surveys of both mentors and mentees. Responses were deidentified and analyzed to determine the utility of the program by both participant satisfaction and self-reported academic productivity. Results indicated that mentees were generally satisfied with the program. Mentor-mentee pairs that met at least quarterly demonstrated greater academic productivity than pairings that met less frequently. This formal mentorship program appeared to have subjective and objective utility for the development of academic pediatric subspecialists.

Mentor training within academic health centers with Clinical and Translational Science Awards

Multiple studies highlight the benefits of effective mentoring in academic medicine. Thus, we sought to quantify and characterize the mentoring practices at academic health centers (AHCs) with Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA). Here we report findings pertaining specifically to mentor training at the level of the KL2 mentored award program, and at the broader institutional level. We found only four AHCs did not provide any form of training. One-time orientation was most prevalent at the KL2 level, whereas formal face-to-face training was most prevalent at the institutional level. Despite differences in format usage, there was general consensus at both the KL2 and institutional level about the topics of focus of face-to-face training sessions. Lower-resource training formats utilized at the KL2 level may reveal a preference for preselection of qualified mentors, while institutional selection of resource-heavy formats may be an attempt to raise the mentoring qualifications of the academic community as a whole. The present work fits into the expanding landscape of academic mentoring literature and sets the framework for future longitudinal, outcome studies focused on identifying the most efficient strategies to develop effective mentors.

Policies, activities, and structures supporting research mentoring: a national survey of academic health centers with clinical and translational science awards

PURPOSE

To document the frequency of policies and activities in support of mentoring practices at institutions receiving a U.S. National Institutes of Health's Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA).

METHOD

The study consisted of a 69-item survey with questions about the inclusion (formal or informal) of policies, activities, and structures supporting mentoring within CTSA-sponsored research (i.e., KL2 programs) and, more broadly, in the CTSA's home institution. The survey, conducted from November 2010 through January 2011, was sent to the 55 institutions awarded CTSAs at the time of the survey. Follow-up phone interviews were conducted to clarify responses as needed.

RESULTS

Fifty-one of 55 (92%) institutions completed the survey for institutional programs and 53 of 55 (96%) for KL2 programs. Responses regarding policies and activities involving mentor criteria, mentor-mentee relationship, incentives, and evaluative mechanisms revealed considerable variability between KL2 and institutional programs in some areas, such as having mentor qualification criteria and processes to evaluate mentors. The survey also identified areas, such as training and women and minority mentoring programs, where there was frequent sharing of activities between the institutional and KL2 programs.

CONCLUSIONS

KL2 programs and institutional programs tend to have different preferences for policies versus activities to optimize qualification of mentors, the mentor-mentee relationship, incentives, and evaluation mechanisms. Frequently, these elements are informal. Individuals in charge of implementing and maintaining mentoring initiatives can use the results of the study to consider their current mentoring policies, structures, and activities by comparing them with national patterns within CTSA institutions.

The development, implementation, and assessment of an innovative faculty mentoring leadership program

Effective mentoring is an important component of academic success. Few programs exist to both improve the effectiveness of established mentors and cultivate a multispecialty mentoring community. In 2008, in response to a faculty survey on mentoring, leaders at Brigham and Women's Hospital developed the Faculty Mentoring Leadership Program as a peer learning experience for midcareer and senior faculty physician and scientist mentors to enhance their skills and leadership in mentoring and create a supportive community of mentors. A planning group representing key administrative, educational, clinical, and research mentorship constituencies designed the nine-month course.Participants met monthly for an hour and a half during lunchtime. Two cofacilitators engaged the diverse group of 16 participants in interactive discussions about cases based on the participants' experiences. While the cofacilitators discussed with the participants the dyadic mentor-mentee relationship, they specifically emphasized the value of engaging multiple mentors and establishing mentoring networks. In response to postsession and postcourse (both immediately and after six months) self-assessments, participants reported substantive gains in their mentoring confidence and effectiveness, experienced a renewed sense of enthusiasm for mentoring, and took initial steps to build a diverse network of mentoring relationships.In this article, the authors describe the rationale, design, implementation, assessment, and ongoing impact of this innovative faculty mentoring leadership program. They also share lessons learned for other institutions that are contemplating developing a similar faculty mentoring program.

Insights into mentorship for endocrinologists

CONTEXT

Effective mentorship is considered a prerequisite for success during medical training and an ensuing professional career in academic medicine. The Endocrine Society established sessions on mentorship at the Trainee Day during several annual meetings. These requests motivated a group of endocrinologists at the University of Virginia to assess prior literature on mentorship and collect opinions on the importance of the various characteristics of mentorship from endocrinologists, general faculty, and trainees. This information served as the basis for in-depth reflection and discussions on mentorship.

OBJECTIVE

The goal was to identify and prioritize the quintessential elements involved in mentorship and to reach practical conclusions that would be beneficial to academic endocrinologists.

COMMENTARY

A multigenerational mentorship tree emphasizes that successful mentors can influence generations of mentees and that this represents a multiplier effect. The authors propose that trainees who are informed about the most important characteristics of an effective mentor can make better choices of a mentor. On the other hand, mentors can best define expectations when mentees know what to expect from a mentor, based on key characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

Similarities and differences in expectation about mentorship can be leveraged for better communication between mentor and mentee and for the development of stage-appropriate educational curricula on academic mentorship.

A mentor development program for clinical translational science faculty leads to sustained, improved confidence in mentoring skills

Mentorship is crucial for academic productivity and advancement for clinical and translational (CT) science faculty. However, little is known about the long-term effects of mentor training programs. The University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), Clinical and Translational Science Institute launched a Mentor Development Program (MDP) in 2007 for CT faculty. We report on an evaluation of the first three cohorts of graduates from the MDP. In 2010, all Mentors in Training (MITs) who completed the MDP from 2007 to 2009 (n= 38) were asked to complete an evaluation of their mentoring skills and knowledge; all MITs (100%) completed the evaluation. Two-thirds of MDP graduates reported that they often apply knowledge, attitudes, or skills obtained in the MDP to their mentoring. Nearly all graduates (97%) considered being a mentor important to their career satisfaction. Graduates were also asked about the MDP's impact on specific mentoring skills; 95% agreed that the MDP helped them to become a better mentor and to focus their mentoring goals. We also describe a number of new initiatives to support mentoring at UCSF that have evolved from the MDP. To our knowledge, this is the first evaluation of the long-term impact of a mentor training program for CT researchers.

Identifying and aligning expectations in a mentoring relationship

The mentoring relationship between a scholar and their primary mentor is a core feature of research training. Anecdotal evidence suggests this relationship is adversely affected when scholar and mentor expectations are not aligned. We examined three questions: (1) What is the value in assuring that the expectations of scholars and mentors are mutually identified and aligned? (2) What types of programmatic interventions facilitate this process? (3) What types of expectations are important to identify and align? We addressed these questions through a systematic literature review, focus group interviews of mentors and scholars, a survey of Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) KL2 program directors, and review of formal programmatic mechanisms used by KL2 programs. We found broad support for the importance of identifying and aligning the expectations of scholars and mentors and evidence that mentoring contracts, agreements, and training programs facilitate this process. These tools focus on aligning expectations with respect to the scholar's research, education, professional development and career advancement as well as support, communication, and personal conduct and interpersonal relations. Research is needed to assess test the efficacy of formal alignment activities.

A framework to establish a mentoring programme in surgery

INTRODUCTION

Mentoring programmes help to facilitate the process of continuous professional development in surgery, providing an organizational structure around a mentor-mentee relationship which helps to develop the mentee. The lack of guidelines outlining how to set up such mentoring programmes, the fragmented inter-relationships of existing schemes and the lack of a unified strategy for their implementation are obstacles to the creation of such initiatives within many surgical departments.

METHODS

We draw upon previous research, the experiences of certain authors and our own reflections to identify the key features of a surgical mentoring programme.

RESULTS

We propose a ten step process which aims to encourage the development of formalised mentoring programmes in surgery.

CONCLUSION

This outline may improve the delivery and effectiveness of mentoring programmes, which may ultimately enhance surgical training and hence quality of patient care.

Developing a mentoring program in clinical nutrition

Mentoring programs in nutrition are essential to the survival of clinical nutrition as we know it today. The best method known to maintain an influx of talent to a discipline is by developing an active mentoring program. This paper describes 1 concept for development of a viable mentor program. Mentoring should be flexible and based on mentees' training background. Realistic goals should be set, with written and verbal feedback, to sustain a successful program. Programs should incorporate the Socratic Method whenever possible. Factors that leave doubt about the survival of nutrition as a viable area of focus for physicians include the inability to generate adequate funds to support oneself and limited numbers of mentors available with dedicated time to be a mentor. A healthy, sustainable mentoring program in clinical nutrition will ensure survival of physician-based nutrition programs.

Training the next generation of research mentors: the University of California, San Francisco, Clinical & Translational Science Institute Mentor Development Program

Mentoring is a critical component of career development and success for clinical translational science research faculty. Yet few programs train faculty in mentoring skills. We describe outcomes from the first two faculty cohorts who completed a Mentor Development Program (MDP) at UCSF. Eligibility includes having dedicated research time, expertise in a scientific area and a desire to be a lead research mentor. A post-MDP survey measured the program's impact on enhancement of five key mentoring skills, change in the Mentors-in-Training (MIT) self-rated importance of being a mentor to their career satisfaction, and overall confidence in their mentoring skills. Since 2007, 29 MITs participated in and 26 completed the MDP. Only 15% of the MITs reported any previous mentor training. Overall, 96% of MITs felt that participation in the MDP helped them to become better mentors. A majority reported a significant increase in confidence in mentoring skills and most reported an increased understanding of important mentoring issues at UCSF. MITs reported increased confidence in overall and specific mentoring skills after completion of the MDP. The MDP can serve as a model for other institutions to develop the next generation of clinical-translational research mentors.

In it for the long-term: defining the mentor-protégé relationship in a clinical research training program

PURPOSE

To define the characteristics of effective mentor-protégé relationships in a Clinical Research Training Program (CRTP) and to assess the agreement among mentors and protégés regarding those attributes.

METHOD

The authors administered an anonymous survey to protégés who completed the Albert Einstein College of Medicine's CRTP during its first seven years (2000-2006) and their mentors. Statements included aspects of mentoring thought to be important within the program, such as availability (Statement 1) and oversight of the thesis process (Statements 2-4). Additional statements were related both to career development (e.g., looking out for the best interests of the scholar and assisting in negotiations for a faculty position after program completion [Statements 5 and 6]) and to the expectation that the mentor would continue to be a resource for the protégé in years to come (Statement 7). The authors assessed overall agreement among mentors and protégés, using matched pair analysis.

RESULTS

Overall response was 70.7% (133/188), with fewer matched pairs (n = 50, 50%). Seventy-five percent of respondents agreed strongly or somewhat with all statements. Analysis indicated significant agreement with Statements 2, 4, 6, and 7. Median scores from protégés did not differ whether their mentor responded (paired) or not (unpaired); however, mentor-protégé pairs had significantly greater agreement with Statements 3-7 than unpaired mentors and protégés (P < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

Mentors and protégés seemed to agree that mentors within a CRTP demonstrated effective mentor attributes, including fostering a long-term relationship with the protégé.

An innovative program to train health sciences researchers to be effective clinical and translational research mentors

The creation of the Clinical Translational Science Awards for academic health sciences campuses in 2006 was implicitly accompanied by a call for a new paradigm of faculty development and mentoring to train the next generation of researchers and leaders in this new approach to research. Effective mentoring is critical to help early-career investigators become successful, independent researchers, and a new approach to mentoring is vital to recruit, advance, and retain fellows and junior faculty engaged in clinical and translational research. However, in addition to the many rewards of mentoring, there are numerous substantive barriers to effective mentoring. These barriers include a lack of training in how to be a mentor, lack of time and structural and financial support for mentoring, and competing personal, administrative, and clinical demands. The authors describe an innovative program, the University of California, San Francisco Mentor Development Program (MDP), established in 2006 and designed to train midcareer academic health sciences researchers to be more effective as clinical and translational research mentors. Using a framework for presenting innovations in academic research, they present the rationale, design, implementation, and mechanisms being used to evaluate and sustain the MDP. Specific details of the objectives and content of the MDP sessions are provided as well as evaluation criteria and a link to specific curriculum materials.

General surgical trainee experiences of mentoring: a UK regional audit

OBJECTIVE

Mentoring is advocated as an essential adjunct in work-based learning providing support in career and noncareer related issues. This study aims to investigate trainee experiences and satisfaction with mentoring arrangements.

DESIGN

E-mail survey of surgical trainees from the East of England Higher Surgical Training Deanery, UK.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Factors affecting presence of a mentoring relationship and satisfaction with mentoring arrangements were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of all respondents, 62.85% stated that they were not sure or did not have a mentor; 34.29% said that they had had a meaningful meeting with their mentor; 57.14% said that they were aware of the responsibilities of a mentor; 34.29% strongly agreed or agreed that mentoring had been useful; 25.71% said that mentoring had been useful in career development; and 20% found it useful in noncareer related issues. Of those with a mentor, only 31.43% were satisfied with mentoring. Factors affecting satisfaction with mentoring included having had a meaningful meeting, having clear objectives set, and help in job transition and noncareer related issues. Knowledge of a mentor's responsibilities was also associated with satisfaction. The only factor associated with the presence of a mentoring relationship was having a mentor appointed.

CONCLUSIONS

We advocate the establishment of a mentoring matching scheme for mentors and mentees together with mentor training to improve mentoring provision for surgical trainees.

Pros and woes of interdisciplinary collaboration with a national clinical trial

Nursing collaborations with clinical trials provide opportunities to answer important nursing questions, enhance interdisciplinary collaboration, use collected data efficiently, include sophisticated measures, and answer questions that could not be answered by either project alone. To foster interdisciplinary collaboration, the National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR) issued a funding initiative to link nurse researchers and clinical trial teams. This article describes a successful collaboration between Extremity Constraint-Induced Therapy Evaluation (EXCITE), a multisite, national clinical trial, and Caregiver-EXCITE, a complementary nursing study funded by NINR. EXCITE tested a neurorehabilitative technique to improve upper extremity function in stroke survivors, whereas Caregiver-EXCITE addressed hypotheses about family function, stroke recovery, and caregiver outcomes. This article addresses advantages and challenges of this collaboration and provides illustrations of excellent opportunities that joint ventures offer to advance science. These types of collaborations have the potential to profoundly move nursing's research agenda forward.

Is there a role for mentoring in Surgical Specialty training?

Over the last decade, there have been considerable advances in the field of medical education and great strides in education research. Although all trainees should nowadays have educational supervisors there remains a focus on assessment which may detract from global support for personal and professional growth. Mentoring has been shown to help mentees overcome difficulties, discuss problems and fulfill goals and is flourishing in many areas of the private and public sectors. Within medicine, there have been such dramatic changes in training recently that additional support may be needed if the new generation of trainees are to maximise their learning and professional development over ever shorter training periods. Having a mentor; a confidential ear and sounding board who is independent from their assessment may encourage more open discussion and provide better support than is currently available. This article focuses on the needs of the surgical trainee but the concept of mentoring should not be limited to this group, and the techniques described in this paper could equally apply to any other medical speciality. The article reviews the current role of mentoring in medicine, outlines the current structure of surgical training in the UK, considers why mentoring might be beneficial in surgery, what forms it might take, how mentors would be trained and how the programme could become established.