Impact of a formal mentoring program on academic promotion of Department of Medicine faculty: a comparative study

Need for Time and Training: Pediatric Program Directors' Perceptions About Mentorship of Residents

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to describe pediatric program directors' perceptions of existing mentorship programs in pediatric residencies, to assess whether characteristics used for mentor-mentee assignments impact mentoring outcomes, and to identify barriers to success in mentorship programs.

METHODS

With the support of the Association of Pediatric Program Directors (APPD) Research Task Force, we conducted a cross-sectional survey study of all associate pediatric program directors in the United States in March 2022.

RESULTS

Nearly half (82 of 197, 41.6%) of programs responded. Most (87.8%) report having a formal mentoring program. Half of programs (51.4%) do not provide training to residents on how to be a mentee, and only slightly more than half (62.5%) provide training to faculty mentors. Most programs (80.6%) do not provide protected time for faculty mentors. There were no meaningful associations with characteristics used for mentorship matches and perceived successful mentorship. Top barriers from the program leadership perspective included faculty and residents lacking time, residents lacking skills to be proactive mentees, and inadequate funding.

CONCLUSIONS

While a majority of programs have formal mentorship programs, many do not provide training to mentors or mentees. Barriers to mentorship include a lack of funding and time. National organizations, such as APPD and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, have an opportunity to provide guidance and support for protected time, funding, and training for mentors and mentees.

The faculty-to-faculty mentorship experience: a survey on challenges and recommendations for improvements

Faculty at research institutions play a central role in advancing knowledge and careers, as well as promoting the well-being of students and colleagues in research environments. Mentorship from experienced peers has been touted as critical for enabling these myriad roles to allow faculty development, career progression, and satisfaction. However, there is little information available on who supports faculty and best ways to structure a faculty mentorship programme for early- and mid-career academics. In the interest of advocating for increased and enhanced faculty mentoring and mentoring programmes, we surveyed faculty around the world to gather data on whether and how they receive mentoring. We received responses from 457 early- and mid-career faculty and found that a substantial portion of respondents either reported having no mentor or a lack of a formal mentoring scheme. Qualitative responses on the quality of mentorship revealed that the most common complaints regarding mentorship included lack of mentor availability, unsatisfactory commitment to mentorship, and non-specific or non-actionable advice. On these suggestions, we identify a need for training for faculty mentors as well as strategies for individual mentors, departments, and institutions for funding and design of more intentional and supportive mentorship programmes for early- and mid-career faculty.

A Facilitated Peer Mentoring Program With a Dedicated Curriculum to Foster Career Advancement of Academic Hospitalists

Introduction

In the field of hospital medicine, there is both a limited pool of senior faculty to mentor the rapidly growing number of junior faculty and a lack of career development curricula focused on scholarly activities specific to the needs of the hospitalist. These deficits have resulted in a disproportionately low number of academic hospitalists being promoted to associate and full professor. We implemented a facilitated peer mentoring program with a dedicated curriculum to foster career advancement of academic hospitalists.

Methods

We recruited 29 academic hospitalists and divided them into five small groups, each guided by one senior faculty. Peer members participated in a 9-month curriculum consisting of alternating large- and small-group sessions that reviewed topics important for academic advancement. Quantitative analysis assessed feasibility of the program, as measured by participation and knowledge improvement on curriculum topics, with pre- and postprogram surveys.

Results

Results demonstrated feasibility of the large-group sessions as measured through participation. Small-group participation was more variable. Pre- and postsurvey results showed significant knowledge improvement (p < .05) in nearly all of the curriculum topics.

Discussion

Currently, there is a gap in both mentorship and scholarly skills of academic hospitalists. Our facilitated peer mentoring program with a dedicated curriculum can be used as a framework for other hospitalist programs to support career development.

Can Mentorship Shatter the Glass Ceiling in Academic Microsurgery? A National Survey of Microsurgery Fellowship-Trained Women

BACKGROUND

The "leaky pipeline" phenomenon has caused women to remain underrepresented at higher levels of academic plastic surgery. No study has considered the availability of mentorship within any subset of academic plastic surgery. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the current representation of women in academic microsurgery and to determine the impact of mentorship on career progression.

METHODS

An electronic survey was designed to determine the availability and quality of mentorship respondents received at different stages of their career (from medical student to attending physician). The survey was distributed to women who completed a microsurgery fellowship and were current faculty at an academic plastic surgery program.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven of 48 survey recipients participated (56.3% response rate). Most held an associate professor (20.0%) or assistant professor (40.0%) position. Respondents had an average of 4.1 ± 2.3 mentors throughout their entire training. A minority of mentors were microsurgery trained (28.3%), and only 29.2% of respondents reported female mentorship throughout their training. Attending physicians least often received formative mentorship (52.0%). Fifty percent of respondents sought female mentors, citing that they desired female insight. Of those who did not seek female mentors, 72.7% cited a lack of access to female mentors.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidenced by female trainees being unable to find female mentors and low rates of mentorship at the attending physician level, there is currently not enough capacity to meet the demand for female mentorship by women pursuing academic microsurgery. Many individual and structural barriers to quality mentorship and sponsorship exist within this field.

Exploring mentorship in surgery: An interview study on how people stick together

OBJECTIVE

The objective is to explore the processes contributing to how and why mentors and mentees initiate, maintain and grow in their mentorship relationships in surgery.

BACKGROUND

To explore the processes contributing to how and why mentors and mentees initiate, maintain and grow their mentorship relationships in surgery. Evidence suggests that mentorship has a positive impact on physicians' success. Consequently, mentorship programmes have been incorporated into many medicine environments, albeit with variable success.

METHODS

We designed an interview-based study using a constructivist grounded theory approach to explore the dynamics of mentorship between junior and experienced surgeons. Recruited mentees were asked to nominate a senior surgeon they identified as a mentor. Both mentee and mentors were then interviewed separately. Transcripts were analysed using constant comparison to a create a final coding framework and to generate themes.

RESULTS

We interviewed nine faculty mentors and 10 junior faculty mentees. Our analysis identified key themes describing how to initiate, maintain and grow a mentorship relationship. Mentorship starts with ensuring a 'good fit', persists through satisfying a reciprocal loop with timely communication and deepens the relationship through cycles of mutual investment, learning, and success. Participants also discussed how to navigate through tensions to avoid relationship breakdown, balancing formality and friendship, knowing when to transition a relationship to a new dynamic and finding areas of realistic contribution.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that successful mentorship relationships are viewed as dynamic and thus require active investment and shared responsibility between mentees and mentors. Our results also emphasise the value of co-regulation in the relationship, where cycles of mutual investment can contribute to mutual learning and growth.

Racial and Gender Differences in Medical Student Burnout: A 2021 National Survey

OBJECTIVE

To measure racial and gender differences in medical student burnout and identify possible contributing factors.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Electronic surveys were distributed to medical students at 9 US medical schools from December 27, 2020, through January 17, 2021. Questions covered demographic characteristics, stressors contributing to burnout, and the 2-item Maslach Burnout Inventory.

RESULTS

Of 5500 invited students, 1178 (21%) responded (mean age, 25.3 years; 61% identified as female). Fifty-seven percent of respondents identified as White, 26% as Asian, and 5% as Black. Overall, 75.6% of students met the criteria for burnout. Women reported more burnout (78% vs 72%; P=.049). There were no differences in burnout prevalence by race. Students commonly reported that lack of sleep (42%), decreased engagement in hobbies or self-care (41%), stress about grades (37%), feeling socially disconnected (36%), and lack of exercise (35%) contributed to burnout. Compared with students of other races, Black students reported that their feelings of burnout were affected significantly more by lack of sleep and poor diet, and Asian students more by stress about grades, residency, and publishing pressure (all P<.05). Female students were more affected than male students by stress about grades, poor diet, and feelings of social disconnectedness and inadequacy (all P<.05).

CONCLUSION

Burnout (75.6%) was higher than historical norms, and female students reported higher burnout than male students. There was no difference in burnout prevalence by race. There were racial and gender differences in self-identified contributors of burnout. Additional research is needed to confirm whether stressors were contributors to or consequences of burnout, as well as how to address them.

AOA Critical Issues Symposium: Mind the Gap: Addressing Confidence, Imposter Syndrome, and Perfectionism in Surgical Training

ABSTRACT

Orthopaedic surgeons in training and in their careers can experience a lack of confidence and imposter syndrome. Confidence is built early through continuous improvement, accomplishments, support, and reinforcement. Although it is normal to lack confidence at times, the goal is to recognize this issue, work on visualizing success, and know when to seek help. Mentors can help mentees to build confidence and to normalize thoughts of insecurity and imposter syndrome. It is critical to develop and to maintain resilience, grit, emotional intelligence, courage, and vulnerability during training and throughout one's entire orthopaedic career. Leaders in the field must be aware of these phenomena, be able to talk about such issues, have methods to combat the harmful effects of imposter syndrome, and create a safe, supportive environment conducive to learning and working. Leading well builds not only confidence in oneself but also self-confidence in others. Leaders who are able to build the confidence of individuals will enhance team dynamics, wellness, and overall productivity as well as individual and organizational success.

A Scoping Review of Health Care Faculty Mentorship Programs in Academia: Implications for Program Design, Implementation, and Outcome Evaluation

INTRODUCTION

Formal mentoring programs have direct benefits for academic health care institutions, but it is unclear whether program designs use recommended components and whether outcomes are being captured and evaluated appropriately. The goal of this scoping review is to address these questions.

METHODS

We completed a literature review using a comprehensive search in SCOPUS and PubMed (1998-2019), a direct solicitation for unpublished programs, and hand-searched key references, while targeting mentor programs in the United States, Puerto Rico, and Canada. After three rounds of screening, team members independently reviewed and extracted assigned articles for 40 design data items into a comprehensive database.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight distinct mentoring programs were represented in the data set. The team members clarified specific mentor roles to assist the analysis. The analysis identified mentoring program characteristics that were properly implemented, including identifying program goals, specifying the target learners, and performing a needs assessment. The analysis also identified areas for improvement, including consistent use of models/frameworks for program design, implementation of mentor preparation, consistent reporting of objective outcomes and career satisfaction outcomes, engagement of program evaluation methods, increasing frequency of reports as programs as they mature, addressing the needs of specific faculty groups (eg, women and minority faculty), and providing analyses of program cost-effectiveness in relation to resource allocation (return on investment).

CONCLUSION

The review found that several mentor program design, implementation, outcome, and evaluation components are poorly aligned with recommendations, and content for URM and women faculty members is underrepresented. The review should provide academic leadership information to improve these discrepancies.

Combatting Burnout by Maximizing Medical Student Participation in Exercise Events

Physicians have a higher risk of burnout than many other professions, and burnout is associated with less altruistic professional values, worse patient-doctor relationships, and increased medical errors. Burnout begins in medical school, such that institutions should intervene early to facilitate increased engagement in forms of self-care, including but not limited to exercise. Exercise is negatively associated with burnout, but there is limited research on what motivates students to participate in exercise events and how events could be optimally designed to maximize attendance. Students from nine medical schools across the United States were invited to complete an online survey assessing the effectiveness of various factors at increasing participation in exercise events. Of 5500 invited students, 1182 (21%) responded. Mean age was 25 years, 61% were female, and 38% male. Fifty-seven percent identified as White, 26% Asian, and 5% Black. Students reported financial discounts (56%), having all logistics planned by event organizers (46%), and opportunities to find informal mentors (40%) as most likely to increase participation. To increase student participation in wellness events, institutions should prioritize available funding toward strategies that save students time and money while building community across levels of training and departments.

Radiation Oncology AcaDemic Mentorship Program (ROADMAP) for Junior Faculty: One-Year Results of a Prospective Single Institution Initiative

PURPOSE

Although mentorship has been associated with promotion, job satisfaction, and retention, data are limited on the mentorship experience of clinical- versus research-track physicians as well as feasibility and relative priority of formal program components.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Within a single-institution, multi-site, academic network, we implemented a Radiation Oncology AcaDemic Mentorship Program (ROADMAP) for junior faculty. Validated surveys assessing mentee satisfaction were distributed at baseline and 1 year. The statistical analysis included Wilcoxon rank sum and signed tests. Mentees assessed the likelihood to recommend each program component (10-point Likert-type scale), and means with standard error (SE) are reported.

RESULTS

Among 42 eligible junior faculty, 36 (86%) opted into the program. The median time since residency was 2.5 years (interquartile range, 1.75-5.25) on the clinical track (n = 12) and 3 years (interquartile range, 2.75-5.00) on the research track (n = 24). At baseline, research-track physicians reported higher satisfaction with mentoring than physicians on the clinical track (2.92 vs 2.16; P = .02). Among 32 physicians completing 1 year, overall satisfaction with mentoring increased compared with baseline (2.72 vs 3.87; P < .001), which persisted on subset analysis for both clinical- (2.16 vs 4.03; P < .001) and research-track physicians (2.99 vs 3.77; P = .005). At 1 year, 28 mentees (88%) opted to continue the program. Program components were rated 8.25 (SE, 0.37) for mentor-mentee pairings, 7.22 (SE, 0.39) for goal setting, 6.84 (SE, 0.47) for administrative support, 6.69 (SE, 0.44) for peer mentoring, and 6.53 (SE, 0.45) for steering committee oversight. Ratings of peer mentoring were not associated with track (P = .59) or years in practice (P = .29).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical-track physicians may be less satisfied with mentorship than research-track faculty. However, all junior faculty, regardless of track, appeared to benefit from formalizing dyadic mentor-mentee relationships, goal setting, and peer mentoring. Further work is needed to determine the role of mentorship in addressing physician burnout.

The Importance of Mentorship in Shaping the Careers of Academic Leaders in Plastic Surgery

BACKGROUND

The majority of successful academic physicians cite mentorship as a critical element of their achievements. The goal of this study was to survey established leaders in plastic surgery to identify the importance that mentorship played in their career development, and to identify common themes that enabled them to "pay it forward" in helping to develop the next generation of leaders in plastic surgery.

METHODS

The authors performed a qualitative survey of 14 established leaders in plastic surgery (mentors) in the United States with a strong reputation for mentorship. The authors asked each to identify a key mentor (senior mentor) and mentee, grouping them in triads of a senior mentor, mentor, and mentee. The authors then submitted a similar survey to the mentee.

RESULTS

Thirteen mentor-mentee pairs for which both members had responded were included. After reviewing responses to these questions, the authors elicited a number of recurring themes. All respondents emphasized the importance of mentorship to their success in academic plastic surgery. Additional themes included encouraging mentees to find their passion, leading by example, discussing complex cases with residents/students, and using research time as an opportunity.

CONCLUSIONS

Strong patterns of mentorship are highlighted among the careers of leaders in academic plastic surgery. The authors advocate for formation of mentorship relationships within training programs and more national mentorship programs such as those emerging through the American Society of Plastic Surgeons and the Plastic Surgery Research Council for interested medical students, residents, and junior faculty.

Scholarly productivity and growth of academic hospital medicine full professors

BACKGROUND

Scholarship remains the principal currency for faculty promotion in academic medicine. Reference points for scholarly growth and productivity at academic medical centers (AMCs) are lacking.

METHODS

We identified hospital medicine full professors (HMFPs) at AMCs ranked in research by US News & World Report. Scopus was used to identify each HMFP's publications, citations, and Hirsch-index (H-index). Publications; citations; and first, middle, and senior author papers were measured in 3-year intervals postresidency. Scholarly productivity was analyzed by quintile based on publications, AMC research ranking, years postresidency, and grant funding.

RESULTS

Data were extracted for 128 HMFPs from 54 AMCs. HMFPs were a mean of 20.5 (SD: 5.4) years postresidency. The median H-index was 7.0 (interquartile range [IQR]: 2.0-16.0); the median number of publications was 15.0 (IQR: 4.0-51.0). Top quintile HMFPs had a median of 175.5 (IQR: 101.5-248.0) publications, whereas fifth quintile HMFPs had a median of 0.0 (IQR: 0.0-1.0) (p < .001). HMFPs on faculty at the top 20 AMCs had a median of 35.5 (IQR: 11.0-108.0) publications, whereas HMFPs in AMCs ranked 81-122 had a median of 3.0 (IQR: 1.0-9.0) (p < .001). Grant-funded HMFPs had a median of 177.0 (IQR: 71.0-278.0) publications, while nongrant-funded HMFPs had a median of 11.0 (IQR: 3.0-25.0) (p < .001). At 3, 6, and 9 years postresidency, HMFPs had a median of 0.0 (IQR: 0.0-1.0), 1.5 (IQR: 0.0-5.0), and 3.5 (IQR: 0.0-11.0) publications. Fellowship training, additional degrees, and top 25 residency programs correlated with the top half of scholarly productivity.

CONCLUSIONS

Scholarly productivity among HMFPs varies considerably. At 3, 6, and 9 years postresidency, it is minimal to modest. Grant funding and AMC research rank may establish separate frames of reference for scholarly growth.

It Takes a Village: A Narrative Review of Anesthesiology Mentorship

Mentorships play a critical role in the development of physician careers and should be tailored within a structured, evidence-based mentoring program to ensure mutual benefit and avoidance of pitfalls. We offer a narrative review of the current literature and commentary on mentoring at the medical student, GME trainee, and early career faculty levels within anesthesiology, and propose a framework on which an effective mentoring program can be implemented.

Pragmatic Mentoring Strategies for the Busy Surgeon Scientist

OBJECTIVE

The value of research mentorship in academic medicine is well-recognized, yet there is little practical advice for how to develop and sustain effective mentoring partnerships. Gaining research skill and mentorship is particularly critical to success in academic surgery, yet surgeon scientists are challenged in their mentorship efforts by time constraints and lack of education on how to mentor. To address this gap, this study explored the strategies that award-winning faculty mentors utilize in collaborating with their medical student mentees in research.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

For this qualitative study, the authors invited physician recipients of an institution-wide mentorship award to participate in individual, semi-structured interviews during July and August 2018. Following interview transcription, the authors independently coded the text and collaboratively identified common mentoring strategies and practices via a process of thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Nine physician mentors, representing a mix of genders, medical specialties and types of research (basic science, clinical, translational, and health services), participated in interviews. The authors identified 12 strategies and practices from the interview transcripts that fell into 5 categories: Initiating the partnership; Determining the research focus; Providing project oversight; Developing mentee research competence; and Supporting mentee self-efficacy.

CONCLUSION

Award-winning mentors employ a number of shared strategies when mentoring medical trainees in research. These strategies can serve as a guide for academic surgeons who wish to improve their research mentoring skills.

Next Steps: Advocating for Women in Orthopaedic Surgery

Orthopaedic surgery is the least diverse of all medical specialties, by both sex and race. Diversity among orthopaedic trainees is the lowest in medicine, and growth in percentage representation is the lowest of all surgical subspecialties. Women comprise only 6% of orthopaedic surgeons and 16% of orthopaedic surgery trainees. This extreme lack of diversity in orthopaedics limits creative problem-solving and the potential of our profession. Women in orthopaedics encounter sexual harassment, overt discrimination, and implicit bias, which create barriers to training, career satisfaction, and success. Women are underrepresented in leadership positions, perpetuating the lack of diversity through poor visibility to potential candidates, which impedes recruitment. Correction will require a concerted effort, as acknowledged by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons leadership who included a goal and plan to increase diversity in the 2019 to 2023 Strategic Plan. Recommended initiatives include support for pipeline programs that increase diversity of the candidate pool; sexual harassment and implicit bias acknowledgement, education, and corrective action; and the active sponsorship of qualified, capable women by organizational leaders. To follow, women will lend insight from their diverse viewpoints to research questions, practice problems, and clinical conundrums of our specialty, augmenting the profession and improving patient outcomes.

Impact of Mentoring on Academic Career Success for Women in Medicine: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

Research has shown that barriers to career success in academic medicine disproportionately affect women. These barriers include inadequate mentoring, which may perpetuate the underrepresentation of women in senior leadership positions. The purpose of this review was to summarize the qualitative and quantitative evidence of the impact of mentoring on women's career outcomes and to inform future interventions to support the promotion and retention of women in academic medicine.

METHOD

The authors conducted a systematic review of original research published in English-language, peer-reviewed journals through March 20, 2020. Search terms related to mentorship, women, and academic medicine. The authors searched MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Current Contents Connect via Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO. They excluded studies not specifically addressing women and those without gender-stratified outcomes. They extracted and analyzed the following data: study design, population, sample size, response rate, participant age, percentage of women, mentoring prevalence, and outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 2,439 citations identified, 91 studies met the inclusion criteria, including 65 quantitative and 26 qualitative studies. Mentoring was associated with objective and subjective measures of career success. Women perceived mentorship to be more valuable to their career development yet were more likely to report having no mentor. Additionally, women were more likely to report lower levels of research productivity, less career satisfaction, and greater barriers to promotion. Qualitative results indicated that women had less access to informal mentoring and family responsibilities had a greater effect on their career outcomes. Professional networking, female mentors, and relational aspects of mentoring were common themes.

CONCLUSIONS

This review examined gender disparities in mentoring and the impact on research productivity, promotion success, and career satisfaction for women in academic medicine. Institution-supported mentoring programs are needed to facilitate identification of appropriate mentors and promotion of a more equitable academic career environment for women.

Mentorship Initiatives in Radiation Oncology: A Scoping Review of the Literature

PURPOSE

Although mentorship is described extensively in academic medical literature, there are few descriptions of mentorship specific to radiation oncology. The goal of the current study was to investigate the state of mentorship in radiation oncology through a scoping review of the literature.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A search protocol was defined according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. Predefined search terms and medical subject headings were used to search PubMed for English language articles published after January 1, 1990, on mentorship in radiation oncology. Additionally, in-press articles from major radiation oncology and medical education journals were searched. Three reviewers determined article eligibility. Included articles were classified based on predefined evaluation criteria.

RESULTS

Fourteen publications from 2008 to 2019 met inclusion criteria. The most commonly described form of mentorship was the dyad (64.3%), followed by team (14.3%) and peer (7.1%); 2 articles did not specify mentorship type (14.3%). The most commonly mentored participants were residents (35.7%), followed by medical students (35.7%) and attendings (21.4%); 1 study included participants of all levels (7.1%). Thirteen studies (92.9%) identified an experimental study design, most of which were cross-sectional (42.9%), followed by cohort studies (28.6%) and before/after (21.4%). Median sample size, reported in 12 of 13 experimental studies, was 132 (coefficient of variation, 1.06). Although outcomes varied widely, the majority described successful implementation of mentorship initiatives with high levels of participant satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

Although few initiatives are currently reported, the present study suggests that these initiatives are successful in promoting career development and increasing professional satisfaction. The interventions overwhelmingly described mentorship dyads; other forms of mentorship are either less common or understudied. Limitations included interventions not being evaluated in a controlled setting, and many were assessed using surveys with low response rates. This review highlights rich opportunities for future scholarship to develop, evaluate, and disseminate radiation oncology mentorship initiatives.

Attaining full professor: Women's and men's experiences in medical education

INTRODUCTION

The underrepresentation of women among senior faculty members in medical education is a longstanding problem. The purpose of this international qualitative investigation was to explore women and men's experiences of attaining full professorship and to investigate why women remain underrepresented among the senior faculty ranks.

METHODS

Conducted within a social constructionist orientation, our qualitative study employed narrative analysis. Two female and two male participants working in medical education were recruited from five nations: Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, United Kingdom and United States. All participants held an MD or PhD. During telephone interviews, participants narrated the story of their careers. The five faculty members on the research team were also interviewed. Their narratives were included in analysis, rendering their experiences equal to those of the participants.

RESULTS

A total of 24 full professors working in medical education were interviewed (n = 15 females and n = 9 males). While some aspects were present across all narratives (ie personal events, career milestones and facilitating and/or impeding factors), participants' experience of those aspects differed by gender. Men did not narrate fatherhood as a role navigated professionally, but women narrated motherhood as intimately connected to their professional roles. Both men and women narrated career success in terms of hard work and overcoming obstacles; however, male participants described promotion as inevitable, whereas women narrated promotion as a tenuous navigation of social structures towards uncertain outcomes. Female and male participants encountered facilitators and inhibitors throughout their careers but described acting on those experiences differently within the cultural contexts they faced.

DISCUSSION

Our data suggest that female and male participants had different experiences of the work involved in achieving full professor status. Understanding these gendered experiences and their impact on career progression is an important advancement for better understanding what leads to the underrepresentation of women among senior faculty members in medical education.

Mentoring as an intervention to promote gender equality in academic medicine: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Mentoring is frequently suggested as an intervention to address gender inequalities in the workplace.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review evidence published since a definitive review in 2006 on the effectiveness of mentoring interventions aimed at achieving gender equality in academic medicine.

DESIGN

Systematic Review, using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication as a template for data extraction and synthesis.

SAMPLE

Studies were included if they described a specific mentoring intervention in a medical school or analogous academic healthcare organisation and included results from an evaluation of the intervention.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Mentoring was defined as (1) a formally organised intervention entailing a supportive relationship between a mentor, defined as a more senior/experienced person and a mentee defined as a more junior/inexperienced person; (2) mentoring intervention involved academic career support (3) the mentoring relationship was outside line management or supervision of performance and was defined by contact over an extended period of time.

OUTCOMES

The impact of mentoring was usually reported at the level of individual participants, for example, satisfaction and well-being or self-reported career progression. We sought evidence of impact on gender equality via reports of organisation-level effectiveness, of promotion or retention, pay and academic performance of female staff.

RESULTS

We identified 32 publications: 8 review articles, 20 primary observational studies and 4 randomised controlled trials. A further 19 discussed mentoring in relation to gender but did not meet our eligibility criteria. The terminology used, and the structures and processes reported as constituting mentoring, varied greatly. We identified that mentoring is popular with many who receive it; however, we found no robust evidence of effectiveness in reducing gender inequalities. Primary research used weak evaluation designs.

CONCLUSIONS

Mentoring is a complex intervention. Future evaluations should adopt standardised approaches used in applied health research to the design and evaluation of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

Faculty Emotional Intelligence Matters for Resident Education

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine the emotional intelligence (EI) of surgical faculty and evaluate its relationship with resident evaluations of faculty behaviors.

DESIGN

This study retrospectively collected faculty EI scores as well as general surgery resident evaluations of faculty. Parametric and nonparametric tests were used for statistical analysis.

SETTING

The study was conducted at the University of Texas Southwestern in the Department of Surgery in Dallas, Texas. This is an academic, tertiary care center.

PARTICIPANTS

Surgical faculty members at a single institution in 2018 completed the Emotional Intelligence Appraisal, a 28-item, electronic assessment with possible scores ranging from zero to 100. Aggregate, anonymous resident evaluations of faculty members were collected from the program director's office. Faculty with fewer than 8 resident evaluations were excluded.

RESULTS

In total, 59 faculty members participated (89%). The sample was mostly white (69.2%), male (63.5%), with an average of 47 ± 10 years of age, 12.2 ± 10 years in practice, and 44 ± 24 evaluations per faculty member. The group's mean EI score was 76 ± 7.7. Faculty EI scores were found to have a moderate, positive correlation with resident rotational evaluations of faculty (r(51) = 0.52, p < 0.001). Faculty EI scores did not significantly correlate with resident evaluations of faculty intraoperative behaviors.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study suggest that a majority of our faculty are competent with regard to EI. Furthermore, faculty EI is an important factor in the clinical learning environment and correlates with resident rotational evaluations of teaching behaviors.

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.

Implementing and Evaluating a Mentor Training to Improve Support for Early-Career Scholars in Tobacco Regulatory Science

INTRODUCTION

To implement and evaluate a blended online and in-person training to help mentors of early-career researchers appreciate the complexities of Tobacco Regulatory Science (TRS), refine TRS mentoring skills, and become acquainted with resources for providing effective guidance to TRS mentees.

METHODS

TRS mentors engaged in a two-part pilot test of the training program. Authors evaluated both the online and in-person training using retrospective pre-post evaluations, which measure learning at the conclusion of a training program, and post-program focus groups. Twenty learners completed the online training, and 16 learners attended the in-person training module. Nine participants completed evaluations for the online module, and 12 participants completed evaluations for the in-person module.

RESULTS

Program assessments revealed that participants found that the training achieved its overall goals. The majority of respondents (87.5%) rated the online portion of the training as valuable. For the in-person training, participants reported statistically significant improvements regarding confidence in: helping mentees to identify skills and training to effectively pursue TRS, assisting mentees in weighing career trajectories, and guiding mentees in conducting research responsive to TRS regulatory priorities.

CONCLUSIONS

The novel mentoring program was well received by faculty seeking to strengthen skills for mentoring early-career TRS researchers to navigate the complex landscape of TRS, explore diverse funding opportunities, and discern potential career trajectories. It provided unique content to address issues outside the traditional tobacco research training curriculum and offered specific information on regulatory policies, priorities, and opportunities.

IMPLICATIONS

This research documents the deployment and evaluation of a blended online and in-person training program for investigators mentoring early-career researchers working in TRS. Our assessment discovered that participants found the training to be valuable to their overall mentoring objectives. The training comprises a novel curriculum for investigators engaged in mentoring early-career researchers in a unique field, thus filling a deficit in the published literature by presenting a curriculum that has been customized to the unique needs of TRS mentors.

An environmental scan of emergency medicine research support, training, and infrastructure across Canada

OBJECTIVE

Our study objective was to describe the Canadian emergency medicine (EM) research community landscape prior to the initiation of a nationwide network.

METHODS

A two-phase electronic survey was sent to 17 Canadian medical schools. The Phase 1 Environmental Scan was administered to department chairs/hospital EM chiefs, to identify EM physicians conducting clinical or educational research. The Phase 2 Survey was sent to the identified EM researchers to assess four themes: 1) geographic distribution, 2) training/career satisfaction, 3) time/financial compensation, and 4) research facilitators/barriers. Descriptive analyses were conducted, and results were stratified by Canadian regions.

RESULTS

A total of 92 EM researchers were identified in Phase 1; 67 (73%) responded to the Phase 2 Survey. Of those, 42 (63%) reported being clinical researchers, and 19 (45%) had a graduate degree. Three provinces encompassed most of the researchers (n = 35). Of the respondents, 61% had a research degree, 66% felt adequately trained for their research career, 73% had financial support, 83% had access to office spaces, 52% had no mentor during their first years of their career, 69% felt satisfied with their research career, and 82% suggested that they will still be conducting research in 5 years.

CONCLUSION

EM researchers reported being adequately trained, even though only a little over half had a graduate degree. Only two-thirds had financial support, and mentorship was lacking in one-third of the participants. Not all respondents had a form of infrastructure, but most felt optimistic about their careers. The Canadian EM research environment could be improved to ensure better research capacity.

Assessing mentoring: A scoping review of mentoring assessment tools in internal medicine between 1990 and 2019

BACKGROUND

Mentoring's success in enhancing a mentee's professional and personal development, and a host organisations' reputation has been called into question, amidst a lack of effective tools to evaluate mentoring relationships and guide oversight of mentoring programs. A scoping review is proposed to map available literature on mentoring assessment tools in Internal Medicine to guide design of new tools.

OBJECTIVE

The review aims to explore how novice mentoring is assessed in Internal Medicine, including the domains assessed, and the strengths and limitations of the assessment methods.

METHODS

Guided by Levac et al.'s framework for scoping reviews, 12 reviewers conducted independent literature reviews of assessment tools in novice mentoring in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, ERIC, Cochrane, GreyLit, Web of Science, Open Dissertations and British Education Index databases. A 'split approach' saw research members adopting either Braun and Clarke's approach to thematic analysis or directed content analysis to independently evaluate the data and improve validity and objectivity of the findings.

RESULTS

9662 abstracts were identified, 187 full-text articles reviewed, and 54 full-text articles included. There was consensus on the themes and categories identified through the use of the split approach, which were the domains assessed and methods of assessment.

CONCLUSION

Most tools fail to contend with mentoring's evolving nature and provide mere snap shots of the mentoring process largely from the mentee's perspective. The lack of holistic, longitudinal and validated assessments propagate fears that ethical issues in mentoring are poorly recognized and addressed. To this end, we forward a framework for the design of 'fit for purpose' multi-dimensional tools.

PRACTICE POINTS

Most tools focus on the mentee's perspective, do not consider mentoring's evolving nature and fail to consider mentoring holistically nor longitudinallyA new tool capable of addressing these gaps must also consider inputs from all stakeholders and take a longitudinal perspective of mentoring.

A systematic scoping review of ethical issues in mentoring in internal medicine, family medicine and academic medicine

Mentoring's role in medical education is threatened by the potential abuse of mentoring relationships. Particularly affected are mentoring relationships between senior clinicians and junior doctors which lie at the heart of mentoring. To better understand and address these concerns, a systematic scoping review into prevailing accounts of ethical issues and professional lapses in mentoring is undertaken. Arksey and O'Malley's (Int J Soc Res Methodol 8(1):19-32, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616) methodological framework for conducting scoping reviews was employed to explore the scope of ethical concerns in mentoring in general medicine. Databases searcheed included PubMed, ScienceDirect, ERIC, Embase, Scopus, Mednar and OpenGrey. 3391 abstracts were identified from the initialy search after removal of duplicates, 412 full-text articles were reviewed, 98 articles were included and thematically analysed. Unsatisfactory matching, misaligned expectations, inadequate mentor training, cursory codes of conduct, sketchy standards of practice, meagre oversight and unstructured processes have been identified as potential causes for ethical and professional breaches in mentoring practice. Changes in how professionalism is viewed suggest further studies of educational culture should also be carried out. The host organization plays a major role in establishing codes of conduct, expectations, and holistically, longitudinally oversight of the mentoring process and mentoring relationships.

The Rising Physicians Program: A Novel Approach for Mentoring Medical Students

INTRODUCTION

The transition to medical school is a particularly challenging time for new students as they are faced with significant academic responsibilities. Moreover, for many students at the Uniformed Services University they are adjusting to being on active duty in the military. Mentoring has been considered a way to help with the transition and professional development. Prior to 2015, there was no formal mentoring program for new students at the Uniformed Services University.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In order to address the demands and challenges facing matriculating medical students, the Rising Physicians Program was created. This student initiated program enabled pre-clerkship medical students to connect with residents at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center via a secure database with resident profiles. Residents were recruited and voluntarily agreed to serve as mentors. Students were then able to access the database and reach out to mentors based on their specific goals. The program was introduced to students during orientation and student participation was completely voluntary. A survey was designed using best survey practices and sent to the 175 students participating in the program for the 2015 academic (class of 2019) year to determine participation and characteristics of the program.

RESULTS

Sixty-four percent (112/175) of the students from the class of 2019 participated in the post-implementation survey. Fifteen percent of the class (26/175) reported participating in the voluntary mentoring program. The three most commonly used communication methods with mentors in precedence were in-person, e-mail, and text messages. The majority of the students found their interactions in this program were beneficial and did not get in the way of their academic performance. The most common topics of discussion were academics (20%), mentor's past experience (22%), military lifestyle (7%), medical school pathways (23%), and specialty selections (23%). Limitations of the program included a lack of U.S. Air Force mentors and mentors within certain residency specialties.

CONCLUSIONS

The Rising Physician Program provides a near-peer mentoring model for new medical students. Students preferred to communicate with their mentors in person, but the flexibility of communication appears to be important. New students have a variety of academic and professional development concerns that could partially be addressed through mentoring by residents.

Enhancing Mentoring in Palliative Care: An Evidence Based Mentoring Framework

BACKGROUND

Growing concerns over ethical issues in mentoring in medicine and surgery have hindered efforts to reinitiate mentoring for Palliative Care (PC) physicians following the easing of COVID-19 restrictions. Ranging from the misappropriation of mentee's work to bullying, ethical issues in mentoring are attributed to poor understanding and structuring of mentoring programs, underlining the need for a consistent approach to mentoring practices.

METHODS

Given diverse practices across different settings and the employ of various methodologies, a novel approach to narrative reviews (NR)s is proposed to summarize, interpret, and critique prevailing data on novice mentoring. To overcome prevailing concerns surrounding the reproducibility and transparency of narrative reviews, the Systematic Evidenced Based Approach (SEBA) adopts a structured approach to searching and summarizing the included articles and employed concurrent content and thematic analysis that was overseen by a team of experts.

RESULTS

A total of 18 915 abstracts were reviewed, 62 full text articles evaluated and 41 articles included. Ten themes/categories were ascertained identified including Nature; Stakeholders; Relationship; Approach; Environment; Benefits; Barriers; Assessments; Theories and Definitions.

CONCLUSION

By compiling and scrutinizing prevailing practice it is possible to appreciate the notion of the mentoring ecosystem which sees each mentee, mentor, and host organization brings with them their own microenvironment that contains their respective goals, abilities, and contextual considerations. Built around competency based mentoring stages, it is possible to advance a flexible yet consistent novice mentoring framework.

A Faculty Development Model that Promotes Success of Early Career Faculty in Academic Medicine

INTRODUCTION

Medical school offices of faculty development aim to facilitate the academic growth of junior faculty by fostering independent research, enhancing teaching skills, and bolstering career opportunities. The Rush Research Mentoring Program aims to achieve this goal at Rush University medical center by offering a broad resource armamentarium and creating an environment that fosters productive relationships between mentees and mentors. This article describes the program's structure, evaluation, outcomes, and the university vision for its future.

METHODS

The program's contributions to the overall success of the University were measured by scholarly productivity, intramural and extramural funding, junior faculty retention, and mentee satisfaction with the program from its inception in 2006 until 2018.

RESULTS

Over 12 years, mentees have collectively received 639 grants. Of the 130 mentees who have completed the 5-year program and transitioned to program alumni, 65% have been retained as faculty members, with 40% receiving promotions to associate professor and 5% to full professor. Mentees report frequent use of the available resources and high satisfaction with the program.

DISCUSSION

We anticipate that structured mentoring programs with institutionally supported professional development activities and strategic mentor-mentee partnerships can be successfully adopted at similar academic medical centers.

The Pivotal Role of Host Organizations in Enhancing Mentoring in Internal Medicine: A Scoping Review

In undergraduate and postgraduate medical education, mentoring offers personalized training and plays a key role in continuing medical education and the professional development of healthcare professionals. However, poor structuring of the mentoring process has been attributed to failings of the host organization and, as such, we have conducted a scoping review on the role of the host organization in mentoring programs. Guided by Levac et al's methodological framework and a combination of thematic and content analysis, this scoping review identifies their "defining" and secondary roles. Whilst the "defining" role of the host is to set standards, nurture, and oversee the mentoring processes and relationships, the secondary roles comprise of supporting patient care and specific responsibilities toward the mentee, mentor, program, and organization itself. Critically, striking a balance between structure and flexibility within the program is important to ensure consistency in the mentoring approach whilst accounting for the changing needs and goals of the mentees and mentors.

Developing a Culture of Mentorship to Strengthen Academic Medical Centers

Mentorship is central to academic medicine and its missions, and it has long played a critical role in the training and career development of physicians and scientists. A growing body of literature has documented the positive impact of mentorship on various outcomes, including research productivity, academic promotion, faculty retention, and career satisfaction. These benefits span academic medical centers' missions and have the potential to enhance biomedical research, patient care, education, and faculty diversity and leadership.In this Invited Commentary, the authors argue that a dynamic culture of mentorship is essential to the success of academic medical centers and should be elevated to the level of a major strategic priority. This culture of mentorship would capitalize on an institution's intellectual resources and seek to develop leaders in biomedical discovery, patient care, and education. The bidirectional transmission of knowledge between mentors and mentees, through both formal programs and informal relationships, can foster the growth of faculty members needed to meet the complex challenges currently confronting medical schools and teaching hospitals.Developing a culture of mentorship requires a strong commitment by leaders at all levels to nurture the next generation of physicians and scientists as well as grassroots efforts by trainees and faculty to seek out and create mentorship opportunities. The authors conclude by outlining possible mechanisms and incentives for elevating mentorship to the level of a strategic priority to strengthen academic medical centers across their missions.

Benefits, barriers and enablers of mentoring female health academics: An integrative review

This integrative literature review synthesizes the primary research evidence on mentoring female health academics published from 2000 to 2018, to identify the benefits, enablers and barriers to mentoring women. The need for this review is underpinned by the magnitude of change in higher education, the high number of women in health disciplines, limited progress in advancing women’s academic careers, escalating role expectations, faculty shortages and staff turnover. Data were sourced from Scopus, PubMed, EMBASE and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature. Twenty-seven studies were included. Although effective mentoring facilitates personal and career development, academic craftsmanship, psychosocial support and job satisfaction, it is complicated by organizational factors and personal and relational dynamics. Enablers of mentoring are mentor availability and expertise, supportive relationships, mutuality and responsiveness. Lack of, or inadequate mentoring compromise women’s job satisfaction, career development and academic productivity. Providing female health academics access to experienced, well-connected mentors with common interests who are committed to advancing their career, is an investment in optimizing potential, promoting supportive work environments and increasing productivity and retention. Realizing the institutional potential that mentoring female health academics offers, is contingent on academic leaders valuing mentorship as faculty business and understanding the role that the contemporary academic environment plays in achieving mentoring outcomes. Further empirical and longitudinal research is needed to evaluate effective approaches for mentoring women in the contemporary academic environment.

Long-term impact of a faculty mentoring program in academic medicine

The authors conducted a prospective longitudinal study from 2009 to 2016 to assess the short and long-term impact of a formal mentorship program on junior faculty satisfaction and productivity. Junior faculty mentees enrolled in the program and junior faculty without formal mentorship were administered surveys before and after the program to assess satisfaction with their mentoring experiences. Long-term retention, promotion, and funding data were also collected. Twenty-three junior faculty mentees and 91 junior faculty controls were included in the study. Mentees came from the Departments of Radiation Oncology and Anesthesia, Critical Care, and Pain Management. After participating in the mentorship program, mentees demonstrated an increase in satisfaction from baseline in five of seven domains related to mentoring, while controls experienced no significant change in satisfaction in six of the seven domains. At long-term follow up, mentees were more likely than controls to hold senior faculty positions (percent senior faculty: 47% vs. 13%, p = 0.030) despite no difference in initial administrative rank. When comparing the subset of faculty who were Instructors at baseline, mentees were more likely to be funded and/or promoted than controls (p = 0.030). A majority of mentees reported that the program strengthened their long-term success, and many maintained their original mentoring relationships and formed new ones, highlighting the strong culture of mentorship that was instilled. Several short-term and long-term benefits were fostered from this formal mentorship program. These findings highlight the potential impact of mentorship programs in propagating a culture of mentorship and excellence.

Online Mastermind Groups: A Non-hierarchical Mentorship Model for Professional Development

Mentorship is an important driver of professional development and scholarship in academic medicine. Several mentorship models have been described in the medical education literature, with the majority featuring a hierarchical relationship between senior and junior members of an institution. ‘Mastermind Groups’, popularized in the business world, offer an alternative model of group mentorship that benefits from the combined intelligence and accumulated experience of the participants involved. We describe an online application of the Mastermind model, used as an opportunity for faculty development by a globally distributed team of health professions educators. The majority of our participants rated their experiences over two online Mastermind group mentoring sessions as ‘very valuable’, resulting in recommendations of specific developmental resources, professional referrals, and identifiable immediate ‘next steps’ for their careers. Our experience suggests that online Mastermind groups are an effective, feasible, zero-cost model for group mentorship and professional development in medicine.

Process Evaluation for Improving K12 Program Effectiveness: Case Study of a National Institutes of Health Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women's Health Research Career Development Program

INTRODUCTION

Process evaluation is an important tool in quality improvement efforts. This article illustrates how a systematic and continuous evaluation process can be used to improve the quality of faculty career development programs by using the University of Minnesota's Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women's Health (BIRCWH) K12 program as an exemplar.

METHODS

Data from a rigorous process evaluation incorporating quantitative and qualitative measurements were analyzed and reviewed by the BIRCWH program leadership on a regular basis.

RESULTS

Examples are provided of how this evaluation model and processes were used to improve many aspects of the program, thereby improving scholar, mentor, and advisory committee members' satisfaction and scholar outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

A rigorous evaluation plan can increase the effectiveness and impact of a research career development plan.

Surgical education: Lessons from parenthood

Although one might think surgery and parenting have little in common, there are clear parallels. Historically there has been little formal education for either role. Educators and parents relied on modelling the behavior of others, or trial and error techniques. Mentorship and role models have played a critical role in professional development and continue to have a profound impact. Over the past two decades there has been a marked increase in the resources that are available. Coaching, debriefing, deliberate practice, and formal training are now incorporated in residency programs. Specific lessons from parenthood that can be applied to surgical education include: providing a framework, learning through graduated responsibility, communicating expectations, creating a culture, setting the example, encouraging resilience, promoting autonomy, providing feedback, and navigating failure. The final lesson from parenthood: trust that you have taught them well. And you have to let them go.

Mentoring relationships between senior physicians and junior doctors and/or medical students: A thematic review

INTRODUCTION

Mentoring relationships are pivotal to the outcome of the mentoring process. This thematic review seeks to study the key aspects of mentoring relationships between senior physicians and junior doctors and/or medical students to inform efforts to improve mentoring programs.

METHODS

Literature search was performed on publications across PubMed, ERIC, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, OVID and ScienceDirect databases between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2015 by three independent reviewers. The BEME guide and STORIES statement were used to develop a narrative from the articles selected.

RESULTS

Thematic analysis of 49 articles reveals five semantic themes of initiation process, developmental process, evaluation process, sustaining mentoring relationship, and obstacles to effective mentoring. The evolving and relational-dependent nature of mentoring pivots upon the compatibility of mentors and mentees and the quality of their interactions, which in turn depend on mentoring environments and awareness of mentor-, mentee-, organizational-related factors and changes in context and goals.

CONCLUSIONS

Embrace of a consistent mentoring approach to ensure effective oversight of the mentoring process must be balanced with sufficient flexibility to ensure a mentee-centered approach. Efforts must be made to optimize the key aspects of mentoring relationships in order to ensure successful mentoring processes and outcomes.

Optimizing Your Mentoring Relationship: A Toolkit for Mentors and Mentees

INTRODUCTION

Mentorship is a vital component of academic and professional development. Mentees report positive impacts from mentorship programs, yet institutions and societies may struggle to meet their mentees' needs due to factors such as mentor fatigue and lack of mentor training. To address this in our own professional society, the Association of Pediatric Program Directors, we developed a mentor toolkit in order to utilize a variety of mentoring models, provide faculty development for midlevel mentors, and offer guidance to mentees.

METHODS

Most of these tools were designed to be administered in an interactive format such as a workshop or seminar with think-pair-share opportunities. The toolkit begins by providing a definition of mentoring and reinforcing the benefits and the characteristics of effective mentoring relationships. Next, we discuss the important role that mentees have in creating and maintaining effective mentoring relationships (i.e., mentee-driven mentoring). We then introduce a mentoring mosaic activity designed to help mentees examine their professional network and think about how they might expand it to fulfill the spectrum of their mentoring needs. Next, we present guidelines for the implementation of four mentoring models that can be used within one's institution: traditional dyadic mentoring, peer group mentoring, meet the professor mentoring, and speed mentoring. We then provide tools that can be used to help facilitate effective mentoring development.

RESULTS

This toolkit has successfully served as a self-guided resource at national meetings for many years, garnering positive feedback from mentors and mentees alike.

DISCUSSION

The principles and methods are easily generalizable and may be used to guide mentorship programs within institutional and professional societies, as well as to assist mentors and mentees in optimizing their individual mentoring relationships.

Creating More Effective Mentors: Mentoring the Mentor

Given the diversity of those affected by HIV, increasing diversity in the HIV biomedical research workforce is imperative. A growing body of empirical and experimental evidence supports the importance of strong mentorship in the development and success of trainees and early career investigators in academic research settings, especially for mentees of diversity. Often missing from this discussion is the need for robust mentoring training programs to ensure that mentors are trained in best practices on the tools and techniques of mentoring. Recent experimental evidence shows improvement in mentor and mentee perceptions of mentor competency after structured and formalized training on best practices in mentoring. We developed a 2-day "Mentoring the Mentors" workshop at UCSF to train mid-level and senior HIV researchers from around the country [recruited mainly from Centers for AIDS Research (CFARs)] on best practices, tools and techniques of effective mentoring. The workshop content was designed using principles of Social Cognitive Career Theory (SCCT) and included training specifically geared towards working with early career investigators from underrepresented groups, including sessions on unconscious bias, microaggressions, and diversity supplements. The workshop has been held three times (September 2012, October 2013 and May 2015) with plans for annual training. Mentoring competency was measured using a validated tool before and after each workshop. Mentoring competency skills in six domains of mentoring-specifically effective communication, aligning expectations, assessing understanding, fostering independence, addressing diversity and promoting development-all improved as assessed by a validated measurement tool for participants pre- and -post the "Mentoring the Mentors" training workshops. Qualitative assessments indicated a greater awareness of the micro-insults and unconscious bias experienced by mentees of diversity and a commitment to improve awareness and mitigate these effects via the mentor-mentee relationship. Our "Mentoring the Mentors" workshop for HIV researchers/mentors offers a formal and structured curriculum on best practices, tools and techniques of effective mentoring, and methods to mitigate unconscious bias in the mentoring relationship. We found quantitative and qualitative improvements in mentoring skills as assessed by self-report by participants after each workshop and plan additional programs with longitudinal longer-term assessments focused on objective mentee outcomes (grants, papers, academic retention). Mentoring training can improve mentoring skills and is likely to improve outcomes for optimally-mentored mentees.

Comparison of Women in Department Leadership in Obstetrics and Gynecology With Those in Other Specialties

OBJECTIVE

To compare the representation of women in obstetrics and gynecology department-based leadership to other clinical specialties while accounting for proportions of women in historical residency cohorts.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional observational study. The gender of department-based leaders (chair, vice chair, division director) and residency program directors was determined from websites of 950 academic departments of anesthesiology, diagnostic radiology, general surgery, internal medicine, neurology, obstetrics and gynecology, pathology, pediatrics, and psychiatry. Each specialty's representation ratio-proportion of leadership roles held by women in 2013 divided by proportion of residents in 1990 who were women-and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. A ratio of 1 indicates proportionate representation.

RESULTS

Women were significantly underrepresented among chairs for all specialties (ratios 0.60 or less, P≤.02) and division directors for all specialties except anesthesiology (ratio 1.13, 95% CI 0.87-1.46) and diagnostic radiology (ratio 0.97, 95% CI 0.81-1.16). The representation ratio for vice chair was below 1.0 for all specialties except anesthesiology; this finding reached statistical significance only for pathology, pediatrics, and psychiatry. Women were significantly overrepresented as residency program directors in general surgery, anesthesiology, obstetrics and gynecology, and pediatrics (ratios greater than 1.19, P≤.046). Obstetrics and gynecology and pediatrics had the highest proportions of residents in 1990 and department leaders in 2013 who were women.

CONCLUSION

Despite having the largest proportion of leaders who were women, representation ratios demonstrate obstetrics and gynecology is behind other specialties in progression of women to departmental leadership. Women's overrepresentation as residency program directors raises concern because education-based academic tracks may not lead to major leadership roles.

Understanding Career Success and Its Contributing Factors for Clinical and Translational Investigators

PURPOSE

To understand the factors that facilitate career success for career development awardees in clinical and translational science and reconceptualize understand ing of career success for this population.

METHOD

In 2013-2014, the authors conducted semistructured interviews with former NIH KL2 or K12 scholars from nine Clinical and Translational Science Award-funded institutions. Participants either had or had not secured independent funding at least two years after the end of their last K award. Questions covered the factors that facilitate or hinder junior investigators' transition to independent funding. Interviews were recorded and transcribed, and the transcripts were analyzed thematically.

RESULTS

Forty individuals participated, with equal representation by men and women and by independently and not independently funded investigators. Personal factors that facilitated success included networks, persistence and resilience, initiative, autonomy, and personal and professional balance. Organizational factors included appropriate mentorship, protected research time, and institutional resources and support.Even independently funded participants described challenges regarding career direction. Five participants without independent funding modeled a broad spectrum of successful career paths, having assumed leadership positions not reliant on grant funding. Alternative definitions of career success included improving public health, enjoying work, seeing mentees succeed, and receiving external acknowledgment of successes.

CONCLUSIONS

Awareness of the factors that facilitate or hinder career success can help junior faculty, mentors, and institutional leaders support career development in clinical and translational science. New definitions of career success are needed, as are career paths for faculty who want to engage in research in roles other than principal investigator.