Delivering What We PROMISED: Outcomes of a Coaching and Leadership Fellowship for Mentors of Underrepresented Mentees

Leadership development programmes in healthcare research: a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-aggregation

BACKGROUND

Academic institutions benefit from researchers adopting leadership positions and, subsequently, leadership development programmes are of increasing importance. Despite this, no evaluation of the evidence basis for leadership development programmes for healthcare researchers has been conducted. In this study, the authors reviewed leadership development programmes for healthcare researchers and aimed to identify their impact and the factors which influenced this impact.

METHODS

The authors searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO between January 2000 and January 2023 for evaluations of leadership development programmes with healthcare researchers. The authors synthesised results through exploratory meta-analysis and meta-aggregation and used the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) and Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Checklist for Qualitative Studies to identify higher-reliability studies.

RESULTS

48 studies met inclusion criteria, of which approximately half (22) met the criteria for higher reliability. The median critical appraisal score was 10.5/18 for the MERSQI and 3.5/10 for the JBI. Common causes of low study quality appraisal related to study design, data analysis and reporting. Evaluations principally consisted of questionnaires measuring self-assessed outcomes. Interventions were primarily focused on junior academics. Overall, 163/168 categorised programme outcomes were positive. Coaching, experiential learning/project work and mentoring were associated with increased organisational outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Educational methods appeared to be more important for organisational outcomes than specific educational content. To facilitate organisational outcomes, educational methods should include coaching, project work and mentoring. Programmes delivered by external faculty were less likely to be associated with organisational outcomes than those with internal or mixed faculty, but this needs further investigation. Finally, improving evaluation design will allow educators and evaluators to more effectively understand factors which are reliably associated with organisational outcomes of leadership development.

Critical Perspectives on Expanding Racial/Ethnic Diversity in the HIV Research Workforce: Comorbidities and Mentoring

HIV-related comorbidities in underrepresented minority populations are reframed to include the co-occurring problems of systemic and structural barriers, within the mentoring context as a buffer and as action-oriented. This framework is discussed to improve racial and ethnic minority diversity in the research workforce from the perspectives of HIV comorbidities and mentoring. An integrated and coordinated approach to HIV-related comorbidities and inequities may be helpful when combined with research on the social-structural contributions as drivers to diversify the research workforce. We emphasize how these key research issues (a) provide a platform for training and retraining a highly motivated, diverse workforce and (b) facilitate the empowerment of these trained individuals to conduct rigorous scientific research on social-structural factors to mitigate the effects of these comorbidities. We conclude that a diverse research workforce is necessary but insufficient for improving training-related outcomes or reducing comorbidity effects. Additional considerations are warranted that include systemic approaches and changes at the structural and institutional levels.

How to Sponsor, Coach, and Mentor: A Qualitative Study With Family Medicine Department Chairs

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to explore how to use sponsoring, coaching, and mentoring (SCM) for faculty development by clarifying the functions embedded in SCM. The study aims to ensure that department chairs can be intentional in providing those functions and/or playing those roles for the benefit of all their faculty.

METHODS

We used qualitative, semistructured interviews in this study. We followed a purposeful sampling strategy to recruit a diverse sample of family medicine department chairs across the United States. Participants were asked about their experiences receiving and providing sponsoring, coaching, and mentoring. We iteratively coded audio recorded and transcribed interviews for content and themes.

RESULTS

We interviewed 20 participants between December 2020 and May 2021 to identify actions associated with sponsoring, coaching, and mentoring. Participants identified six main actions sponsors perform. These actions are identifying opportunities, recognizing an individual's strengths, encouraging opportunity-seeking, offering tangible support, optimizing candidacy, nominating as a candidate, and promising support. In contrast, they identified seven main actions a coach performs. These are clarifying, advising, giving resources, performing critical appraisals, giving feedback, reflecting, and scaffolding (ie, providing support while learning). Finally, participants identified six main actions the mentors perform. The list includes checking in, listening, sharing wisdom, directing, supporting, and collaborating.

CONCLUSIONS

We present SCM as an identifiable series of actions that need to be thought of and performed intentionally. Our clarification will help leaders purposefully select their actions and allows opportunity for evaluating their effectiveness. Future research will explore developing and evaluating programs that support learning how to provide SCM in order to enhance the process of faculty development and provide it equitably.