No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Deriving Competencies for Mentors of Clinical and Translational Scholars
Abstract
Although the importance of research mentorship has been well established, the role of mentors of junior clinical and translational science investigators is not clearly defined. The authors attempt to derive a list of actionable competencies for mentors from a series of complementary methods. We examined focus groups, the literature, competencies derived for clinical and translational scholars, mentor training curricula, mentor evaluation forms and finally conducted an expert panel process in order to compose this list. These efforts resulted in a set of competencies that include generic competencies expected of all mentors, competencies specific to scientists, and competencies that are clinical and translational research specific. They are divided into six thematic areas: (1) Communication and managing the relationship, (2) Psychosocial support, (3) Career and professional development, (4) Professional enculturation and scientific integrity, (5) Research development, and (6) Clinical and translational investigator development. For each thematic area, we have listed associated competencies, 19 in total. For each competency, we list examples that are actionable and measurable. Although a comprehensive approach was used to derive this list of competencies, further work will be required to parse out how to apply and adapt them, as well future research directions and evaluation processes.
... The most common, traditional type of mentoring relationship is a one-on-one relationship based on a mutual expectation that the mentor will guide and support the mentee in their professional development within their chosen field [8]. Foundational competencies for mentors include communication and managing the relationship, psychosocial support, career and professional development, professional enculturation and scientific integrity, research development, and investigator development [8]. ...
... The most common, traditional type of mentoring relationship is a one-on-one relationship based on a mutual expectation that the mentor will guide and support the mentee in their professional development within their chosen field [8]. Foundational competencies for mentors include communication and managing the relationship, psychosocial support, career and professional development, professional enculturation and scientific integrity, research development, and investigator development [8]. Other characteristics of good mentors include valuable personal qualities, ability to act as a career guide, commitment to meeting regularly, supporting the mentee's work/life balance, and role modeling [9]. ...
... Other characteristics of good mentors include valuable personal qualities, ability to act as a career guide, commitment to meeting regularly, supporting the mentee's work/life balance, and role modeling [9]. Overall, a good mentor is able to provide support and guidance in the realms of both scientific and psychosocial development of their mentees to help them develop a successful scientific career [8]. ...
Academic medical institutions seek to recruit and retain a diverse workforce to foster equitable, supportive environments in which early-stage investigators, especially those who are underrepresented in medicine, can thrive. Intersectionality is a critical theoretical framework rooted in Black feminist activism and scholarship that elucidates how power and privilege are differentially structured for groups at different intersectional sociodemographic positions. As a dynamic method of analyzing multiple axes of power and inequality, intersectionality has the potential to offer a critical lens through which to view the mentor–mentee relationship. In this article, we seek to elaborate upon and extend the concept of intersectional mentoring, elucidate its essential components, and explore its application in the context of mentoring early-stage investigators in academic medicine. We propose that intersectional mentorship requires an orientation toward deep cultural humility, lifetime learning about the impact of systemic oppressions on present-day opportunities and experiences of mentees, and changing systems that perpetuate inequities by centering praxis—the application of principles of intersectionality through action to transform power dynamics in academic culture and institutions. Intersectional mentorship can help build a more equitable and representative workforce to advance intersectionally relevant and innovative approaches to achieving health equity.
... Empirical studies reported the importance of mentors in providing ongoing guidance and engaging in informal discussions about research integrity and responsible practices. By providing RI-related information and engaging in RI-related discussions, mentors can raise mentees' awareness of responsible conduct in all stages of the research process (Abedin et al., 2012;Antes et al., 2019a;Eastwood et al., 1996;Haven et al., 2020;Huybers et al., 2020;Peiffer et al., 2011;Ripley et al., 2012). Good mentorship is valuable not only for mentees' development into responsible researchers, but also for their development into future responsible mentors (Straus et al., 2009). ...
... Good mentorship is valuable not only for mentees' development into responsible researchers, but also for their development into future responsible mentors (Straus et al., 2009). In addition, other studies have reported the importance of mentors being responsible for the process of socialisation of mentees with the norms and values related to the research environment and RI practice (Abedin et al., 2012;Gray & Jordan, 2012;. ...
... In addition to providing direct instructions, mentors promote RI practices among their mentees by acting as role models and setting examples for responsible research. Empirical studies report that by acting responsibly, mentors provide concrete role modelling and shape the attitudes and the behaviour of their mentees (Abedin et al., 2012;Antes et al., 2016;Fisher et al., 2009;Gray & Jordan, 2012;Krishna & Peter, 2018;Plemmons & Kalichman, 2018). Furthermore, good mentorship is important to address the values and morality of academic integrity and implicitly set standards of integrity (Löfström et al., 2015). ...
Promoting research integrity practices among doctoral candidates and early career researchers is important for creating a stable and healthy research environment. In addition to teaching specific technical skills and knowledge, research supervisors and mentors inevitably convey research practices, both directly and indirectly. We conducted a scoping review to summarise the role of mentors in fostering research integrity practices, mentors’ responsibilities and the role that institutions have in supporting good mentorship. We searched five different databases and included studies that used an empirical methodology. After searching, a total of 1199 articles were retrieved, of which 24 were eligible for analysis. After snowballing, a total of 35 empirical articles were selected. The review discusses various themes such as the importance of good mentorship, poor mentorship practices, virtues and qualities of mentors, responsibilities and activities of mentors, group mentoring and responsibilities of the institution in supporting good mentorship. This review demonstrates the importance of mentors instilling responsible research practices and attitudes, and promoting research integrity among their mentees. Mentors are responsible for providing explicit guidance and for acting as good role models. The review highlights how poor mentorship can have a bad impact on the research climate. In addition, the review highlights the important influence that institutions can have in supporting mentorship.
... Besides instructing directly about good research practices and boundaries about what can be done or not, supervisors are exemplars for their doctoral candidates (Bell, 2015;Fisher, Fried & Feldman, 2009;Resnick, 2012;Rose, 2003;Weil, 2001). By acting as role models and showing specific virtues and characteristics, supervisors can influence and shape the behaviour and attitude of their PhD candidates (Abedin et al., 2012;Antes, Mart & DuBois, 2016;Gray & Jordan, 2012;Löfström et al., 2015;Rose, 2003). However, supervisors' characteristics, practices, attitudes and behaviour can influence on supervisees' research practices and understanding in terms of RI (Moncur, 2013;Muthanna & Alduais, 2021;Tijdink et al., 2016). ...
... However, it is unlikely that a single supervisor can have enough competencies, skills and time to deal with all the different activities that have been described. As reported in the literature, having multiple supervisors would allow PhD candidates to benefit from different approaches, skills and competencies, also in terms of filling possible gaps in promoting responsible research practices (Abedin et al., 2012;DeCastro et al., 2013;Haven et al., 2020;Pennanen, Heikkinen & Tynjӓlӓ, 2020). Moreover, supervisors can benefit from a sharing activity-related responsibility. ...
... This is also emphasised in the literature. "Professional supervision" benefits PhD candidates in becoming responsible researchers and future responsible supervisors (Abedin et al., 2012;Huybers, Greene & Rohr, 2020;Ripley et al., 2012;Straus, Chatur & Taylor, 2009). Senior supervisors do not feel the need to be in control of every step taken by the PhD candidates. ...
Unlabelled:
Scientific malpractice is not just due to researchers having bad intentions, but also due to a lack of education concerning research integrity practices. Besides the importance of institutionalised trainings on research integrity, research supervisors play an important role in translating what doctoral students learn during research integrity formal sessions. Supervision practices and role modelling influence directly and indirectly supervisees' attitudes and behaviour toward responsible research. Research supervisors can not be left alone in this effort. Research institutions are responsible for supporting supervisors in being more aware of their RI function, and in supporting responsible supervision practices to have a positive cascading effect on supervisees' research practices. We interviewed 22 European research supervisors to investigate how they perceive their role as research integrity trainers and their real-life supervision practices. Moreover, we investigated their points of view concerning the role of research institutions in supporting supervision practices. Although there are different commonalities in supervisors' perception of their research integrity-related role, differences are emphasised depending on the supervisors' characteristics such as academic domain, seniority, working country and gender. In addition, supervisors' way of mentoring depend also on supervisees' learning curve. Overall, all supervisors agreed on institutions playing an important role in support their supervision effort and practices. This study aims to be a starting point for better understanding research integrity supervision practices and the role of institutions in supporting them. Moreover, it puts the basis to further investigate differences in supervision practices depending on supervisors' characteristics.
Supplementary information:
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10805-022-09468-y.
... [5] Mentoring is required in every field including research, thus, the term research mentorship. [6] The concept of research mentorship is still evolving in its definition, scope, and roles of the individuals involved. [6] Two major components of research mentorship that requires attention are process-oriented suggestions (e.g., choosing mentors) and views on structural issues (e.g., goals of the mentor-mentee relationship, duration of the relationship, and formalization of the mentor-mentee relationship). ...
... [6] The concept of research mentorship is still evolving in its definition, scope, and roles of the individuals involved. [6] Two major components of research mentorship that requires attention are process-oriented suggestions (e.g., choosing mentors) and views on structural issues (e.g., goals of the mentor-mentee relationship, duration of the relationship, and formalization of the mentor-mentee relationship). [7] Ragsdale et al. [8] in their study conceptualized research mentorship around particular themes, including acquisition of research skills, academic productivity, and career development. ...
... A total of 20 items were generated for mentor (7), mentee (6), and organizational challenges (7). Of the mentor challenges, "Lack of understanding of mentorship process" (84.2%) and "Lack of capacity for The facilitator guided the process. ...
Aims and Background: Mentoring relationships and programs have become a subject of global interest and their relevance is high in the ever-evolving health system. In Nigeria, informal system of mentoring is largely practiced. To be able to institutionalize mentoring program, there is need to explore the various challenges ofmentoringprocessandsuggestpotentialapproachesforeffectivementor‑mentee relationship in health research institutions in Nigeria. Subjects and Methods: The study was designed to explore the barriers and solutions to mentoring process from the perspectives of the mentor, mentee, and organization in health research and training institutions in Nigeria. A cross-sectional descriptive design was employed and the study was conducted among 21 health researchers drawn from 24 health research institutions across the 6 regions of Nigeria. The nominal group technique was adopted in the data collection process. Results: The most frequently reported mentor challenges were “lack of understanding of mentorship process” (84.2%) and “lack of capacity for mentoring” (78.9%), while those of mentee were “mentor preference”(73.7%)and“lackoffreedomofexpression”(47.4%). “Cultureof selfishness/individualism”(84.2%)and“lackofformalrelationship”(63.2%) were the most mentioned systemic challenges. Training on mentoring process and relationship was mentioned as the most frequent approach to overcoming challenges for the three perspectives. Conclusion:Significantmentorshipchallengesexistin the Nigerian health, academic and research institution. Systematic approaches to findingandimplementingtheappropriatesolutionsareneededtocircumventthese bottlenecks.
... [5] Mentoring is required in every field including research, thus, the term research mentorship. [6] The concept of research mentorship is still evolving in its definition, scope, and roles of the individuals involved. [6] Two major components of research mentorship that requires attention are process-oriented suggestions (e.g., choosing mentors) and views on structural issues (e.g., goals of the mentor-mentee relationship, duration of the relationship, and formalization of the mentor-mentee relationship). ...
... [6] The concept of research mentorship is still evolving in its definition, scope, and roles of the individuals involved. [6] Two major components of research mentorship that requires attention are process-oriented suggestions (e.g., choosing mentors) and views on structural issues (e.g., goals of the mentor-mentee relationship, duration of the relationship, and formalization of the mentor-mentee relationship). [7] Ragsdale et al. [8] in their study conceptualized research mentorship around particular themes, including acquisition of research skills, academic productivity, and career development. ...
... A total of 20 items were generated for mentor (7), mentee (6), and organizational challenges (7). Of the mentor challenges, "Lack of understanding of mentorship process" (84.2%) and "Lack of capacity for The facilitator guided the process. ...
... [5] Mentoring is required in every field including research, thus, the term research mentorship. [6] The concept of research mentorship is still evolving in its definition, scope, and roles of the individuals involved. [6] Two major components of research mentorship that requires attention are process-oriented suggestions (e.g., choosing mentors) and views on structural issues (e.g., goals of the mentor-mentee relationship, duration of the relationship, and formalization of the mentor-mentee relationship). ...
... [6] The concept of research mentorship is still evolving in its definition, scope, and roles of the individuals involved. [6] Two major components of research mentorship that requires attention are process-oriented suggestions (e.g., choosing mentors) and views on structural issues (e.g., goals of the mentor-mentee relationship, duration of the relationship, and formalization of the mentor-mentee relationship). [7] Ragsdale et al. [8] in their study conceptualized research mentorship around particular themes, including acquisition of research skills, academic productivity, and career development. ...
... A total of 20 items were generated for mentor (7), mentee (6), and organizational challenges (7). Of the mentor challenges, "Lack of understanding of mentorship process" (84.2%) and "Lack of capacity for The facilitator guided the process. ...
Aims and background:
Mentoring relationships and programs have become a subject of global interest and their relevance is high in the ever-evolving health system. In Nigeria, informal system of mentoring is largely practiced. To be able to institutionalize mentoring program, there is need to explore the various challenges of mentoring process and suggest potential approaches for effective mentor-mentee relationship in health research institutions in Nigeria.
Subjects and methods:
The study was designed to explore the barriers and solutions to mentoring process from the perspectives of the mentor, mentee, and organization in health research and training institutions in Nigeria. A cross-sectional descriptive design was employed and the study was conducted among 21 health researchers drawn from 24 health research institutions across the 6 regions of Nigeria. The nominal group technique was adopted in the data collection process.
Results:
The most frequently reported mentor challenges were "lack of understanding of mentorship process" (84.2%) and "lack of capacity for mentoring" (78.9%), while those of mentee were "mentor preference" (73.7%) and "lack of freedom of expression" (47.4%). "Culture of selfishness/individualism" (84.2%) and "lack of formal relationship" (63.2%) were the most mentioned systemic challenges. Training on mentoring process and relationship was mentioned as the most frequent approach to overcoming challenges for the three perspectives.
Conclusion:
Significant mentorship challenges exist in the Nigerian health, academic and research institution. Systematic approaches to finding and implementing the appropriate solutions are needed to circumvent these bottlenecks.
... Mentor effectiveness is dependent on multidimensional factors and requires more than having a mentor with ideal qualities [14][15][16][17]. Assessing mentor effectiveness can help institutions provide feedback to mentors to improve mentoring relationships and in the most extreme cases, identify those pairings that are not working to allow mentees to seek new mentors. ...
... Several evaluation tools have been proposed to measure mentor effectiveness and competency; however, these instruments have limited utility as they are relevant for specific types of mentors, specific populations, or have not been rigorously validated [14][15][16][17]. For example, Berk et al. designed two different scales to evaluate mentors, the Mentorship Profile Questionnaire and the Mentorship Effectiveness Scale [14]. ...
... Similarly, Medical Student Scholar-Ideal Mentor Scale was developed and provided validity evidence for the score for use in assessing mentors for medical student research projects. [23] The Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) mentoring working group identified five mentoring domains and six mentoring competencies in which clinical and translational science mentors could be evaluated [16,17]. The five mentoring domains were: meeting and communication; expectations and feedback; career development; research support; and psychosocial support [17]. ...
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.
... Focus upon novice mentoring which is defined as a 'dynamic, context-dependent, goalsensitive, mutually beneficial relationship between an experienced clinician and junior clinicians and/or undergraduates that is focused upon advancing the development of the mentee' [6] also helps circumnavigate the limitations posed by mentoring's nature [1,[3][4][5][6]93,94]. Similarities between novice mentoring practices in undergraduate and postgraduate programs and novice mentoring and research mentoring in medicine which is defined as 'a dynamic, collaborative, reciprocal, and sustained relationship focused on an emerging researcher's acquisition of the values and attitudes, knowledge, skills, and behaviours necessary to develop into a successful independent researcher' allow them to be considered together [1,[3][4][5][6]95]. The six steps proposed by Levac et al. (2010) are used to organise our methods and results [90,91,93]. ...
... Abedin et al. (2013) found that of the 55 Academic Health Centres surveyed, 96% provided mentor training at a program level and 93% at an institutional level. The general goals of the programs were to train and support mentors [2,[6][7][8][9][10][11]13,15,17,30,[48][49][50][51]70,77,81,82,86,95,106,107] and ensure a consistent mentoring experience for mentees [108,109]. McCulloch et al. (2015) and Rhodes (2013) found that mentor training programs also motivate mentors. ...
... The first domain relates to the host organization and its goals, curriculum, mentoring approach, support of the program and its mentoring guidelines, professional standards, and codes of conduct. The second domain relates to the mentor and their availability, motivations, interests, competencies, abilities, experiences and sometimes competing for duties [7,[9][10][11]15,17,30,46,50,95,106]. The third domain considers the trainees and their needs, motivations, goals, abilities, experiences, commitment, and desired characteristics of a mentor [7,[9][10][11]15,17,23,30,50,95,106,110]. ...
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.
... As aforementioned, we placed additional focus in our structured model of personal mentoring on the interpersonal connection, encouraging specific mentoring behaviors (i.e., expressing empathy and emotional support, availability and open communication, motivating and nurturing, and guidance on personal deliberations). The type and amount of psychosocial support are highly variable, answering fluctuating and unpredictable needs [16]. Moreover, both residents and mentors had diverse needs and abilities in terms of sharing experiences and asking for support and advice; thus, an effective way for mentors to provide emotional support was by honestly sharing their own feelings and as such encouraging their resident mentees to do the same [14]. ...
... In our program, the mentors were encouraged to listen carefully to the residents' concerns and needs by facilitating exploration of issues at their own pace, demonstrating a caring attitude, remaining open-minded, encouraging critical reflection, and helping them come to their own solutions and conclusions. As the resident gradually feels represented and understood, his motivation to learn from the mentor grows [16]. This often results in a more reciprocal enjoyment of the process and the challenging situations of change [5]. ...
Objective
To empower residents-in-training through personal mentorship from a senior physician who dedicates time and guidance to their personal development and provides professional and emotional support.MethodsA structured model of personal mentoring for residents was designed and implemented in the Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology. The process was assessed by a special-purpose survey constructed and reviewed by established medical mentors. The survey examined residents’ attitudes towards personal aspects associated with their residency. The questionnaires were filled out anonymously before launching and 1 and 3 years after initiating the personal mentoring process.ResultsThe residents’ reports showed a distinct trend of increased positive attitudes towards the personal mentoring throughout the process. The residents reported on an improvement in the mentors’ availability to address personal aspects within the mentoring relationship (empathy, emotional support in deliberations, career guidance, etc.). The general satisfaction with the residency program improved as well.Conclusions
Mentoring is a significant element in a comprehensive, multi-dimensional process. Integrating personal mentoring into a residency program, with the focus on interpersonal relational characteristics as empathy, availability, open communication, and guidance, led to improvements in residents’ professional development and skills. They also received optimal support and guidance in their professional careers and personal deliberations.
... The most common benefit of mentoring mentioned by the study participants was personal and professional growth as well as development. This finding is in consonance with reports from developed [42,43] and resource-poor settings. [38,41] According to these reports, [38,[41][42][43] mentoring in the post-graduate medical education is keys to developing personal and professional skills and competencies with the relationship being symbiotic and the benefits are bi-directional. ...
... This finding is in consonance with reports from developed [42,43] and resource-poor settings. [38,41] According to these reports, [38,[41][42][43] mentoring in the post-graduate medical education is keys to developing personal and professional skills and competencies with the relationship being symbiotic and the benefits are bi-directional. [2,4,6] The explanation of the concept of mentoring may vary, but core expectations of mentors are that they encourage the professional development of the mentee and offer psychosocial support to the mentee within a longitudinal relationship. ...
... The most common benefit of mentoring mentioned by the study participants was personal and professional growth as well as development. This finding is in consonance with reports from developed [42,43] and resource-poor settings. [38,41] According to these reports, [38,[41][42][43] mentoring in the post-graduate medical education is keys to developing personal and professional skills and competencies with the relationship being symbiotic and the benefits are bi-directional. ...
... This finding is in consonance with reports from developed [42,43] and resource-poor settings. [38,41] According to these reports, [38,[41][42][43] mentoring in the post-graduate medical education is keys to developing personal and professional skills and competencies with the relationship being symbiotic and the benefits are bi-directional. [2,4,6] The explanation of the concept of mentoring may vary, but core expectations of mentors are that they encourage the professional development of the mentee and offer psychosocial support to the mentee within a longitudinal relationship. ...
Background:
Globally, the post-graduate medical education has undergone tremendous changes with emphasis on training, services and research to equip trainees with competence for independent professional development. However, not all the fellows and members of the West African Post-graduate Medical College and the National Post-graduate Medical College of Nigeria recognise the values of mentoring in achieving the career success.
Aim:
The study was aimed at describing the prevalence, benefits, barriers and predictors of mentoring in a cross-section of the Post-graduate Medical College fellows and members in a tertiary health institution in South-Eastern Nigeria.
Participants and methods:
A cross-sectional study was carried out among 168 study participants who were sampled from the Post-graduate Medical College fellows and members in the Federal Medical Centre, Umuahia, Nigeria. Data collection was done using a pre-tested, self-administered questionnaire that elicited information on awareness, prevalence, barriers and benefits of mentoring.
Results:
The age of participants ranged from 26 to 59 (41 ± 9.4) years. All the respondents were aware of the mentorship. The prevalence of mentoring was 33.3%. The most common benefit was personal and professional growth and development (100.0%). The most common barrier was the pressure of professional duties and personal exigencies (100.0%). The most significant predictor of mentoring had departmental mentoring programme participants who had departmental mentoring programmes were two times more likely to have mentoring relationships when compared to their counterparts who had none (adjusted odds ratio = 2.32; 95% confidence interval: 1.20-3.10; P = 0.002).
Conclusion:
The level of awareness of mentoring was very high but did not translate to appropriate involvement in mentoring. The most common benefit was personal and professional growth and development. The most common barrier was the pressure of professional duties and personal exigencies. The most significant predictor of mentoring relationship had departmental mentoring programme.
... Participant recommendations for a good mentor included one that is senior and having clear expectations of the mentor. As a function of its infancy as a field of study, the challenges around mentoring in KT research may stem from a lack of senior leadership in KT research that provides the foundation for traditional mentorship roles (Abedin et al. 2012;Burnham, Schiro, and Fleming 2011). Mentorship is, however, particularly fundamental in building capacity, and in the absence of traditional mentorship opportunities, it may be that peer mentorship offers the supportive relationships needed by KT trainees. ...
... The strength of these findings, though, resides in the close examination and improved understanding of what makes peer mentorship both different, and valuable. In a field that is growing rapidly yet remains in its nascent, formative years (Abedin et al. 2012;Burnham, Schiro, and Fleming 2011), KT trainees may indeed experience limitations in securing and benefiting from traditional mentorship relationships. Rather than flounder without, however, this study provides evidence that, at least among one group of KT trainees, the intentional creation and fostering of peer mentorship opportunities has yielded the kinds of supports, resources and networking that have been identified as essential for trainee development and growth of the field (Cornelissen et al. 2011;Urquhart et al. 2013). ...
Background: Knowledge translation (KT) is an emerging field of practice, one in need of supports for growth, including, notably, peer mentorship.
Aim: To enhance our understanding of peer mentorship, this qualitative research examines the lived experiences of peer mentorship among graduate students and junior faculty whose studies focus on knowledge translation (KT).
Data collection and analysis: Interview data were collected from 12 members of a KT ‘trainee collaborative’ and were analyzed using grounded theory techniques.
Findings: The resultant theory of peer mentorship views the phenomenon as distinct from traditional mentorship, and outlines antecedents deemed necessary for creating and optimizing the formation of peer mentorship relationships. The theory also delineates between active and passive participation in such relationships, both within the formative stages, and once a set of peers has begun to ‘be in’ the relationship.
Conclusion: The model offers KT trainees and faculty an opportunity to reflect on peer mentorship practices, and to consider the conditions that may optimize peer mentorship.
... Sufficient information on specific knowledge, skills, or attitudes required from supervisors is not widely available in literature. However, Abedin et al. identified major categories of supervisor characteristics: leadership, empowerment, strategic perspective, integrity and judgment skills, creative thinking, and communication skills (9). These characteristics and skills further allow supervisors to train PhD candidates in data analysis, problem solving, scientific writing, and oral presentation. ...
Supervision is a specific relationship, where an experienced senior researcher provides guidance, support, and advice to navigate a junior colleague through the barriers to becoming an independent researcher. While supervision is clearly a rewarding duty, it is also associated with a number of challenges. It is clear that supervision involves many responsibilities, which means that the supervisor needs to possess a certain set of skills. While many of these skills are learned in the direct interaction with PhD candidates, it would be beneficial if a more formal and structured training was offered to supervisors, especially at the beginning of their supervision careers, so as to avoid frequent mistakes in the supervisor-PhD candidate relationship. Hence, the idea is to shift from experience-based supervision to professionalization, believing that such an approach would reduce the risk of poor supervision. At present, many universities offer formal education of supervisors. The practice of organized education of supervisors at University of Belgrade Faculty of Medicine started in 2019 with the aim of preparing future supervisors to establish productive and responsive relationships with PhD candidates. After a break due to the COVID-19 pandemic, a revised supervision course was organized in 2022. The survey conducted among the attendees of the two organized courses supported the need for better education of university teachers in terms of supervision skills and leading of PhD candidates. Indeed, considering the fact that PhD outcomes are largely dependent on the supervisor and the successful supervisor-PhD candidate relationship, supporting supervision through formal training and education may be an important step in improving PhD experience and outcomes for both supervisors and PhD candidates.
... These challenges are important to consider when stipulating responsibilities. As recommended in our guidelines, providing a collaboration of multiple supervisors has been discussed as helpful in dealing with all expected supervision responsibilities (Abedin et al. 2012;Haven et al. 2020). ...
Supervisors, PhD candidates and research leaders are expected to be the primary persons responsible for maintaining a high research integrity standatrds. However, research institutions should support them in this effort, by promoting responsible supervision and leadership practices. Although it is clear that institutions play a crucial role in this, there is a lack of institutional guidelines focusing on these topics. The development of the experience-based guidelines presented in this article consisted of a multi-step, iterative approach. We engaged 16 experts in supervision and research integrity in four workshops to co-create institutional guidelines for responsible supervision and leadership. To revise the guidelines and make them operational, we formed a dedicated working group and consulted experts in the field of supervision. This resulted in three guidelines focusing on what institutions can do to support: responsible supervision, PhD candidates during their PhD trajectory, and responsible leadership. The recommendations focus on the rights and responsibilities of the three targeted stakeholder groups, and institutions’ responsibilities for the personal development and well-being of supervisors, PhD candidates and research leaders. The three guidelines can be used by institutions to foster responsible supervision and leadership by supporting researchers to conduct research with integrity.
... Service learning can be used as a mechanism to facilitate community-university partnerships and can assist with integrating curriculum and learning into a reciprocally advantageous relationship between academia and the community . In addition, mentorship during the service-learning experience also may be critical as research has shown mentoring to have a significant impact on career trajectory and longevity, enhancement of research and practice skills and knowledge, and collaboration and communication abilities (Abedin et al., 2012;Young et al., 2015). ...
Real-world application and implementation of evidence-based practice continue to be a challenge across multiple sectors, including behavioral health settings. Providing the opportunity for future researchers and practitioners to gain capacity and knowledge through structured experiential learning in implementation science is critical to closing the research to practice gap. The Institute for Translational Research Education in Adolescent Drug Abuse (ITRE) is a graduate certificate program that offers specific coursework, a large-scale service-learning project based in the community, and mentorship related to implementation science research and practice. The purpose of this evaluation was to examine, from the perspective of ITRE scholars, the perceived impact on the development of professional research and practice skills once graduated from the ITRE program. Fifty-eight semi-structured interviews across five cohorts were selected randomly for in-depth thematic analysis (n = 58). Results suggest that the ITRE provides a unique approach grounded in implementation science for building robust and transferable skills for future researchers and practitioners working in a variety of behavioral healthcare settings.
... This also relates to the concept of personal congruency identified as an effective characteristic for formal mentorship programmes (Nottingham et al., 2017). Psychosocial, intellectual and emotional support are functions that other researchers have highlighted when analysing formal mentorship programmes focused on enabling research outcomes for undergraduate students (Thiry and Laursen, 2011;Abedin et al., 2012). ...
The EDUCATE research-based accelerator employs academic mentors to support entrepreneurs to use research in the development of educational technology. Mentorship is a common feature of business accelerators, yet only a few empirical studies have shown or analysed the relationship and how it in uences business success outcomes. In EDUCATE, the mentorship adopts a unique approach by focusing the relationship on goals and evidence-based knowledge exchange concerning educational technology. Examining previous literature on mentorship and exploring the novel features of EDUCATE, a qualitative case study was conducted using a semi-structured interview with a mentor and mentee within the programme. Although this was a limited study of only one dyad mentor−mentee relationship, the research elicits ndings that may be of interest for future research. The study highlights the importance of the interpersonal process of mentorship, and advances understanding of what constructs effective mentorship relationships for accelerators. Findings suggest that from the perspective of the mentee, the psychosocial function forms a big component of the relationship. Concepts such as trust, decision- making, personality and self-ef cacy arise in the analysis. In contrast, the mentor focuses on career functions and aspects of the programme such as frequency of interaction and knowledge about research. In addition, structured goals within the relationship seem to help the research activities expected in the accelerator. In conclusion, mentorship within EDUCATE is key for the programme, the psychosocial functions in the relationship are critical for entrepreneur satisfaction and, consequently, the integration of research and practice. Constructs such as trust and personality are worth exploring as components within training of the psychosocial aspect of mentors’ activity, as opposed to the traditional view of expert and experienced mentors, often acquired in business accelerators. The analysis of the interpersonal process is of importance to further understand the de nition of ‘good mentor’ within formal mentoring programmes for evaluation purposes.
Keywords: mentorship, accelerators, educational technology, interpersonal processes, knowledge exchange
... (CB) As these narratives illustrate, mentorship is key for obtaining additional knowledge and skills unique to other disciplines, as experience is key to navigating unfamiliar intellectual terrain, socializing the uninitiated into tacit norms, and helping with procedural knowledge that may differ across boundaries. Mentors may assist in developing research projects, navigating grant writing, providing financial support, giving practical advice for working on an interdisciplinary team, recommending scientific, career, and organizational champions, and helping establish a professional interdisciplinary network (Abedin et al., 2012;Chopra et al., 2016). ...
Scholarship in the field of health communication is broad, with interdisciplinary contributions from researchers trained in a variety of fields including communication, nursing, medicine, pharmacy, public health, and social work. In this paper, we explore the role of “health communication boundary spanners” (HCBS), individuals whose scholarly work and academic appointment reflect dual citizenship in both the communication discipline and the health professions or public health. Using a process of critical reflective inquiry, we elucidate opportunities and challenges associated with HCBS across the spectrum of health communication in order to provide guidance for individuals pursuing boundary spanning roles and those who supervise and mentor them. This dual citizen role suggests that HCBS have unique skills, identities, perspectives, and practices that contribute new ways of being and knowing that transcend traditional disciplinary boundaries. The health communication field is evolving in response to the need to address significant healthcare and policy problems. No one discipline has the ability to single-handedly fix our current healthcare systems. Narrative data from this study illustrate the importance of seeing HCBS work beyond simply being informed by disciplinary knowledge. Rather, we suggest that adapting ways of knowing and definitions of expertise is an integral part of the solution to solving persistent health problems.
... Despite the normal perception of one-on-one (faculty/student) mentoring program, student's perception of how they are best supported appears to include a multimentoring approach, with a network of people who take interest in the student's success [18]. In addition to understanding what students perceive as supportive mentoring, whether one-on-one or the multi-person, successful mentoring must be detailed to include five components: communication, psychosocial support, career/professional development, science integrity, and research development [19]. However, in order to achieve such outcomes during a summer SURE program, then an interdisciplinary/multi mentor approach would seem most productive. ...
... A study (Z. Abedin, 2012) by the American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics aimed to derive competencies for professionals in the role of mentors of clinical and translation scholars. The methodology was to derive competencies from a literature search and present them to an expert panel. ...
... Most mentors contribute in two major aspects: socially, by serving as an interface between the student and the department/faculty, and careerwise, by relating to activities that boost career development Brill et al., 2014). Nevertheless, in research-oriented disciplines, mentors engage in what has been defined as "research mentorship" (Abedin et al., 2012). Among the many skills that these doctoral students need to attain are how to conduct research, how to write proposals to obtain funds, and how to write an article using the results of their research project. ...
From a bibliometric perspective, scholarly inbreeding has been identified in journals through the excessive use of both author and journal self-citations. However, editorial bias toward researchers from the same institution as the editorial management team has seldom been considered. According to the Spanish Foundation for Science and Technology, this occurs when a journal publishes more than 20% of documents authored by researchers affiliated with the same institution as the editorial management team. The purpose of this study is to establish the extent to which 81 Latin American journals managed by universities publish intramural documents (defined as those published by its own faculties). Results revealed that 56% of Brazilian journals were not compliant with the 20% benchmark as well as 44% of Colombian journals, 50% of Chilean journals, and 71% of Mexican journals. Interestingly, one third of these journals published the majority of the documents in English. By examining the documents published by these journals and subsequent citations to these articles, it was established that the intramural documents of some journals registered a higher ratio of citations per document in comparison with extramural documents published in the same journals. The results presented in this study provide evidence of inbreeding in some academically managed journals from Latin America. Although no one specific reason can account for this phenomenon, plausible explanations are given that may contribute to its understanding.
... NIH leadership recognized the importance of career development strategies by convening a CTSA Education Key Function Committee (KFC) "mentor working group", which included the Research Education and Career Development Directors from 18 CTSA hubs. Their charge was to identify the types of initiatives developed by CTSA hubs to support KL2 scholars, which resulted in a series of "white papers" focused on approaches to strengthen the career development of clinical translational scientist trainees 1 , and elements of mentoring [2][3][4][5][6][7] . Most reports of specific KL2 program practices and scholar outcomes focus on single institution experiences, representing large, unique, and/or well-resourced programs of greater longevity [8][9][10][11] . ...
Introduction:
NIH Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) include KL2 mentored career development awards for faculty commencing clinical and translational research. A survey of KL2 leaders revealed program practices, curricular elements and compelling data about scholar characteristics and outcomes.
Methods:
We conducted a literature review, framed the survey construct, and obtained input from across the CTSA consortium. A REDCap survey was emailed in fall 2016 to 61 active programs.
Results:
Fifty-five programs (90.2%) responded. Respondents had been funded from 3 to 11 years, including 22 "mature" hubs funded for ≥8 years. Program cohort sizes were 56% "small", 22% "medium", and 22% "large." Hubs offer extensive competency-aligned training opportunities relevant to clinical and translational research, including graduate degrees, mentorship, and grant-writing. Seventy-two percent of hubs report parallel "KL2-equivalent" career development programs. All hubs share their training and facilitate intermingling with other early stage investigators. A total of 1,517 KL2 scholars were funded. KL2 awardees are diverse in their disciplines, research projects, and representation; 54% are female and 12% self-identified as underrepresented in biomedical research. Eighty-seven percent of scholars have 2-3 mentors and are currently supported for 2-3 years. Seventy-eight percent of alumni remain at CTSA institutions in translational science. The most common form of NIH support following scholars' KL2 award is an individual career development award.
Conclusions:
The KL2 is a unique career development award, shaped by competency-aligned training opportunities and interdisciplinary mentorship that inform translational research pathways. Tracking both traditional and novel outcomes of KL2 scholars is essential to capture their career trajectories and impact on health.
... Abedin et al. proposed the need for validation and development of competencies for mentors. 16,30,31,32 Our study participants proposed mentoring programmes that involved mentoring retreats, a mentoring consultation online (that included Kenyan and foreign experts). The same was presented by Fieldman et al. among other available documents on the subject. ...
... Abedin et al. proposed the need for validation and development of competencies for mentors. 16,30,31,32 Our study participants proposed mentoring programmes that involved mentoring retreats, a mentoring consultation online (that included Kenyan and foreign experts). The same was presented by Fieldman et al. among other available documents on the subject. ...
Background: The concept of mentoring in clinical practice has traditionally focused on moving graduates from novice to more respectable positions within the clinical practice hierarchy. With the growing emphasis on evidence-based practice, the role of research in generating evidence for practice cannot be overemphasised. Mentoring in clinical operational research for both students and junior members of academic staff in health professionals’ training colleges is as important as mentoring for clinical skills. Aim: This study aimed at building consensus on possible ways of enhancing research mentoring for graduate students and members of academic staff in a college of health sciences. Setting: The study was conducted within Moi University College of Health Sciences (MUCHS) in Eldoret, Kenya. Methods: The study population was composed of academic staff members and registered graduate students by the end of 2015. All academic staff and graduate students were eligible to participate. The Delphi technique was used to not only collect individual opinions but also build consensus. During the first iteration, questions were sent for which open-ended responses were needed. Responses from the first round were grouped into patterns and themes that guided the writing of questions for the subsequent rounds.
Results: The response rate was 78%. There was consensus in appreciating that mentoring was fundamental for career growth in clinical practice and research and needed for improving and developing formal structure for effective mentoring. It was crucial to establish training programmes for mentors and for accrediting them.
Conclusion: Enhancing of current research mentoring in MUCHS was needed and expected by graduate students and academic staff.
Keywords: mentoring; research; Delphi technique; iterations; consensus; graduate students; academic members of staff.
... "Research mentorship refers to a dynamic, collaborative, reciprocal and sustained relationship focused on an emerging researcher's acquisition of values and attitudes, knowledge, skills, and behaviors necessary to develop into a successful independent researcher" (Abedin et al., 2012). Mentoring plays an essential role in personal and career guidance and research productivity (Sambunjak, Straus, & Marusić, 2006). ...
This issue is a call for more culturally congruent mentorship training, support, and research on the effectiveness of mentoring strategies. The role of mentoring is fundamental to professional growth and success. Importantly, one size does not fit all. A repertoire of mentoring strategies and formats is necessary to include the talent, skills, and contributions of the next generation of diverse researchers in public health and biomedical sciences. It is incumbent on us now to grow a comprehensive knowledge base so we may best promote health and well-being for all citizens through innovative and effective strategies to support mentoring and research that eliminates health disparities. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
... A letter of support from a chair, dean, or senior colleague was also added as a nomination packet requirement in 2014 because some nominators included such a letter, and reviewers found the unevenness between the nomination packets unfair for those packets that did not include such a letter. Finally, in 2014 the Mentor Council recommended that the importance of mentoring for diversity be raised, and included a competency about diversity within the nomination criteria; the competency was directly informed by the NIH definition for diversity [21]. Save this change in criteria, the reviewer rubric has remained consistent since it was developed. ...
Introduction
Research shows incentives can motivate faculty to increase their engagement in mentoring, despite a myriad of institutional barriers. One such incentive may be the implementation of a university-wide mentor award program to promote a culture of mentorship.
Methods
A new mentorship award was created at a research-intensive university and faculty recipients were surveyed to assess their perceptions of the award’s impact on their mentoring practices and career.
Results
Sixty-two percent of awardees (n=21) completed the survey and felt the recognition incentivized them to engage in further mentoring and participate in formal mentorship training. Most awardees referenced the award in their CVs, performance evaluations, and grant proposals. Additionally, they felt the award effectively promoted mentoring among the broader faculty community.
Conclusion
Growth of clinical and translational research depends in part on the mentorship received by early career faculty. Therefore, other research universities may benefit from implementing such awards.
... Psychosocial support. Five studies focused on psychosocial support (1 grey, 1 conceptual, 3 empirical; Abedin et al., 2012;Fleming et al., 2013;Lord et al., 2012;Saucier et al., 2012;Spence et al., 2001). Peer supervision groups offered "opportunities for mutual learning, support, encouragement, advice, and information sharing, resulting in personal growth and development" by allowing "peers at the same professional level to dialogue in a safe environment" ( Lord et al., 2012, p. 380). ...
In the occupational therapy (OT) profession, peer supervision groups are recommended for professional development, lessening attrition, and relieving stress. Peer supervision is under researched, thus competencies to support this practice are unknown. The purpose of this scoping review was to: (1) summarize the research knowledge around peer supervision to support evidence-based practice in OT, (2) map supervision competencies and key themes in the literature, and (3) isolate peer supervision competencies that may be especially relevant to graduate-level OT students. The long-term aim of this research is to develop a framework for evidence-based peer supervision training. Researchers investigated the question: What competencies related to peer supervision, supervision in OT clinical education, and supervision in allied health are relevant to the education of graduate-level OT students? Using a six-step methodological framework, a scoping review of empirical, conceptual, and grey literature was conducted. Studies relevant to peer supervision, supervision in OT clinical education, and supervision practices in allied health professions were searched and appraised, yielding 15 high quality studies. Competencies were extracted and mapped, resulting in the following OT peer supervision competencies: flexibility, professional enculturation, providing constructive feedback, psychosocial support, teaching, and clinical skill acquisition. Findings suggest OT peer supervision competencies center on skillful relationship abilities, as supervision skills are not innate, not dependent on clinical skill, and typically need to be taught. This study warrants the need for additional efforts around supervision practices.
... Mentorship becomes more complex as women leaders may model more traditional leadership styles embraced by older generations which may not meet the needs of junior faculty [25]. Mentoring includes encouraging leadership development, facilitating stretch assignments and promotions, and influencing skill development [40,41]. ...
Background
The aim of this study is to highlight career paths of senior women leaders in academic emergency medicine (EM) to encourage younger women to pursue leadership.
Methods
This was a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with female EM leaders. We interviewed 22 recognized female leaders selected using criterion-based sampling and a standardized script of open-ended questions derived from the Intelligent Career Model. Questions were related to job purpose, skills, and networking. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and three trained reviewers analyzed transcripts following grounded theory principles and using Dedoose®. Researchers used an iterative process over several meetings to produce the final set of codes and themes.
Results
Our iterative process identified four themes: women leaders made an intentional decision to pursue opportunities to influence emergency medicine, women sought out natural mentors and sponsors to facilitate career development, women leaders intentionally planned their out of work life to support their leadership role, and an important focus for their work was to help others achieve excellence.
Conclusions
Our study provides insights from senior female leaders in EM; supporting the value of women pursuing leadership. There is a widely acknowledged need to diversify leadership and support gender-specific needs to develop women leaders in medicine. Becoming a woman leader in EM means making intentional decisions and taking risks. Leaders found benefits in natural mentors and sponsors. Those relationships have power to change the trajectory of emerging women leaders by identifying and reinforcing potential. Work/life balance remains an area which requires intentional planning. Woman leaders encourage succession planning and corroborate the need for increasing the percentage of women leaders to benefit the organizational culture. Leadership in academic medicine is changing with reorientation of a largely autocratic, vertically oriented hierarchy into a more democratic, consensus-driven, and horizontally organized management structure which should complement the strengths women bring to the leadership table.
... This program helped define a set of core competencies for mentors in clinical and translational research. 22 An interim evaluation of the MDP program demonstrated a sustained impact on mentoring skills, techniques, and focus. 12 Faculty participants in each program. ...
A growing body of evidence highlights the importance of competent mentoring in academic research. We describe the development, implementation, and evaluation of four regional 2-day intensive workshops to train mid- and senior-level investigators conducting public health, clinical, and basic science research across multiple academic institutions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) on tools and techniques of effective mentoring. Sponsored by the Fogarty International Center, workshops included didactic presentations, interactive discussions, and small-group problem-based learning and were conducted in Lima, Peru; Mombasa, Kenya; Bangalore, India; and Johannesburg, South Africa, from 2013 to 2016. Mid- or senior-level faculty from multiple academic institutions within each region applied and were selected. Thirty faculty from 12 South America-based institutions, 29 faculty from eight East Africa-based institutions, 37 faculty from 14 South Asia-based institutions, and 36 faculty from 13 Africa-based institutions participated, with diverse representation across disciplines, gender, and academic rank. Discussions and evaluations revealed important comparisons and contrasts in the practice of mentoring, and specific barriers and facilitators to mentoring within each cultural and regional context. Specific regional issues related to hierarchy, the post-colonial legacy, and diversity arose as challenges to mentoring in different parts of the world. Common barriers included a lack of a culture of mentoring, time constraints, lack of formal training, and a lack of recognition for mentoring. These workshops provided valuable training, were among the first of their kind, were well-attended, rated highly, and provided concepts and a structure for the development and strengthening of formal mentoring programs across LMIC institutions.
... Mentoring competencies have been framed previously by Hamer et al. and Flemming et al., in the following categories: Maintaining effective communication (COM); aligning expectations (EXPs); assessing understanding (UND); addressing diversity; promoting professional development; fostering independence; professional integrity and ethical conduct; overcoming resource limitations; fostering institutional change (CHA). [7][8][9][10] The Hamer et al. study further delineated the skills required to attain these competencies. 10 ...
Capacity building in low- and middle-income country (LMIC) institutions hinges on the delivery of effective mentorship. This study presents an overview of mentorship toolkits applicable to LMIC institutions identified through a scoping review. A scoping review approach was used to 1) map the extent, range, and nature of mentorship resources and tools available and 2) to identify knowledge gaps in the current literature. To identify toolkits, we collected and analyzed data provided online that met the following criteria: written in English and from organizations and individuals involved in global health mentoring. We searched electronic databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, and Google search engine. Once toolkits were identified, we extracted the available tools and mapped them to pre-identified global health competencies. Only three of the 18 identified toolkits were developed specifically for the LMIC context. Most toolkits focused on individual mentor-mentee relationships. Most focused on the domains of communication and professional development. Fewer toolkits focused on ethics, overcoming resource limitations, and fostering institutional change. No toolkits discussed strategies for group mentoring or how to adapt existing tools to a local context. There is a paucity of mentoring resources specifically designed for LMIC settings. We identified several toolkits that focus on aspects of individual mentor-mentee relationships that could be adapted to local contexts. Future work should focus on adaptation and the development of tools to support institutional change and capacity building for mentoring.
... While a general understanding of the attributes of a successful mentor is known, there is limited information on the competencies required for effective global health research mentorship, especially in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). 7,8 These countries share common challenges of complex disease burdens, skill shortages, underinvestment in research, and resource constraints. 9 In a LMIC context, the mentor, whether this individual is from a LMIC or based in a high-income country (HIC) and collaborates in a LMIC, must be comfortable with cross-cultural communication, an ability to overcome limited or inconsistent institutional support, and capacity to provide effective mentorship in the context of limited infrastructure and financial support. ...
Mentoring is beneficial to mentors, mentees, and their institutions, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), that are faced with complex disease burdens, skills shortages, and resource constraints. Mentoring in global health research can be enhanced by defining key competencies, to enable the skill set required for effective mentoring, determine training needs for local research mentors, and facilitate institutional capacity building to support mentors. The latter includes advocating for resources, institutional development of mentoring guidelines, and financial and administrative support for mentoring. Nine core global health research mentoring competencies were identified: maintaining effective communication; aligning expectations with reasonable goals and objectives; assessing and providing skills and knowledge for success; addressing diversity; fostering independence; promoting professional development; promoting professional integrity and ethical conduct; overcoming resource limitations; and fostering institutional change. The competencies described in this article will assist mentors to sharpen their cognitive skills, acquire or generate new knowledge, and enhance professional and personal growth and job satisfaction. Similarly, the proposed competencies will enhance the knowledge and skills of mentees, who can continue and extend the work of their mentors, and advance knowledge for the benefit of the health of populations in LMICs.
... The CTSA Key Function Committee mentor working group included the Research Education and Career Development Directors from 18 CTSA hubs. This working group published a series of "white papers," focused on the various elements of mentoring [11][12][13][14][15][16][17]. ...
As part of their mission, Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs are charged with developing, testing, and disseminating evidence-based practices to other CTSA hubs. Over the past 7 years, the University of Wisconsin-Madison has answered this charge by implementing the facilitator training (FT) initiative for research mentors. Three elements to advance training across the CTSA hubs have been critical: (1) using an FT model to empower others to build research mentor training at their local institutions; (2) tracking implementation of training events across the CTSA hubs over time; and (3) partnering with implementation sites to build local capacity and evaluate the effectiveness and quality of training. Here we report that facilitators have been trained at 75% of CTSA hubs. These facilitators report high satisfaction with the training and increased confidence in their ability to implement mentor training, and plan to implement local mentor training. These findings demonstrate that the FT initiative can serve as a model for dissemination and implementation of other workforce development interventions across the CTSA hubs.
... While this may involve more consultants and contract work as budgets get tighter relative to faculty, staff, and graduate student salaries, ultimately strong mentors and collaborators who have "done it before" are required for new translational researchers to succeed. 3 Talk to the Customer: Another mantra in the start-up world is to ensure that the team talks directly to the customer, to make sure that the solution being advanced has real value. In industry, there must be someone willing to purchase the solution being proposed, and it must solve a real problem somehow such that people will pay for it. ...
This editorial offers some ways to think about how best to position a research group for funding, by examining the parallels between what is needed for translational grants versus industry start-ups.
... The National Research Mentoring Network and similar mentor training programs [9][10][11] include skill building on effective communication, aligning expectations between mentors and mentees, assessing the understanding and skill level of mentees, addressing equity and inclusion in mentoring relationships, fostering mentees' independence as researchers, professional development, and evaluating the effectiveness and competency of mentors. [12][13][14][15] However, the aforementioned training programs and studies focus on mentoring in the United States with little attention to mentoring in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs) or adapting mentor training in diverse global settings. The few studies that focus on building mentoring capacity in lowresource settings report that mentorship can be crucial to the development of scientific study when financial sponsorship, human resources, and technical training may be especially limited. ...
Mentoring is a critical component of career development for research scientists and is related to mentee success both in terms of career selection and advancement. However, there are limited data on the role of mentoring in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Cross-cultural mentorship programs have the potential to foster the transfer of knowledge and the development of capacity to resource-poor settings. This formative evaluation explores the cultural context of mentoring in the countries of Georgia and Ethiopia. Results were used to build culturally relevant mentor training programs for the National Institutes of Health Fogarty International Center funded Global Infectious Diseases grants focused on tuberculosis (TB) research and research training. Four focus group discussions were conducted with research trainees and mentors to explore the perceptions of mentorship, identify obstacles for successful mentoring, and generate recommendations to strengthen mentoring in each program situated in a LMIC. Data revealed the barriers to mentoring in Ethiopia and Georgia included gaps in knowledge about mentoring roles and responsibilities, lack of knowledge about the responsibilities of the trainee in a mentoring relationship, and the need to set clear expectations between mentors and trainees. All of the focus group participants desired formal mentor training. These data informed six key components of the development and implementation of the mentor training programs in both countries. The topics included the following: a foundation in mentoring, establishing expectations between mentees and mentors, increasing interactions between mentees and mentors, additional mentor training, a case study curriculum, and methods of evaluating mentoring relationships.
Бұл зерттеу жұмысында орта мектеп оқушыларына қазақ әдебиеті пәнінің оқу мазмұны қамтыған қазақ ақын-жазушыларының шығармаларын оқытуда коучинг және менторинг әдістерін қолданудың ғылыми-практикалық перспективасы қарастырылған. Әдебиет моральдық құндылықтарды насихаттау арқылы коучинг, менторинг, психология, тұлғалық даму, бизнес сияқты салалармен байланысады. Зерттеу бір айлық коучинг және менторинг курсында жасөспірімдердің дайындаған «өмірлік сценарийлерін» және әдебиеттің жаңа әдістер арқылы оқытудағы мүмкіншілігін анықтау мақсатында жүргізілген фокус-топ сұхбатын талдауға негізделген. Мақалада қазақ әдебиетін оқытуда коучинг/менторинг әдістерін енгізу оқушыларды алға қойған мақсаттарына, жетістіктерге жетуге көмектеседі деген қорытынды жасалған. Әдеби шығармаларды коучинг және менторинг әдістері арқылы оқыту отандық мектептерде бұрын соңды қолданылмаған. Мақала мұғалімдерге коучинг/менторинг әдістерін мектеп пәндерін оқытуда қалай қолданысқа енгізудің үлгісін көрсетеді.
This paper explores the use of coaching and mentoring methods in teaching literature to secondary school students. This innovative pedagogical approach has not been previously practiced in Kazakhstani schools. The study employs a one-month coaching and mentoring initiative tailored for secondary school students. This qualitative study employed the collection of the reflective journal “life scenario” and the focus group interview with participants. The data obtained from the reflective journal and focus group interview were subjected to content analysis. The integration of coaching and mentoring methods into literature pedagogy is postulated as a catalyst for inspiring students to develop “life scenarios,” thereby propelling them towards goal achievement and academic success. Additionally, the paper suggests integrating more practical exercises from business, psychology, coaching, and mentoring in literature lessons at the secondary school level.
Introduction
Early-stage clinical and translational researchers who set and track career goals, milestones, and progress are successful in career development. We aimed to determine the effectiveness of the Customized Career Development Platform (CCDP), an online individual development plan (IDP), versus the traditional IDP template in improving research success and career satisfaction.
Methods
We conducted a pragmatic cluster-randomized controlled trial of 340 scholars and trainees at 27 US academic healthcare institutions. The primary outcome was number of published manuscripts 24 months post-intervention. Secondary outcomes included the number of grant proposals submitted and funded, job satisfaction, and level of communication with mentors. An analysis of CCDP participants assessed proficiency level for the 14 Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) competencies. Data were analyzed using intention-to-treat.
Results
Participants were mostly female (60.3%) and Caucasian (67.2%); mean age was 34 years. Twenty-four months following the intervention, the CCDP versus traditional IDP groups showed a similar number of publications (9.4 vs 8.6), grants submitted (4.1 vs 4.4) and funded (1.3 vs 2.0), and job satisfaction score (3.6 vs 3.7). The CCDP group had higher odds of discussing communication (OR = 2.08) and leadership skills (OR = 2.62) and broadening their network (2.31) than the traditional IDP group. The CCDP arm reported improvements in 9 of the 14 CTSA competencies.
Conclusion
The CCDP offers CTSA hubs an innovative alternative to traditional IDP tools. Future studies are needed to elucidate why the CCDP users did not fully appreciate or adopt the functionality of the online platform.
The mentoring programme at the institute level needs to be designed and implemented to develop competence, commitment, and confidence in faculty members to implement the strategic institute development plan in the context of the national education policy 2020 in higher education institutions (HEIs). An exploratory study was conducted using a researchers-designed semi-structured questionnaire which was mailed to 8500 potential respondents out of which 525 responded within the time limit. The literature review was useful right from formulating the topic for the study to completing the study. Based on the responses, literature review, experience of researchers and views of experts a mentoring system model is evolved for faculty members of HEIs. The model comprises four major elements viz input, mentoring types, mentoring processes and mentoring outcomes. Each element of the model is further detailed in sub-elements. This mentoring system model may be adopted by HEIs in their context for designing and implementing the mentoring programme.
Introduction:
The medical education literature lacks a uniform definition of mentoring. Mentoring relationships benefit the mentor and mentee. Mentoring roles include coach, advisor, teacher, counselor, and sponsor in the setting of mutual trust toward impacting psychosocial and career functions for the mentee. Mentoring helps improve underrepresented minority medical student performance. Medical students value mentoring relationships. Student mentees note a positive influence on career planning and research and saw mentors as counselors, idea providers, and role models. Medical students' varied goals and development call for personalized, flexible mentoring.
Methods:
This study sought to expand the current understanding of medical student mentoring. We emailed a voluntary Qualtrics survey to second-, third-, and fourth-year medical students at the Florida International University (FIU) Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine asking, "What do you want from a mentor (choose all that apply)?" Multiple choice options were constructed based upon literature search. We conducted one-way analysis of variance and Tukey's test to identify whether mentoring preferences differed by student academic year.
Results:
Of 363 students, 171 responded (47% response rate). Top-rated responses included honest feedback, responsiveness, and professional connections or networking opportunities.
Discussion:
Student desire for honest feedback from mentors was prioritized, affirming the lack of need for impression management in the mentoring relationship. This investigation will be useful for specific mentoring relationships, helping to trigger discussion regarding specific mentoring hopes and training mentors.
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.
For many years, faculty members were either basic scientists or clinicians/clinical investigators who were expected to teach as part of their job responsibilities. More recently, the career track of medical educator has started to gain legitimacy (Greenberg, 2018; Irby & O’Sullivan, 2018). Faculty members can now choose to make a career as a medical educator either early in their career or as a new career path after a successful experience in research. They may also be driven to change by the times of funding insecurity. For these individuals, where do they turn to navigate a successful career trajectory in medical education? Faculty development programs provide technical skills but offer little on career advancement (Irby & O’Sullivan, 2018). Mastery can be achieved, however, through mentorship of the basic scientist educator. The purpose of this chapter is to summarize the elements of mentoring used to facilitate the socialization and career development of basic science faculty members in medical education. We propose the CSW framework which stands for Competence (C), Support (S), and Wisdom/Wise (W), and is directed to basic science faculty in medical education. After describing the CSW framework, we apply it in the analysis of a case study, which will be useful to others who are new to mentoring basic scientists in education. We conclude with some reflections on the framework with respect to successful outcomes.
Despite improved knowledge regarding disease causality, new drug targets, and enabling technologies, the attrition rate for compounds entering clinical trials has remained consistently high for several decades, with an average 90% failure rate. These failures are manifested in an inability to reproduce efficacy findings from animal models in humans and/or the occurrence of unexpected safety issues, and reflect failures in T1 translation. Similarly, an inability to sequentially demonstrate compound efficacy and safety in Phase IIa, IIb, and III clinical trials represents failures in T2 translation. Accordingly, T1 and T2 translation are colloquially termed ‘valleys of death’. Since T2 translation dealt almost exclusively with clinical trials, T3 and T4 translational steps were added, with the former focused on facilitating interactions between laboratory‐ and population‐based research and the latter on ‘real world’ health outcomes. Factors that potentially lead to T1/T2 compound attrition include: the absence of biomarkers to allow compound effects to be consistently tracked through development; a lack of integration/‘de‐siloing’ of the diverse discipline‐based and technical skill sets involved in drug discovery; the industrialization of drug discovery, which via volume‐based goals often results in quantity being prioritized over quality; inadequate project governance and strategic oversight; and flawed decision making based on unreliable/irreproducible or incomplete data. A variety of initiatives have addressed this problem, including the NIH National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), which has focused on bringing an unbiased academic perspective to translation, to potentially revitalize the process. This commentary provides an overview of the basic concepts involved in translation, along with suggested changes in the conduct of biomedical research to avoid valleys of death, including the use of Translational Scoring as a tool to avoid translational attrition and the impact of the FDA Accelerated Approval Pathway in lowering the hurdle for drug approval.
En este artículo, los autores explican el origen y el uso actual del término mentoría y describen algunos marcos teóricos que ayudan a comprender los procesos y la repercusión de la mentoría en investigación: el del aprendizaje cognitivo, el del aprendizaje no formal, el del aprendizaje sociocultural en el contexto de comunidades de práctica, el de la mentoría como una forma de acumulación de capital social, el de la mentoría como un medio para el desarrollo de la identidad como científico, y las miradas desde la teoría social y cognitiva de la carrera.
Effective mentoring is a key mechanism propelling successful research and academic careers, particularly for early career scholars. Most mentoring programs focus on models pairing senior and early career researchers, with limited focus on peer mentoring. Peer mentoring may be especially advantageous within emerging areas such as implementation science (IS) where challenges to traditional mentoring may be more prevalent. This special communication highlights the value of peer mentoring by describing a case study of an early career IS peer mentoring group. We delineate our curriculum and structure; support and processes; and products and outcomes. We highlight important group member characteristics to consider during group formation and continuation. The group’s long-term (6 years) success was attributed to the balance of similarities and differences among group members. Members were in a similar career phase and used similar methodologies but studied different health topics at different institutions. Group members gave and received instrumental and psychosocial support and shared resources and knowledge. Peer mentoring can serve an important function to provide emotional, logistical, and professional development support for early career scholars. Our case study highlights strategies to foster peer mentoring groups that provide a generalizable blueprint and opportunity for improved outcomes for early career professionals.
Over the past decades, two persisting priorities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) training have been: 1) increasing the knowledge of and access to careers beyond academic scientist; and 2) increasing the diversity of the STEM workforce. Previous studies show that a uniquely constructed career coaching group provides strong support and progress for both priorities. This report extends this design into a more sustainable model that is positioned within the professional context of rising young scientists. This new model is based in the American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics (ASPET)-the ASPET Mentoring Network. Groups of PhD students and postdocs were assigned to an ASPET professional (academic or other career) member (the coach) with an initial meeting held the day before the society's annual meeting. The coaching groups interacted during the meeting and then virtually for a year. Extensive survey and interview evaluation data gathered from the first three cohorts (12 coaching groups) in 2016- 2018 provided strong evidence of the perceived and real benefits of the network. This new version of career coaching groups is both feasible and linked to career success due to its close association with a scientific society, peers, and coaches who share scientific identities and aspirations.
Each study presents its own set of ethical considerations. Certain kinds of ethical issues are inherent in particular areas of clinical research, regardless of specific ethical questions associated with a specific study. In this chapter, some of the most common special areas of clinical research are presented, highlighting the ethical issues most frequently associated with each.
Graduate skills and employability discussions have continued to be a contentious issue for both international and local employers. The concerns of industry employers stem from their inability to acquire graduates with the requisite skills and competencies to effectively solve arising industry problems. This concern has led employers to cast blames on higher education institutions (HEIs), who they feel are responsible for the development of these skills which employers continuously seek from fresh graduates. Subsequently, present-day employers have sought innovative ways to train and re-train new employees to help ease their transition into the world of work. This paper identifies the various approaches and ways by which industry employers develop the required skills of graduates. An extant review of literature was conducted from databases such as Academic Search Complete, ASCE conference proceedings, EBSCOhost, Emerald, ERIC, Science Direct, Scopus, Springer, Taylor and Francis online, amongst others. One of the primary findings stemming from this study revealed that in-house training, job rotation, coaching and mentoring, and cross-functional teams are some of the key approaches by which industry employers can develop skills and competencies among fresh graduates. This study concludes that HEIs are not solely responsible for the development of employability skills among graduates, but reckons that both the employers of labour and graduates themselves have a crucial role to play in the construction education discourse.
The purpose of this systematic multiple‐studies review was to synthesize the current trends in the research evidence of mentoring programs for workplace learning and to determine how to facilitate mentoring relationships in organizations to achieve individual performance gains and organizational‐performance improvement. A systematic review of the literature on electronic databases was conducted to identify relevant information pertaining to mentoring and mentor programs. Findings were synthesized using a multiple‐studies‐review (MSR) approach; 26 studies were identified for inclusion. The most common current trends involve an increasing focus on mentors (i.e., role, qualifications, approach, and learning). We found 10 constructs related to examples of successful outcomes in workplace mentoring programs, which are represented in a new theoretical model. There is a growing body of research that link evidence of formal mentoring with individuals' workplace learning gains and performance improvement but very few studies that link mentoring programs with organizational‐performance improvements.
Paper commissioned by the National Academies of Sciences Engineering & Medicine Committee on The Science of Effective Mentorship in STEMM
Graduate skills and employability discussions have continued to be a contentious issue for both international and local employers. The concerns of industry employers stem from their inability to acquire graduates with the requisite skills and competencies to effectively solve arising industry problems. This concern has led employers to cast blames on higher education institutions (HEIs), who they feel are responsible for the development of these skills which employers continuously seek from fresh graduates. Subsequently, present-day employers have sought innovative ways to train and retrain new employees to help ease their transition into the world of work. This paper identifies the various approaches and ways by which industry employers develop the required skills of graduates. An extant review of literature was conducted from databases such as Academic Search Complete, ASCE conference proceedings, EBSCOhost, Emerald, ERIC, Science Direct, Scopus, Springer, Taylor and Francis online, amongst others. One of the primary findings stemming from this study revealed that in-house training, job rotation, coaching and mentoring, and cross-functional teams are some of the key approaches by which industry employers can develop skills and competencies among fresh graduates. This study concludes that HEIs are not solely responsible for the development of employability skills among graduates, but reckons that both the employers of labour and graduates themselves have a crucial role to play in the construction education discourse.
Keywords: Mentoring, Construction education, Construction industry, Graduate skills, Higher education.
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.
In this study researchers explored gender differences in computer-mediated communication between peers with disabilities and between these young people and adult mentors. Contents of 10,044 email messages of teens with disabilities within a mentoring community were analyzed. Participants were part of a nationally-recognized program to promote the participation of individuals with disabilities in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields. Differences in the content of communications between male and female participants were found to be consistent with traditional gender roles. Males were more likely to both provide and seek information about the Internet and technology than females, yet females communicated more frequently overall, shared more personal information, and sent more messages with a "personal tone." Research findings can be used to guide programs in mediating electronic communities by attending to gender differences. They can also inform project activities designed to help young women claim roles in challenging fields where they are underrepresented.
This study explores whether computer-mediated communication can be used to initiate and sustain peer–peer and mentor–protégé relationships and alleviate barriers to in-person communication faced by individuals with disabilities. It also compares peer–peer and mentor–protégé e-mail interactions. Content of e-mail messages exchanged between high school students with disabilities (49) and adult mentors (35) along with survey and focus group data were analyzed. Results support the electronic community as a favorable environment in which to provide peer and mentor support for high school students with disabilities. Results suggest that peer–peer and mentor–protégé relationships perform similar functions; however, peer–peer relationships are more personal. Conclusions can guide programs that wish to help youth advance their personal, academic, and career goals.
"Mentoring at Work" is about relationships in organizations that enhance individuals' development in the early, middle, and later career years. What began as a study of mentor relationships between junior and senior managers in one corporate setting evolved into a program of research designed to clarify the nature of a variety of relationships between junior and senior colleagues, or between peers, who provide mentoring functions. The primary purpose is to present an intricate and realistic view of mentoring, to delineate its potential benefits and limitations, and to illustrate the various forms of developmental relationships that can exist in work settings.
I have brought an open systems perspective to this project. This means that I assume that relationships are significantly affected by the context in which they evolve and by the expectations, needs, and skills that individuals bring to them. Thus, I set out to understand how individuals' career histories and current situations, as well as the surrounding organizational circumstances, have jointly shaped the essential characteristics and evolution of their relationships with mentors, proteges, and peers.
Throughout this book I address three distinct audiences. First, for individuals at every career stage, I discuss a perspective on mentoring that I hope will discourage the "search for the right mentor" and encourage systematic self-diagnosis of relationship needs as well as strategies for building relationships that provide relevant developmental functions. Second, for practicing managers, I outline the major forces that must be taken into account when creating a context that stimulates an effective mentoring process. Finally, for human resource specialists and organizational researchers, I consolidate the available research to date and outline strategies for intervention and further research that will help improve the quality of worklife and organizational effectiveness. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Mentorship is perceived to play a significant role in the career development and productivity of academic clinicians, but little is known about the characteristics of mentorship. This knowledge would be useful for those developing mentorship programs.
To complete a systematic review of the qualitative literature to explore and summarize the development, perceptions and experiences of the mentoring relationship in academic medicine.
Medline, PsycINFO, ERIC, Scopus and Current Contents databases from the earliest available date to December 2008.
We included studies that used qualitative research methodology to explore the meaning and characteristics of mentoring in academic medicine. Two investigators independently assessed articles for relevance and study quality, and extracted data using standardized forms. No restrictions were placed on the language of articles.
A total of 8,487 citations were identified, 114 full text articles were assessed, and 9 articles were selected for review. All studies were conducted in North America, and most focused on the initiation and cultivation phases of the mentoring relationship. Mentoring was described as a complex relationship based on mutual interests, both professional and personal. Mentees should take an active role in the formation and development of mentoring relationships. Good mentors should be sincere in their dealings with mentees, be able to listen actively and understand mentees' needs, and have a well-established position within the academic community. Some of the mentoring functions aim at the mentees' academic growth and others at personal growth. Barriers to mentoring and dysfunctional mentoring can be related to personal factors, relational difficulties and structural/institutional barriers.
Successful mentoring requires commitment and interpersonal skills of the mentor and mentee, but also a facilitating environment at academic medicine's institutions.
Realizing medical education is on the brink of a major paradigm shift from structure- and process-based to competency-based education and measurement of outcomes, the authors reviewed the existing medical literature to provide practical insight into how to accomplish full implementation and evaluation of this new paradigm. They searched Medline and the Educational Resource Information Clearinghouse from the 1960s until the present, reviewed the titles and abstracts of the 469 articles the search produced, and chose 68 relevant articles for full review. The authors found that in the 1970s and 1980s much attention was given to the need for and the development of professional competencies for many medical disciplines. Little attention, however, was devoted to defining the benchmarks of specific competencies, how to attain them, or the evaluation of competence. Lack of evaluation strategies was likely one of the forces responsible for the three-decade lag between initiation of the movement and wide-spread adoption. Lessons learned from past experiences include the importance of strategic planning and faculty and learner buy-in for defining competencies. In addition, the benchmarks for defining competency and the thresholds for attaining competence must be clearly delineated. The development of appropriate assessment tools to measure competence remains the challenge of this decade, and educators must be responsible for studying the impact of this paradigm shift to determine whether its ultimate effect is the production of more competent physicians.
Realizing medical education is on the brink of a major paradigm shift from structure- and process-based to competency-based education and measurement of outcomes, the authors reviewed the existing medical literature to provide practical insight into how to accomplish full implementation and evaluation of this new paradigm. They searched Medline and the Educational Resource Information Clearinghouse from the 1960s until the present, reviewed the titles and abstracts of the 469 articles the search produced, and chose 68 relevant articles for full review. The authors found that in the 1970s and 1980s much attention was given to the need for and the development of professional competencies for many medical disciplines. Little attention, however, was devoted to defining the benchmarks of specific competencies, how to attain them, or the evaluation of competence. Lack of evaluation strategies was likely one of the forces responsible for the three-decade lag between initiation of the movement and wide-spread adoption. Lessons learned from past experiences include the importance of strategic planning and faculty and learner buy-in for defining competencies. In addition, the benchmarks for defining competency and the thresholds for attaining competence must be clearly delineated. The development of appropriate assessment tools to measure competence remains the challenge of this decade, and educators must be responsible for studying the impact of this paradigm shift to determine whether its ultimate effect is the production of more competent physicians.
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.
The study's objective was to identify the important qualities of outstanding mentors as described by their mentees' letters of nomination for a prestigious lifetime achievement award in mentorship.
The Lifetime Achievement in Mentorship Award at the University of California, San Francisco, recognizes a faculty member who has demonstrated sustained mentoring excellence in the academic health sciences. Recommendation letters in support of the top 10 nominees in 2008 (n=53 letters) were analyzed using grounded theory and constant comparative technique until thematic saturation was achieved.
In 2008, 29 faculty members (of>1000 eligible senior faculty) were nominated. Nominees were 53 to 78 years old, and 30% were women. The nominees represented 4 schools (Medicine, Nursing, Pharmacy and Dentistry) and 22 departments/divisions. Five themes emerged from the analysis. Outstanding mentors: 1) exhibit admirable personal qualitites, including enthusiasm, compassion, and selflessness; 2) act as a career guide, offering a vision but purposefully tailoring support to each mentee; 3) make strong time commitments with regular, frequent, and high-quality meetings; 4) support personal/professional balance; and 5) leave a legacy of how to be a good mentor through role modeling and instituting policies that set global expectations and standards for mentorship.
This is the first study to describe the qualities of admired mentors by analyzing nomination letters for a prestigious mentoring award. Our results give new insight into how mentors foster the careers of junior faculty in the academic health sciences. The results can guide academic leaders on how to train and evaluate mentors.
Mentoring is an important element in the training of new investigators, particularly for KL2, K12, K08, and K23 funded scholars who are often physicians or other clinicians with limited prior research experience. Matching K scholars with appropriate mentors who have the mentoring skills and available time is an ongoing challenge for most universities. The goal of this paper is to present a variety of strategies used to select mentors for K awardees. The information presented in this special communication is derived from the literature, a national survey of CTSA leaders, as well as K scholar and K mentor focus groups. Some of the mentor selection methods discussed in this paper include a) having the scholar find a mentor as part of the application process for the award, b) selecting mentors post award, c) expecting the chair of the department to identify a mentor(s), d) using a committee to match the scholar and a mentor based on a pool of approved mentors e) selecting additional mentors as the scholar's research program develops. The paper concludes that mentor selection requires an ongoing programmatic approach with the active participation of K scholars, CTSA program leaders, center directors, research deans and chairs.
PURPOSE: To determine (1) the prevalence of mentoring relationships for U.S. medical school junior faculty; (2) the quality of these mentoring relationships; (3) any variation by gender or race; and (4) the relationship between mentoring and junior faculty members' perceptions of institutional professional support; research-, teaching-, and clinical-skills development; allocation of time to professional activities; and career satisfaction.
METHOD: In 1995 a 177-item survey was mailed to 3,013 full-time faculty at 24 randomly selected U.S. medical schools stratified on an area of medical specialization, graduation cohort, and gender. Mentoring was defined as "dynamic reciprocal relationship between an advanced career incumbent (the mentor) and a junior faculty member (the protege) aimed at fostering the development of the junior person/protege." Because mentoring is most crucial for junior faculty, the study focused on mentoring relationships within the previous three years ("recent mentoring") for faculty who were not full professors. Chisquare tests, analysis of variance, and principal-components analysis were used to analyze the data.
RESULTS: In all, 1,808 (60%) of the 3,013 faculty surveyed, of whom 72% were junior faculty, returned completed questionaires. Fifty-four percent of the junior faculty had had a recent mentoring relationship. There was no significant difference between the men and the women faculty or between majority and minority faculty in the prevalence and quality of the mentoring relationships. The faculty with mentors rated their research preparation and research skills higher than did the faculty without mentors. Most of the women faculty (80%) and the minority faculty (86%) who had had mentors reported that it was not important to have a mentor of the same gender or minority group.
CONCLUSION: Mentoring relationships are prevalent in academic medicine and should be promoted to support the career growth of junior faculty.
Because translational research is not clearly defined, developers of translational research programs are struggling to articulate specific program objectives, delineate the knowledge and skills (competencies) that trainees are expected to develop, create an appropriate curriculum, and track outcomes to assess whether program objectives and competency requirements are being met. Members of the Evaluation Committee of the Association for Clinical Research Training (ACRT) reviewed current definitions of translational research and proposed an operational definition to use in the educational framework. In this article, the authors posit that translational research fosters the multidirectional and multidisciplinary integration of basic research, patient-oriented research, and population-based research, with the long-term aim of improving the health of the public. The authors argue that the approach to designing and evaluating the success of translational training programs must therefore be flexible enough to accommodate the needs of individual institutions and individual trainees within the institutions but that it must also be rigorous enough to document that the program is meeting its short-, intermediate-, and long-term objectives and that its trainees are meeting preestablished competency requirements. A logic model is proposed for the evaluation of translational research programs.
Mentoring is an important instructional strategy that should be maximally used to develop the next generation of physicians who will care for a growing population of frail older adults. Mentoring can fulfill three specific purposes: (1) help learners choose an area of specialty, (2) help fellows and new faculty navigate advancement in the academic environment, and (3) help new physicians enter a local medical community and develop a high-quality, professionally rewarding, financially viable practice that meets the needs of older adults. The components and process of mentoring are reviewed. Current and potential mechanisms to promote mentoring for the specific purpose of increasing the quality and quantity of physicians available to care for the older adult population are discussed.
While the golden era of mentoring may have been the age of apprentice ships in medicine, the birth of the clinical clerkship in the late 1800s provided the structure for the relationship between faculty and medical student. The last few decades, however, have seen a dramatic change in the availability of faculty to mentor students in clinical teaching settings despite a 600% increase in the number of clinical full-time medical school faculty. This work explores some of the reasons for this deterioration in mentoring and looks at the role of the mentor in professional development, specifically in the area of medical education. Recommendations for implementing structured mentoring programs within a department of surgery are provided. The article concludes with discussion of individual characteristics of the effective mentor in surgical education.
In 1994, the National Center for Research Resources' Committee on Addressing Career Paths for Clinical Research reported that insufficient training in research methods, inadequate mentoring, and inappropriate timing of training presented major barriers to the development of clinical researchers. The National Institutes of Health responded to the need for additional training programs by supporting 57 institutions through the Clinical Research Curriculum Award (K30) Program. The ability to assess the success of these programs depends on the nature and extent of their evaluation plans. Evaluation plans for clinical research training programs should include means of assessing both process and outcomes of a program's implementation in its formative and summative stages. This article describes the University of Wisconsin-Madison's Clinical Investigator Preparatory Program and an evaluation plan that incorporates process and outcome assessments based on a theoretical framework of adult and professional education.
We describe a specific mentoring approach in an academic general internal medicine setting by audiotaping and transcribing all mentoring sessions in the year. In advance, the mentor recorded his model. During the year, the mentee kept a process journal.
Qualitative analysis revealed development of an intimate relationship based on empathy, trust, and honesty. The mentor’s model was explicitly intended to develop independence, initiative, improved thinking, skills, and self-reflection. The mentor’s methods included extensive and varied use of questioning, active listening, standard setting, and frequent feedback. During the mentoring, the mentee evolved as a teacher, enhanced the creativity in his teaching, and matured as a person. Specific accomplishments included a national workshop on professional writing, an innovative approach to inpatient attending, a new teaching skills curriculum for a residency program, and this study.
A mentoring model stressing safety, intimacy, honesty, setting of high standards, praxis, and detailed planning and feedback was associated with mentee excitement, personal and professional growth and development, concrete accomplishments, and a commitment to teaching.
In 1998, the University of California San Diego (UCSD) was selected as one of four National Centers of Leadership in Academic Medicine (NCLAM) to develop a structured mentoring program for junior faculty.
Participants were surveyed at the beginning and end of the seven-month program, and one-four years after. The institution provided financial information. Four primary outcomes associated with participation in NCLAM were assessed: whether participants stayed at UCSD, whether they stayed in academic medicine, improved confidence in skills, and cost-effectiveness.
Among 67 participants, 85% remained at UCSD and 93% in academic medicine. Their confidence in skills needed for academic success improved: 53% personal leadership, 19% research, 33% teaching, and 76% administration. Given improved retention rates, savings in recruitment was greater than cost of the program.
Structured mentoring can be a cost-effective way to improve skills needed for academic success and retention in academic medicine.
Having a good mentor early in your career can mean the difference between success and failure in any field. Adrian Lee, Carina Dennis and Philip Campbell look at what makes a good mentor.
The authors examine training in the responsible conduct of research and mentoring in relation to behaviors that may compromise the integrity of science.
The analysis is based on data from the authors' 2002 national survey of 4,160 early-career and 3,600 midcareer biomedical and social science researchers who received research support from the U.S. National Institutes of Health. The authors used logistic regression analysis to examine associations between receipt of separate or integrated training in research ethics, mentoring related to ethics and in general, and eight categories of ethically problematic behavior. Analyses controlled for gender, type of doctoral degree, international degree, and disciplinary field.
Responses were received from 1,479 early-career and 1,768 midcareer scientists, yielding adjusted response rates of 43% and 52%, respectively. Results for early-career researchers: Training in research ethics was positively associated with problematic behavior in the data category. Mentoring related to ethics and research, as well as personal mentoring, decreased the odds of researchers' engaging in problematic behaviors, but mentoring on financial issues and professional survival increased these odds. Results for midcareer researchers: Combined separate and integrated training in research ethics was associated with decreased odds of problematic behavior in the categories of policy, use of funds, and cutting corners. Ethics mentoring was associated with lowered odds of problematic behavior in the policy category.
The effectiveness of training in obviating problematic behavior is called into question. Mentoring has the potential to influence behavior in ways that both increase and decrease the likelihood of problematic behaviors.
Requirement for instruction in the responsible conduct of research in National Research Service Award Institutional Training Grants Available at: <http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files
- Update Reminder
Reminder and update. [Accessed August 8, 2011] Requirement for instruction in the responsible
conduct of research in National Research Service Award Institutional Training Grants. 1992.
Available at: <http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not92-236.html>NIH Guide 23
Core Competencies in Clinical and Translational Research Available at <http
- Accessed
Accessed July 10, 2010] Core Competencies in Clinical and Translational Research. 2009.
Available at <http://www.ctsaweb.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.showCoreComp>
Faculty success though mentoring: A guide for mentors, mentees, and leaders. 1. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Education
- Cj Bland
- Al Taylor
- Sl Shollen
- Am Weber-Main
- Pa Mulcahy
Bland, CJ.; Taylor, AL.; Shollen, SL.; Weber-Main, AM.; Mulcahy, PA. Faculty success though
mentoring: A guide for mentors, mentees, and leaders. 1. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield
Education; 2010. p. 213
Mentoring at work: developmental relationships in organizational life
- Kramke
Entering mentoring: a seminar to train a new generation of scientists
- Lauffersm Handelsmanj Pfundc
- Pribbenowcm