Training Mentors of Clinical and Translational Research Scholars: A Randomized Controlled Trial
ABSTRACT To determine whether a structured mentoring curriculum improves research mentoring skills.
The authors conducted a randomized controlled trial (RCT) at 16 academic health centers (June 2010 to July 2011). Faculty mentors of trainees who were conducting clinical/translational research ≥50% of the time were eligible. The intervention was an eight-hour, case-based curriculum focused on six mentoring competencies. The primary outcome was the change in mentors' self-reported pretest to posttest composite scores on the Mentoring Competency Assessment (MCA). Secondary outcomes included changes in the following: mentors' awareness as measured by their self-reported retrospective change in MCA scores, mentees' ratings of their mentors' competency as measured by MCA scores, and mentoring behaviors as reported by mentors and their mentees.
A total of 283 mentor-mentee pairs were enrolled: 144 mentors were randomized to the intervention; 139 to the control condition. Self-reported pre-/posttest change in MCA composite scores was higher for mentors in the intervention group compared with controls (P < .001). Retrospective changes in MCA composite scores between the two groups were even greater, and extended to all six subscale scores (P < .001). More intervention-group mentors reported changes in their mentoring practices than control mentors (P < .001). Mentees working with intervention-group mentors reported larger changes in retrospective MCA pre-/posttest scores (P = .003) and more changes in their mentors' behavior (P = .002) than those paired with control mentors.
This RCT demonstrates that a competency-based research mentor training program can improve mentors' skills.
Article: A Knock on the DoorAcademic medicine: journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges 06/2014; 89(6):831-2. DOI:10.1097/ACM.0000000000000258 · 2.34 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Approaches to training biomedical scientists have created a talented research community. However, they have failed to create a professional workforce that includes many racial and ethnic minorities and women in proportion to their representation in the population or in PhD training. This is particularly true at the faculty level. Explanations for the absence of diversity in faculty ranks can be found in social science theories that reveal processes by which individuals develop identities, experiences and skills required to be seen as legitimate within the profession.BMC Medical Education 08/2014; 14(1):160. DOI:10.1186/1472-6920-14-160 · 1.41 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: With the shift toward team-based translational science came recognition that existing strategies for training individual investigators and retaining them in the biomedical workforce would be inadequate. To support this shift, it is important to: develop innovative strategies to educate and train diverse members of research teams; evaluate those programs; and disseminate best practices broadly. We have developed a four-phase model to facilitate the development, evaluation, and widespread dissemination of innovative strategies to train the biomedical research workforce. Phase I (Innovate) involves small scale trials of programs to address perceived training needs or new methods of delivery. Phase II (Incubate) refines and evaluates promising Phase I activities on a larger scale. Phase III (Translate) seeks to replicate initial successes either locally (Phase IIIa) or with other interested institutions (Phase IIIb). Phase IV (Disseminate) assesses whether identified local best practices can have success on a broader scale. We present specific examples from our own experience that demonstrate the utility of this model, and then conclude with opportunities and challenges related to the education and training of this workforce. Clin Trans Sci 2014; Volume #: 1–4Clinical and Translational Science 07/2014; 7(5). DOI:10.1111/cts.12189 · 2.33 Impact Factor