Assessing the role of influential mentors in the research development of primary care fellows.

Mailstop F-443, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, PO Box 6508, Aurora, CO 80045, USA.
Academic Medicine (Impact Factor: 3.47). 10/2004; 79(9):865-72. DOI: 10.1097/00001888-200409000-00012
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To assess the association between mentorship and both subsequent research productivity and career development among primary care research fellows.
In 1998, using a self-administered questionnaire, the authors surveyed 215 fellows who graduated from 25 National Research Service Award (NRSA) primary care research programs between 1988-1997 to assess quantitative aspects and qualitative domains of their mentorship experience during fellowship training.
A total of 139 fellows (65%) responded to mentorship questions a median of four years after their fellowship. Thirty-seven fellows (26.6%) did not have an influential mentor, 42 (30.2%) reported influential but not sustained mentorship, and 60 (43.2%) had influential and sustained mentorship. Individuals with influential mentorship spent more time conducting research (p =.007), published more papers (p =.003), were more likely to be the principal investigator on a grant (p =.008), and more often provided research mentorship to others (72.5% versus 66.7% of those with unsustained mentorship, and 36.4% of those with no influential mentor, p =.008). After controlling for other predictors, influential and sustained mentorship remained an important determinant of career development in research. On qualitative analysis, fellows identified three important domains of mentorship: the relationship between mentor and fellow (such as guidance and support), professional attributes of the mentor (such as reputation), and personal attributes of the mentor (such as availability and caring).
Influential and sustained mentorship enhances the research activity of primary care fellows. Research training programs should develop and support their mentors to ensure that they assume this critical role.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We describe Group-Advantaged Training of Research (GATOR), a yearlong structured program at the University of Florida that guided graduate student mentors and their undergraduate mentees through the mentored research process. Using the national Survey of Undergraduate Research Experiences for an academic year, we found that outcomes for our mentees were similar to those for other programs. We also used an internal survey, combined with qualitative observations, to develop a road map of the mentoring process, which we call the “Metamorphosis of Mentorship.” This model provides tangible steps on the road to becoming a scientist, incorporates reasons mentees stall in research, and suggests ways to overcome mentoring challenges and prevent attrition. The structure and outcomes of this program will be useful to researchers and administrators working to engage undergraduates in scientific research, particularly at large universities where undergraduates are often mentored by graduate students.
    BioScience 04/2011; DOI:10.1525/bio.2011.61.4.10 · 5.44 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The number of clinical research training programs has increased over the past 5–10 years, but few studies have quantitatively evaluated the effectiveness of these programs. The goal of this study was to evaluate the clinical and translational research training program at the University of Cincinnati by comparing the number of National Institutes of Health grants awarded to pediatric fellows who graduated from the MS degree program between 1995 and 2013 versus fellows who did not pursue an MS degree. Among 394 pediatric fellows, 16 of 81 (20%) MS alumni were awarded at least one NIH grant, as compared with 28 of 313 (9%) fellows who did not obtain an MS degree (p < 0.02). In multivariable analysis, MS alumni were more than three times as likely to have received at least one grant than were non-MS fellows (OR = 3.5, 95% CI [1.7–7.2]; C-statistic = 0.71) and MS alumni were more likely to obtain at least one K-series (OR = 4.1, 95% CI [1.6–10.2]; C-statistic = 0.74), M-series (OR = 11.8, 95% CI [3.4–41.4]; C-statistic = 0.81), or R-series (OR = 10.1, 95% CI [2.4–42.8]; C-statistic = 0.74) grant than were non-MS fellows. These findings suggest that graduate training in clinical and translational research prepares graduates for the highly competitive field of clinical and translational research.
    Clinical and Translational Science 10/2014; 8(1). DOI:10.1111/cts.12232 · 2.11 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Academic status and achievement is increasingly influenced by research income and outputs with nursing academics experiencing considerable pressure to perform in these areas. As a result funding and career opportunities are becoming more competitive. Establishing expertise and a sound track record is crucial for success at both the individual and organisational level. However, despite their importance, methods to effectively establish a track record have received limited attention in the literature. The aim of this paper is to articulate the need for and provide advice for achieving a strategic approach to develop a solid and competitive track record. Practical tips are provided to facilitate the development of productive research teams with clear and logical contributions from each member, having a dissemination plan to maximise research outputs, and remaining focused on specific areas of content expertise. It is intended that these tips will assist individuals and academic units with to develop a stronger track record that may increase the likelihood of success in obtaining competitive funding.
    Collegian Journal of the Royal College of Nursing Australia 01/2013; 21(3). DOI:10.1016/j.colegn.2013.04.005 · 0.84 Impact Factor