Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
This is a “preproof” accepted article for Journal of Clinical and Translational Science.
This version may be subject to change during the production process.
10.1017/cts.2025.84
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-
NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/),
which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided
the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge
University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
National dissemination of an online research mentor training intervention: Evidence of an
asynchronous model to promote learning outcomes and behavior change
Anne Marie Weber-Main1,2, Kimberly Spencer3,4, Emma Dums3,4, So Hee Hyun3,4, Christine
Pfund3,4
1Department of Medicine, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA
2Clinical and Translational Science Institute, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA
3Institute for Clinical and Translational Research, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison,
WI, USA
4Center for the Improvement of Mentored Experiences in Research, University of Wisconsin–
Madison, Madison, WI, USA
Corresponding Author: Anne Marie Weber-Main, PhD, MMC 194, Department of Medicine,
University of Minnesota, 401 East River Parkway, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA, Email:
weber005@umn.edu, Phone: 612-625-7433
Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to report.
https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2025.84 Published online by Cambridge University Press
ABSTRACT
Engaging, accessible, evidence-based interventions are needed to support the professional
development of research mentors within the clinical and translational sciences. This article
reports on the usage and impact of the University of Minnesota Clinical and Translational
Science Institute’s online mentor training module, Optimizing the Practice of Mentoring (OPM).
Among the 1,124 OPM users in our contemporary evaluation sample (Feb 2019-June 2022),
retrospective pre-to-post gains were observed in respondents’ self-rated mentorship skills (11
items), perceptions of the overall quality of mentoring they provide, and mentoring confidence.
A high proportion (82.8%) of users reported making or intending to make changes in their
mentoring practices as a result of the training. Example behavior changes included a greater
focus on aligning expectations, more proactive attention to the relationship (overall and its
distinct phases), increased usage of active communication skills, adoption of tools such as
Individual Development Plans, and ongoing self-reflection. Over a 10-year period, 4,011 unique
individuals registered for the module, representing over 650 different institutions (a majority
being affiliated with past or current Clinical and Translational Science Hubs). OPM has the
versatility to be employed as a standalone, asynchronous approach for mentor development or as
one curricular component of more comprehensive, multimodal programs.
Key words: mentorship, mentoring, professional development, asynchronous, mentor training,
workforce development
https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2025.84 Published online by Cambridge University Press
INTRODUCTION
Effective mentorship plays a critical role in the long-term persistence and academic
success of trainees in research career pathways, having a significant impact on mentees' research
productivity, academic and research self-efficacy, and career satisfaction [1–7]. However, trainees
from historically and systemically excluded groups are less likely than others to be in effective
mentoring relationships [2,4,7–12]. This knowledge has contributed to a burgeoning national focus
on mentorship over the past decade and resulted in funding agencies requiring mentorship plans
– and in some cases mentorship education (mentor and mentee training) – to improve the
effectiveness of these relationships [13–15].
This article reports on the impact and national usage of one innovative approach to
training research mentors: the asynchronous, self-paced, online module, Optimizing the Practice
of Mentoring (OPM). OPM was developed over a decade ago at the University of Minnesota and
is currently maintained with support from its Clinical and Translational Science Institute (CTSI)
[16]. The first version of the module was targeted to mentors of graduate students, postdoctoral
fellows, and junior faculty who are engaged in biomedical research. Subsequently, a version
adapted for mentors of undergraduate students was created.
OPM content provides users with a foundational introduction to research mentorship. The
module begins by describing the empirically demonstrated value of mentorship and the diverse
ways it can be implemented (such as dyadic, group, and peer mentoring models). Section 2
provides an example-laden overview of research mentors’ roles and responsibilities within the
career and psychosocial domains of mentorship. In section 3, users are provided with tips and
tools to proactively attend to the four developmental phases of a mentoring relationship
(preparation, negotiation, cultivation, and closure). Section 4 introduces some key strategies for
developing and maintaining successful mentoring relationships, such as establishing trust,
aligning expectations, offering mentees a combination of support and growth-focused challenges,
and engaging in routine self-reflection. These strategies are reinforced in sections 5 and 6
through case studies that highlight specific mentorship challenges. Users are prompted to reflect
on these challenges and consider approaches for preventing and addressing them. OPM engages
users through text, audio, mini-presentations, case studies, and brief interactive activities. Users
also have access to a tool kit of resources and the option to create and email to themselves a
https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2025.84 Published online by Cambridge University Press
mentoring action plan. A screenshot illustrating the overall organization of OPM content is
provided in Figure 1.
In 2019, OPM was updated with financial support from the National Institutes of Health’s
National Research Mentoring Network (NRMN). This work was completed in partnership with
investigators at the University of Wisconsin–Madison and other national collaborators affiliated
with NRMN’s Mentor Training Core. Much of the module’s content was refreshed, with greater
attention given to building cultural awareness in mentoring. Other improvements included
changes in the registration platform, more streamlined curation of resources, addition of self-
reflection questions, inclusion of a research self-efficacy exercise curated from a published
module [17], and a new embedded evaluation survey. The version of OPM adapted for mentors of
undergraduate students was also created at this time.
Since its initial launch in 2012, OPM has been publicly available at no cost to users,
requiring only the creation of a University of Minnesota guest email account for registrants from
other institutions. However, the full extent of the module’s reach has not been documented, and
published data on its impact are limited. In 2019, findings were published from a pilot
randomized controlled trial of the University of Minnesota CTSI’s Mentoring Excellence
Training Academy [18]. This professional development program consists of two components:
completion of the OPM online module, followed by 5 hours of in-person facilitated workshops
based on the well-studied Entering Mentoring curriculum [19–23]. The workshop topics covered in
the Academy included: maintaining effective communication, aligning expectations, addressing
equity and inclusion, fostering independence, and promoting professional development.) The
Academy’s hybrid training model reflects how we envisioned OPM would most commonly be
used – i.e., as a didactic, asynchronous, introductory module that provides mentors with
foundational information about mentorship (e.g., its working definition, implementation models,
core functions, and stages of relationship development) and introduces some of the many
research mentorship competencies that might be more deeply explored in a subsequent workshop
setting. Our pilot trial [18] of the Academy demonstrated significant mentorship skills gains at 3-
month follow up for participants who completed the full hybrid training program. But the trial
also generated promising preliminary evidence that OPM has significant value when used
independently – that is, as a standalone training module. Specifically, we found that mentors who
engaged with OPM’s online, interactive material reported greater knowledge gains than mentors
https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2025.84 Published online by Cambridge University Press
in the control arm who received only a simple written summary of the module’s content.
Additionally, for 42% of mentors in the trial’s intervention arm, we found that OPM completion
alone – before any engagement in the synchronous workshop component – was sufficient to
prompt an intention to make changes to their current mentoring practices.
This article builds on these early preliminary results of OPM’s impact. Our objective was
to more comprehensively evaluate outcomes for OPM when implemented as a solo,
asynchronous, self-paced intervention for mentor development. For the current analysis, we
examined over 3 years of evaluation data collected from a large national sample of OPM users
(specifically, the updated 2019 version for mentors of graduate students, fellows, and faculty).
We used a retrospective pre-post survey design to assess users’ perceived changes in skills that
reflect the module’s learning objectives, as well as changes in their self-rated quality of
mentoring provided, confidence in mentoring, and confidence in meeting mentees’ expectations.
We report on users’ satisfaction with the module and their intent to change behavior as a result of
completing the OPM training. Additionally, we document the scope of OPM’s national
dissemination during its first full decade of availability and cite examples of how OPM can be
integrated as a component of a more comprehensive mentor development program.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Assessment of Training Module Outcomes
Participant Sample. To assess OPM’s impact on learner outcomes, we analyzed data for
individuals who registered for the module from February 19, 2019 (when the updated module
and its new evaluation survey were first made available) through June 1, 2022 (the selected
cutoff date for this analysis). During this time period, there were 2,023 unique registrants. Of
these, 1,298 (64%) submitted the module’s evaluation survey. We excluded 174 individuals who
indicated they were a postdoctoral fellow, graduate student, or undergraduate student, because
the module was designed for mentors of these types of trainees. Although some fellows and
graduate students do serve as ancillary mentors (typically for undergraduate students), we
reasoned that their exclusion from this analysis would better enable us to assess the module’s
effectiveness among its intended target audience. Therefore, our final analysis sample consisted
of 1,124 people.
https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2025.84 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Data Collection. The data analyzed for this report were collected under a University of
Wisconsin–Madison IRB exempt protocol (#2017-0026). Following completion of OPM, users
are asked to complete an evaluation survey in Qualtrics (online survey platform). The survey
collects information on OPM users’ demographic characteristics and professional backgrounds,
including their previous mentoring experience and training. Respondents are asked to indicate
how much time they spent engaging with OPM (choice of half hour increments, ranging from
“less than 1 hour” to “3.5 or more hours”). User satisfaction is measured by Likert-scale items
asking whether respondents felt that participating in OPM was a valuable use of their time (5-
point scale, 1-Strongly disagree, 2-Agree, 3-Neither agree nor disagree, 4-Agree, 5-Strongly
agree) and how likely they were to recommend the module to others (5-point scale, 1-Very
unlikely, 2-Unlikely, 3-Undecided, 4-Likely, 5-Very likely).
Eleven survey items were developed to assess OPM users’ self-reported skill gains in
content areas covered by the module (for example, “Recognizing the pros and cons of different
mentoring models,” “Fulfilling the psychosocial functions of being a research mentor,”
“Applying a proactive, structured approach to mentoring,” “Engaging in difficult conversations
with my mentees”). For each item, users are asked to rate how skilled they feel they were before
completing the training, and how skilled they feel they are now after completing the training (7-
point scale, 1-Not at all skilled, 4-Moderately skilled, 7-Extremely skilled). The survey also
includes three items that are routinely assessed across other mentor training programs, including
those offered by the Center for the Improvement of Mentored Experiences in Research (CIMER;
www.cimerproject.org). Those items are as follows: “Thinking back to before the training and
now after the training: How would you rate the overall quality of your mentoring?” “How
confident are you in your ability to mentor effectively?” (7-point scale for each item, 1-Very low,
4-Average, 7-Very high); “To what extent do you feel that you are meeting your mentees'
expectations?” (7-point scale, 1-Not at all, 4-Moderately, 7-Completely). Lastly, users are asked
whether they made or are planning to make any changes in their mentoring relationships as a
result of participating in the OPM training (yes/no). Those indicating yes are invited to describe
their intended changes as an open-ended response.
Data Analyses. We used paired t-tests to compare OPM users’ mean post-training scores
to their mean retrospective pre-training scores for each outcome of interest: mentorship skills,
https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2025.84 Published online by Cambridge University Press
quality of mentoring provided, confidence in mentoring, and confidence in meeting mentees’
expectations.
We applied an iterative coding methodology [24] to analyze free-text responses to the
question asking respondents to describe changes they made or plan to make in their mentoring
relationships. As a first step, an NVivo word frequency query function was used to identify the
most frequently occurring words within the dataset. The query included words with the same
stem (e.g., plan, planned, planning). Stem words included in the free-text response of at least 50
unique individuals were considered as possible coding categories. One word, relationship, was
used by more than 50 individuals but was excluded from further analysis because it largely
overlapped with another category. A few words that fell below this frequency threshold were
also examined (proactive, support) because of their close alignment with the module’s content.
The criterion of 50 unique respondents was used as a cut off, because it represented 1% of the
weighted responses and because most terms used less frequently were overlapping with selected
words or were not linked to specific behaviors (e.g., clearly, ask, improve). If an individual
respondent mentioned two different stem words, that individual was counted in both stem counts.
As a second step, responses containing the identified stem word or similar words were
reviewed by two authors (CP, KS) and used to develop a coding definition that reflected
similarity in respondents’ meaning. We acknowledge that only including responses with the
selected stems is a conservative approach to coding, but one that reduces the chance of
misinterpreting responses. Using the final definitions, both authors independently read each
response and employed focused coding to assign categories to each response. For example, for
all responses that included the stem word plan, the authors reviewed entries for duplicates to
ensure respondents were not counted more than once. The authors then reviewed entries to
ensure they aligned with the coding definition and mentioned creating a written plan such as a
mentoring agreement or individual development plan. The approach omitted entries that
mentioned general planning (e.g., “I plan to communicate more” or "More formal plans and
goals…").
Assessment of Module Dissemination
In addition to our analyses of OPM evaluation data for a 3-year period, we examined the
full registrant dataset extending back 10 years to characterize the national dissemination of OPM
as a freely available, self-paced, online, asynchronous training intervention for research mentors.
https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2025.84 Published online by Cambridge University Press
We assessed how many total people accessed the module during its first decade of availability
(years 2012-2022), the extent of its reach both within and external to the University of
Minnesota, and users’ motivations for participating in the training. Upon registering for OPM,
users complete a brief online survey that collects their name, email, job title, institution, and
reason for registering. Response options for the last item are as follows: “Required by my
institution, department, or program;” “My own professional development;” “Reviewing module
for possible use at my institution, department, or program;” and “Other.” Registration data are
not linked to those acquired from the evaluation survey. The latter survey is anonymous and does
not collect any identifying information.
RESULTS
Module Impact: Evaluation Data
Sample characteristics. Demographic and professional background characteristics of the
OPM evaluation sample (n = 1,124) are summarized in Table 1. There was a nearly even split
between those who self-identified as male and female, and 69% of those who reported on race
selected White. Faculty participants at all academic ranks were represented. Lab-based research
was the most common category for respondents’ research focus (61%), followed by translational
research (20%) and clinical research (18%). OPM users exhibited diversity in their mentorship
experience, both in terms of how long they had been a mentor (range of 0 to >20 years) and
whom they were mentoring. The most common category of current mentees was graduate
students (PhD or Master’s, 76%), followed by postdoctoral fellows (58%), undergraduate
students (56%), and junior faculty (44%). The majority (58%) reported having had no prior
research mentor training.
Engagement and training satisfaction. OPM users’ level of engagement with the module
differed, but the majority (55%, 577/1049) reported spending 1.5 to 2 hours working through the
content (Supplementary Figure 1). A large proportion of respondents (77%, 810/1048) agreed or
strongly agreed that “Participating in this course was a valuable use of my time,” with a mean
score of 3.92 (SD = 0.91) on a 5-point scale. Similarly, 69% (727/1049) of respondents indicated
they were likely or very likely to recommend the course to a colleague. The mean score for this
item was 3.79 (SD = 0.97) on a 5-point scale.
https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2025.84 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Self-appraised mentorship skills, confidence, and overall quality. OPM users reported
significant pre-to-post gains in all 11 of the core content skill areas assessed (p < .001; Table 2).
On a 7-point scale, their mean perceived skill levels before module completion (assessed
retrospectively) ranged from 3.98 to 4.63, and increased to a range of 5.18 to 5.70 after module
completion. Participants also reported significant improvements in their mean ratings for
perceived overall quality of mentoring that they can provide, their confidence in mentoring, and
the degree to which they feel they are meeting their mentees’ expectations (p < .001; Table 2).
Intention to change mentoring behaviors. A high proportion of respondents (82.8%,
864/1044) reported making or intending to make changes in their mentoring relationships as a
result of participating in the training. Of these, 688 individuals offered an open-ended description
of their behavioral changes. Our word query analysis of these free-text responses identified
several commonly used words that both aligned with the training module’s content and reflected
behavioral actions (Table 3). Among the high-frequency words meeting both of these criteria,
expectations was the most commonly cited (n = 153 unique respondents). These responses
reflected OPM users’ intentions to more clearly communicate, align, and address expectations
within their mentoring relationships. Other frequently referenced stem words were indicative of
respondents’ intentions to use mentoring plans (n = 84), to pay more attention to goal setting (for
the mentoring relationship and/or for the mentee’s career; n = 77), and to adopt a more
structured approach to mentoring (n = 72). Some of the less commonly cited words, but all of
which directly align with OPM module content, indicated respondents’ intentions to improve
communication with their mentees (n = 45), to engage in more reflection about their approaches
to mentoring and the impact of their approaches on mentees (n = 43), and to increase their
support of mentees (n = 28).
Module Reach: Total Registrant Data
The evaluation results described above were drawn from a subset of total OPM
registrants. Our examination of the full registrant dataset identified 4,011 unique individuals who
registered for OPM from its initial launch on October 17, 2012 through June 1, 2022. Growth
over time in unique registrants per year and in cumulative number of registrants by year is
illustrated in Supplementary Figure 2. Registrants included 663 (16.5%) individuals from the
University of Minnesota and 3,348 (83.5%) from other institutions (Supplementary Table 1).
More than 650 institutions are represented in this sample. We were able to confirm that 2,646
https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2025.84 Published online by Cambridge University Press
registrants (66%) were employed at one of 80 past or present CTSA-affiliated institutions. Most
registrants were higher education faculty members and/or administrators, with the remainder
identifying as a student or fellow, health professional, or other job category. Approximately half
(52%) indicated that their engagement with the module was required by their institution or
program, 37% were proactively using it for their own professional development, and 13% were
reviewing the module for possible future use in their own institutions (Supplementary Table 1).
DISCUSSION
Within clinical and translational science and related fields, the responsibilities of research
mentorship are recognized as a constellation of competencies that can be honed through
evidence-based professional development programs [6,21,25–28]. Our usage and evaluation data for
the online module, OPM, demonstrate that this relatively brief mentor training mechanism –
designed for self-paced, interactive, asynchronous learning – has broad appeal, yields positive
gains in specific mentorship skills and other learner outcomes, and prompts behavior change
intentions aimed at improving the quality of mentoring relationships.
In support of OPM’s efficacy as a training modality, individuals in our large evaluation
sample reported post-training gains in each of the skill areas covered by the module. The first
two OPM-specific skills (“Defining the value of mentoring for research career development” and
“Recognizing the pros and cons of different mentoring models”) could be considered to be more
reflective of knowledge gains. However, the remaining nine reflect categories of behaviors that
either directly engage mentees (e.g., “Applying a proactive structured approach to mentoring”)
or support users’ professional growth as mentors (e.g., “Routinely reflecting on and adapting my
mentoring practices”). In comparison to previously reported pilot work involving OPM [18], the
current sample was substantially larger and more diverse with respect to career stages and years
of mentoring experience, thereby enhancing the generalizability of learner outcomes that we
report.
Gains were also observed in the three general measures of perceived mentoring
confidence, overall quality of mentoring, and effectiveness at meeting mentees’ expectations. For
the latter two metrics, the measured gains for OPM users were of similar magnitude to those
reported for individuals who participated in at least 6 hours of Entering Mentoring-based
workshops [23]. These findings offer additional support for OPM’s value as a standalone,
https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2025.84 Published online by Cambridge University Press
asynchronous online training option – one that requires a modest amount of time to complete and
can be accessed at a time and place convenient to individual learners. In the absence of data from
a head-to-head trial, direct comparisons of OPM outcomes to those of other interventions should
be interpreted cautiously. In terms of training duration alone, OPM is more comparable to the
“low dose” (<4 hours) variations of Entering Mentoring workshops that have been previously
found to be effective, though to a lesser degree on some measures than higher dose training
iterations [22].
Engagement with OPM prompted a clear intention among a large proportion of users
(82.5%) to adapt their mentoring in direct response to what they had learned. This metric
compares favorably to that reported by participants in Entering Mentoring across a different
modalities and dosages (90.6%, unpublished data) and by participants in the Advancing Inclusive
Mentoring (AIM) program (90%) developed at California State University Long Beach [29,30].
The intended behavioral changes noted by OPM users largely coalesced around the themes of
aligning expectations, goal setting, and other planning-focused tasks reflective of a proactive
approach to structuring their interactions with mentees. These topics are extensively addressed in
the module and reinforced through checklists, tools, and suggested conversation prompts.
OPM was developed in partnership with experts in instructional design and e-learning.
Their input ensured that users are given frequent opportunities for self-reflection and real-time
engagement with the material (e.g., via brief exercises, mini-surveys, simulated discussions). We
posit, based on informal feedback from users, that features such as these have contributed to
OPM’s appeal and impact as an independent mentor training program.
We also know from work by us and others that online, asynchronous approaches to
mentor training offer versatility in how they are implemented [18,29]. Although they cannot
replicate the interpersonal discussions that might take place within a well-facilitated synchronous
workshop setting, they can be leveraged to prepare mentors to more fully engage in meaningful
group work. As noted in this article’s introduction, we have done this successfully within the
hybrid mentor training approach of the University of Minnesota’s Mentoring Excellence
Training Academy [18]. Academy participants exhibited knowledge gains and intention-to-
change mentoring practices after completion of OPM alone; these gains were enhanced after
completion of subsequent in-person workshops. In focus groups, mentors said they valued the
synergy of the blended learning format, noting the unique strengths of each modality and the
https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2025.84 Published online by Cambridge University Press
benefits of completing a foundational online module before in-person engagement. Across 6
more recent cohorts of the Academy, 81.6% of participants somewhat or strongly agreed that
completion of OPM helped prepare them to engage in the facilitated workshops (unpublished
data). Other examples of OPM’s successful integration into multimodal mentor training
initiatives include the University of Wisconsin’s Building Equitable Access to Mentorship
(BEAM) program [31], Washington University’s Mentored Training for Dissemination and
Implementation Research in Cancer (MT-DIRC) program [32,33], and the Howard Hughes
Medical Institute’s Gilliam Fellows Program [34]. While individual programs can design their
own mode of integration, OPM’s embedded reflection questions, which can be printed and saved
by users, offer one simple option for organizing discussion groups that build on the module’s
content and support communities of practice.
The full registration data for OPM’s first decade of public availability illustrate its
widespread reach (over 4,000 unique registrants, two-thirds of whom are affiliated with Clinical
and Translational Science Award hub institutions) and consistent growth (an average of 379 new
users/year). At the University of Minnesota, OPM training is required for all faculty who mentor
trainees in any CTSI-supported program, but users at this institution reflect less than 20% of
registrants. These national usage outcomes are consistent with the module creators’ goal of broad
dissemination to support mentor professional development.
Several factors are likely to have influenced the ongoing expansion of OPM enrollment.
First, as shown by our data, satisfaction ratings for the training were generally favorable. Second,
information about the module has been disseminated to target audiences through multiple
modalities (e.g., a published article [18], the national academies report on The Science of Effective
Mentorship in STEMM [6], websites for national organizations such as NRMN and CIMER, and
multiple invited national presentations). Third, the COVID-19 pandemic heightened institutions’
need for virtual learning, which likely enhanced the attractiveness of online training options.
Fourth, over half of OPM registrants indicated that module completion was “required by my
institution, department, or program,” thereby driving enrollment.
There are limitations to our analyses of OPM evaluation data. Our results reflect those of
approximately 60% of total registrants from the 3-year evaluation time period. Because the
module was purposefully designed to allow for non-linear progression through the material, we
are unable to determine whether the remaining registrants completed the course and chose not to
https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2025.84 Published online by Cambridge University Press
submit the survey, or did not finish the course. Our findings could be positively skewed if survey
respondents had more favorable views of the course or differed in other substantial ways than
non-respondents. It is possible that some users completed the evaluation survey after only
minimal engagement with OPM. This would make our positive findings a conservative estimate
of the module’s impact. The evaluation survey does not capture longitudinal behavior change;
the available data are limited to respondents’ immediate post-training intentions to apply the
module’s content to their future mentoring practices. Finally, this report relies on mentor self-
report data and does not capture the perspectives of mentees whose mentors participated in the
OPM module. We know from other research that synchronous, in depth, mentor training
approaches can have a positive impact on mentees [21,34–38]. Future randomized trials of
asynchronous training models such as OPM – with enrollment of mentor-mentor dyads and
comparison of relevant outcomes for the mentees of trained versus untrained mentors – would be
a valuable contribution to the field.
In conclusion, the evaluation and registrant data for OPM demonstrate its value as an
online, asynchronous training tool that can enhance mentorship skills, confidence, and practices
across diverse settings. OPM’s design offers flexibility in its implementation as a standalone
training module, as a prerequisite for more specific or advanced training, or as one component of
a multifaceted mentor development program.
https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2025.84 Published online by Cambridge University Press
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Anne Marie Weber-Main contributed to the conception and design of the work, collection and
management of data, interpretation of analyses, and drafting of the manuscript. Kimberly
Spencer, So Hee Hyun, and Christine Pfund contributed to the conception and design of the
work, collection and management of data, conduct and interpretation of analysis, and drafting of
the manuscript. Emma Dums contributed to the collection and management of data, conduct and
interpretation of analysis, and drafting of the manuscript. Anne Marie Weber-Main takes
responsibility for the manuscript as a whole.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank the many individuals who contributed to the initial development and
subsequent revision of OPM modules. We also thank Seth Elis and Megan Larson of the
University of Minnesota’s Clinical and Translational Science Institute for their support in
collecting, managing, and reporting the OPM registrant data.
COMPETING INTERESTS
The authors declare none.
FUNDING STATEMENT
This work was supported by the National Institutes of Health via funding to the University of
Minnesota’s Clinical and Translational Science Institute (grant #UL1TR002494 and
#UM1TR004405), to the University of Wisconsin–Madison’s Institute for Clinical and
Translational Research (grant #UL1TR002373), and to the National Research Mentoring
Network (grant #U54GM119023). Additional support was provided by the University of
Wisconsin–Madison’s Center for the Improvement of Mentored Experiences in Research. The
funders had no role in the design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of
the manuscript; or in the decision to submit this manuscript for publication. The content is solely
the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the
National Institutes of Health.
https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2025.84 Published online by Cambridge University Press
REFERENCES
1. Gutierrez A, Guerrero LR, McCreath HE, Wallace SP. Mentoring Experiences and
Publication Productivity among Early Career Biomedical Investigators and Trainees. Ethn
Dis. 2021;31(2):273-282. doi:10.18865/ed.31.2.273
2. Shen MR, Tzioumis E, Andersen E, et al. Impact of Mentoring on Academic Career
Success for Women in Medicine: A Systematic Review. Acad Med. 2022;97(3):444-458.
doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000004563
3. Byars-Winston AM, Branchaw J, Pfund C, Leverett P, Newton J. Culturally Diverse
Undergraduate Researchers’ Academic Outcomes and Perceptions of Their Research
Mentoring Relationships. Int J Sci Educ. 2015;37(15):2533-2554.
doi:10.1080/09500693.2015.1085133
4. Estrada M, Hernandez PR, Schultz PW. A Longitudinal Study of How Quality Mentorship
and Research Experience Integrate Underrepresented Minorities into STEM Careers.
Herrera J, ed. CBE—Life Sci Educ. 2018;17(1):ar9. doi:10.1187/cbe.17-04-0066
5. DeCastro R, Griffith KA, Ubel PA, Stewart A, Jagsi R. Mentoring and the Career
Satisfaction of Male and Female Academic Medical Faculty: Acad Med. 2014;89(2):301-
311. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000000109
6. Committee on Effective Mentoring in STEMM, Board on Higher Education and
Workforce, Policy and Global Affairs, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine. The Science of Effective Mentorship in STEMM. (Byars-Winston A, Dahlberg
ML, eds.). National Academies Press; 2019:25568. doi:10.17226/25568
7. Felder TM, Braun KL, Wigfall L, et al. Mentoring, Training, and Scholarly Productivity
Experiences of Cancer-Related Health Disparities Research Trainees: Do Outcomes Differ
for Underrepresented Scientists? J Cancer Educ. 2019;34(3):446-454. doi:10.1007/s13187-
018-1322-z
8. Beech BM, Calles-Escandon J, Hairston KG, Langdon SE, Latham-Sadler BA, Bell RA.
Mentoring Programs for Underrepresented Minority Faculty in Academic Medical Centers:
https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2025.84 Published online by Cambridge University Press
A Systematic Review of the Literature. Acad Med. 2013;88(4):541-549.
doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e31828589e3
9. Davis TM, Jones MK, Settles IH, Russell PG. Barriers to the Successful Mentoring of
Faculty of Color. J Career Dev. 2022;49(5):1063-1081. doi:10.1177/08948453211013375
10. Griffin KA, Baker VL, O’Meara K. Doing, Caring, and Being: “Good” Mentoring and Its
Role in the Socialization of Graduate Students of Color in STEM. In: Weidman JC,
DeAngelo L, eds. Socialization in Higher Education and the Early Career. Vol 7.
Knowledge Studies in Higher Education. Springer International Publishing; 2020:223-239.
doi:10.1007/978-3-030-33350-8_13
11. Ransdell L, Lane T, Schwartz A, Wayment H, Baldwin J. Mentoring New and Early-Stage
Investigators and Underrepresented Minority Faculty for Research Success in Health-
Related Fields: An Integrative Literature Review (2010–2020). Int J Environ Res Public
Health. 2021;18(2):432. doi:10.3390/ijerph18020432
12. Smith CAS. Assessing Academic STEM Women’s Sense of Isolation in the Workplace. In:
Gilmer PJ, Tansel B, Miller MH, eds. Alliances for Advancing Academic Women.
SensePublishers; 2014:97-117. doi:10.1007/978-94-6209-604-2_5
13. Gilliam Fellows Program | HHMI. Accessed November 10, 2024.
https://www.hhmi.org/programs/gilliam-fellows
14. NSF 101: The Mentoring plan | NSF - National Science Foundation. Accessed November
11, 2024. https://new.nsf.gov/science-matters/nsf-101-mentoring-plan
15. Updates to NIH Institutional Training Grant Applications | Grants & Funding. Accessed
November 11, 2024. https://grants.nih.gov/policy-and-compliance/changes-coming-
2025/updates-to-training-grants
16. Online Mentor Training | Clinical and Translational Science Institute - University of
Minnesota. Accessed November 10, 2024. https://ctsi.umn.edu/training/mentors/online-
mentor-training
https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2025.84 Published online by Cambridge University Press
17. Butz AR, Byars-Winston A, Leverett P, Branchaw J, Pfund C. Promoting STEM Trainee
Research Self-Efficacy: A Mentor Training Intervention. UI J. 2018;9(1).
https://www.understandinginterventionsjournal.org/article/3730-promoting-stem-trainee-
research-self-efficacy-a-mentor-training-intervention
18. Weber-Main AM, Shanedling J, Kaizer AM, Connett J, Lamere M, El-Fakahany EE. A
randomized controlled pilot study of the University of Minnesota mentoring excellence
training academy: A hybrid learning approach to research mentor training. J Clin Transl
Sci. 2019;3(4):152-164. doi:10.1017/cts.2019.368
19. Pfund C, Branchaw J, Handelsman J. Entering Mentoring. 2nd ed. W. H. Freeman & Co.;
2015.
20. Pfund C, Maidl Pribbenow C, Branchaw J, Miller Lauffer S, Handelsman J. The Merits of
Training Mentors. Science. 2006;311(5760):473-474. doi:10.1126/science.1123806
21. Pfund C, House SC, Asquith P, et al. Training Mentors of Clinical and Translational
Research Scholars: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Acad Med. 2014;89(5):774-782.
doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000000218
22. Rogers J, Branchaw J, Weber-Main AM, Spencer K, Pfund C. How much is enough? The
Impact of Training Dosage and Previous Mentoring Experience on the Effectiveness of a
Research Mentor Training Intervention. Underst Interv. 2020;11(1).
https://www.understandinginterventionsjournal.org/article/12481-how-much-is-enough-
the-impact-of-training-dosage-and-previous-mentoring-experience-on-the-effectiveness-of-
a-research-mentor-training-intervention
23. Rogers J, Gong X, Byars-Winston A, et al. Comparing the Outcomes of Face-to-Face and
Synchronous Online Research Mentor Training Using Propensity Score Matching.
Barsoum, M, ed. CBE—Life Sci Educ. 2022;21(4):ar62. doi:10.1187/cbe.21-12-0332
24. Saldaña J. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. 3E [Third edition]. SAGE;
2016.
https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2025.84 Published online by Cambridge University Press
25. Stelter RL, Kupersmidt JB, Stump KN. Establishing effective STEM mentoring
relationships through mentor training. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2021;1483(1):224-243.
doi:10.1111/nyas.14470
26. Gangrade N, Samuels C, Attar H, et al. Mentorship Interventions in Postgraduate Medical
and STEM Settings: A Scoping Review. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2024;23(3):ar33.
doi:10.1187/cbe.23-08-0155
27. Pfund C, Byars-Winston A, Branchaw J, Hurtado S, Eagan K. Defining Attributes and
Metrics of Effective Research Mentoring Relationships. AIDS Behav. 2016;20(S2):238-
248. doi:10.1007/s10461-016-1384-z
28. Abedin Z, Rebello TJ, Richards BF, Pincus HA. Mentor Training within Academic Health
Centers with Clinical and Translational Science Awards. Clin Transl Sci. 2013;6(5):376-
380. doi:10.1111/cts.12067
29. Young KA, Finney MA, Marayong P, Vu KPL. Advancing Inclusive Mentoring Through
an Online Mentor Training Program and Coordinated Discussion Group. In: Yamamoto S,
Mori H, eds. Human Interface and the Management of Information. Information-Rich and
Intelligent Environments. Vol 12766. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer
International Publishing; 2021:177-194. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-78361-7_14
30. Young KA, Marayong P, Vu KPL. Faculty Mentor Training to Change Mentoring Practices
at a Diverse R2 University. J Excell Coll Teach. 2022;33(4):105-132.
31. Building Equitable Access to Mentorship (BEAM) Program – SMPH Intranet – UW–
Madison. Accessed November 10, 2024. https://intranet.med.wisc.edu/building-equitable-
access-to-mentorship-beam-program/
32. Padek M, Mir N, Jacob RR, et al. Training scholars in dissemination and implementation
research for cancer prevention and control: a mentored approach. Implement Sci IS.
2018;13(1):18. doi:10.1186/s13012-018-0711-3
https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2025.84 Published online by Cambridge University Press
33. Brownson RC, Jacob RR, Carothers BJ, et al. Building the Next Generation of Researchers:
Mentored Training in Dissemination and Implementation Science. Acad Med J Assoc Am
Med Coll. 2021;96(1):86-92. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000003750
34. Pfund C, Sancheznieto F, Byars-Winston A, et al. Evaluation of a Culturally Responsive
Mentorship Education Program for the Advisers of Howard Hughes Medical Institute
Gilliam Program Graduate Students. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2022;21(3):ar50.
doi:10.1187/cbe.21-11-0321
35. Lewis V, Martina CA, McDermott MP, et al. A Randomized Controlled Trial of Mentoring
Interventions for Underrepresented Minorities. Acad Med. 2016;91(7):994-1001.
doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000001056
36. Suiter S, Byars-Winston A, Sancheznieto F, Pfund C, Sealy L. Utilizing mentorship
education to promote a culturally responsive research training environment in the
biomedical sciences. Hlashwayo DF, ed. PLOS ONE. 2024;19(8):e0291221.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0291221
37. Byars-Winston A, Rogers JG, Thayer-Hart N, Black S, Branchaw J, Pfund C. A
randomized controlled trial of an intervention to increase cultural diversity awareness of
research mentors of undergraduate students. Sci Adv. 2023;9(21):eadf9705.
doi:10.1126/sciadv.adf9705
38. Lewis V, Martina CA, McDermott MP, et al. Mentoring Interventions for
Underrepresented Scholars in Biomedical and Behavioral Sciences: Effects on Quality of
Mentoring Interactions and Discussions. Herrera J, ed. CBE—Life Sci Educ.
2017;16(3):ar44. doi:10.1187/cbe.16-07-0215
https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2025.84 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Table 1. Demographic characteristics and mentoring background of participants in OPM
evaluation sample (February 19, 2019 through June 1, 2022)
Variable
Number
Percentage
Gendera (n = 995)
Male
492
49.45%
Female
466
46.83%
Transgender
1
0.10%
Other
7
0.70%
Prefer not to report
34
3.42%
Racea (n = 991)
American Indian or Alaskan Native
10
1.01%
Asian
184
18.57%
Black or African American
37
3.73%
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
3
0.30%
White
688
69.42%
Other
30
3.03%
Prefer not to report
62
6.26%
Hispanic or Latinoa (n = 969)
Not Hispanic or Latino
849
87.62%
Cuban
3
0.31%
Mexican or Chicano
18
1.85%
Puerto Rican
12
1.24%
Other Hispanic or Latino
27
2.79%
Prefer not to report
63
6.50%
Titlea (n = 1080)
Dean
2
0.19%
Associate Dean
20
1.85%
https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2025.84 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Assistant Dean
9
0.83%
Professor
367
33.98%
Associate Professor
258
23.89%
Assistant Professor
401
37.13%
Scientist or Researcher
21
1.94%
Associate Scientist or Researcher
7
0.65%
Assistant Scientist or Researcher
4
0.37%
Clinical Instructor
19
1.76%
Lecturer or Instructor
8
0.74%
Training Program Director
19
1.76%
Research focusa (n = 1077)
Behavioral research
101
9.38%
Clinical research
197
18.29%
Community engaged research
69
6.41%
Educational research
72
6.69%
Field/Applied research
80
7.43%
Lab-based research
661
61.37%
Social science research
69
6.41%
Theoretical research
64
5.94%
Translational research
216
20.06%
Other
42
3.90%
Trainees currently mentoringa (n = 1077)
Senior faculty
73
6.78%
Junior faculty
478
44.38%
Postdoctoral fellows
625
58.03%
Clinical fellows
159
14.76%
PhD or Master’s students
818
75.95%
https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2025.84 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Medical or health care professional students
243
22.56%
Post Baccalaureate students
261
24.23%
Undergraduate students
602
55.90%
High school students
135
12.53%
K awardees
94
8.73%
T awardees
79
7.34%
Not currently mentoring trainees
29
2.69%
Years of Experience as Research Mentor (n =
1077)
0 years
50
4.64%
1 to 5 years
298
27.67%
6 to 10 years
229
21.26%
11 to 20 years
293
27.21%
21 or more years
207
19.22%
Prior Research Mentorship Training (n = 1076)
Yes
457
42.47%
No
619
57.53%
aRespondents could select more than one category
OPM = Optimizing the Practice of Mentoring (online training module)
https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2025.84 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Table 2. Self-reported gains in mentoring skills, quality, and confidence, and in perceived
effectiveness at meeting mentee expectations, after completion of OPM training
Item
N
Before
Trainin
g Mean
(SD)
After
Trainin
g Mean
(SD)
Mean
Differenc
e
(SD)*
95% CI of the
Difference
Lower
Upper
Skillsa
1. Defining the value of mentoring for
research career development
1036
4.63
(1.27)
5.70
(0.93)
1.07
(0.99)
1.01
1.13
2. Recognizing the pros and cons of
different mentoring models
1032
4.16
(1.37)
5.64
(0.93)
1.49
(1.24)
1.41
1.56
3. Fulfilling the career-enhancing
functions of being a research
mentor
1032
4.59
(1.32)
5.67
(0.96)
1.08
(1.04)
1.02
1.15
4. Fulfilling the psychosocial
functions of being a research
mentor
1026
4.46
(1.34)
5.50
(1.01)
1.04
(1.02)
0.98
1.10
5. Applying a proactive, structured
approach to mentoring
1026
4.23
(1.37)
5.55
(0.98)
1.33
(1.13)
1.26
1.40
6. Navigating the different phases of a
mentoring relationship
1025
4.15
(1.42)
5.48
(1.00)
1.33
(1.17)
1.26
1.41
7. Applying specific strategies to
enhance the quality of my
mentoring relationships
1028
4.12
(1.32)
5.40
(0.98)
1.28
(1.08)
1.22
1.35
8. Addressing challenges that might
arise in my research mentoring
relationships
1018
4.18
(1.34)
5.40
(1.00)
1.22
(1.09)
1.15
1.29
9. Engaging in difficult conversations
with my mentees
1021
4.07
(1.45)
5.18
(1.15)
1.11
(1.09)
1.04
1.17
https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2025.84 Published online by Cambridge University Press
10. Routinely reflecting on and
adapting my mentoring practices
1023
4.15
(1.40)
5.35
(1.02)
1.20
(1.11)
1.13
1.27
11. Leveraging existing resources
and tools to support my mentoring
practices
1017
3.98
(1.38)
5.30
(1.08)
1.32
(1.20)
1.24
1.39
Overall Mentoring Qualityb
1027
4.60
(1.15)
5.47
(0.90)
0.87
(0.90)
0.82
0.93
Confidence in Mentoringb
1030
4.63
(1.19)
5.50
(0.92)
0.87
(0.88)
0.82
0.92
Meeting Mentees’ Expectationsc
1027
4.64
(1.09)
5.33
(0.89)
0.68
(0.91)
0.63
0.74
* p < .001 for the difference in mean scores between pre and post training for all items using
paired t-tests.
aRetrospective pre-post (1–7 scale: 1 = not at all skilled, 4 = moderately skilled, 7 = extremely
skilled)
bRetrospective pre-post (1–7 scale: 1 = very low, 4 = average, 7 = very high)
cRetrospective pre-post (1–7 scale: 1 = not at all, 4 = moderately, 7 = completely)
OPM = Optimizing the Practice of Mentoring (online training module)
https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2025.84 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Table 3: Categories of intended behavioral change prompted by participation in OPM training
Stem Word
(Number of unique
respondents)
Word Query Definition
Example Quotes
1. Expectations
(153)
Respondents noted plans to
more clearly articulate or
communicate expectations, to
better align expectations, to
develop or write their
expectations, or to revisit
expectations.
“I will also be more explicit about my expectations and ask about mentee
expectations during the "development" phase of the relationship. This way I hope
to avoid entering mentoring relationships in which expectations are not easily
aligned.”
“Setting expectations for mentees. And more actively seeking to know what their
career expectations are.”
2. Plan
(84)
Respondents indicated their
intentions to create new or
use existing written plans
such as a mentoring plan,
mentoring agreement, or
individual development plan.
“I plan to take a more interactive approach and more actively engage my mentees
in developing a structured plan to improve success and career development.”
“I plan to make more specific mentoring action plans and be more consistent in
discussing things adaptively with trainees.”
3. Goals
(77)
Respondents described plans
to identify/set goals including
short and long term career
“More direct discussion with mentees about long term goals.”
“Discuss career goals with mentee earlier in relationship.”
https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2025.84 Published online by Cambridge University Press
goals, check in on progress
towards goals, or help their
mentees achieve goals; a few
noted plans to share their
own mentoring goals with
mentees.
“When goals aren't met, thinking about whether interests have diverged or the goals
weren't clear.”
4. Structure
(72)
Respondents referred to
adding more structure to their
mentoring interactions. […]
“I will try to be more thoughtful and more organized about how to approach
mentoring in a structured way, rather than just engaging in it without a clear plan of
action.”
“I plan to use a more deliberate, structured approach that draws on resources and
helping mentees grow in independence.”
5. Meetings
(66)
Respondents noted plans to
change their approach to
meetings with their mentees
including alterations to
structure, agendas,
preparation, and frequency
for both individual and
research team meetings.
“I plan to have more one-on-one meetings to discuss long-term career vision and
ongoing developments towards that vision.”
“I want to incorporate meeting agendas and meeting reports.”
6. Communication
Respondents noted plans for
“More communication about our relationship.”
https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2025.84 Published online by Cambridge University Press
(45)
more communication, clearer
communication, and open
and better communication.
“I will try to increase communication/trust by active listening […]”
7. Reflection
(43)
Respondents described plans
for more self-reflection on
mentoring, on their
mentoring relationship, and
on their mentoring practices.
“I will apply more self-reflection, particularly about my bias. I'll be more aware of
the different stages of mentoring, applying principles to make it better at every
stage.”
“Do more active listening. Seek out perspectives of mentees. Do more self-
reflection.”
8. Proactive
(41)
Respondents articulated plans
to be more proactive in their
mentoring generally and
across a range of specific
topics.
“More proactive approach to identifying problems and solutions with direct input
from the mentee.”
“I will be more proactive in engaging mentees about their lives outside of the lab
and reflect on how that may impact the mentoring required.”
9. Support
(28)
Respondents described
intentions to increase and
provide more direct support
for mentees; several noted
plans to create high challenge
/ high support environments.
“I intend to be more explicit in my support - including explicitly acknowledging
mentee's contributions and efforts.”
“The balance between challenge and support is one that I would like to develop
more.”
https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2025.84 Published online by Cambridge University Press
Figure 1. Screenshot from the Optimizing the Practice of Mentoring online training module.
Module content is divided into the seven major sections shown in the top horizontal bar. Users
navigate to specific content within a section by clicking on the labelled tabs on the left side of the
screen.
https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2025.84 Published online by Cambridge University Press
