Mentoring Early-Career Faculty Researchers Is Important-But First "Train the Trainer"

Optimizing a mentorship program from the perspective of academic medicine leadership - a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Effective mentorship is an important contributor to academic success. Given the critical role of leadership in fostering mentorship, this study sought to explore the perspectives of departmental leadership regarding 1) current departmental mentorship processes; and 2) crucial components of a mentorship program that would enhance the effectiveness of mentorship.

METHODS

Department Division Directors (DDDs), Vice-Chairs, and Mentorship Facilitators from the Department of Medicine at the University of Toronto Temerty Faculty of Medicine were interviewed between April and December 2021 using a semi-structured guide. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim, then coded. Analysis occurred in 2 steps: 1) codes were organized to identify emergent themes; then 2) the Social Ecological Model (SEM) was applied to interpret the findings.

RESULTS

Nineteen interviews (14 DDDs, 3 Vice-Chairs, and 2 Mentorship Facilitator) were completed. Analysis revealed three themes: (1) a culture of mentorship permeated the department as evidenced by rigorous mentorship processes, divisional mentorship innovations, and faculty that were keen to mentor; (2) barriers to the establishment of effective mentoring relationships existed at 3 levels: departmental, interpersonal (mentee-mentor relationships), and mentee; and (3) strengthening the culture of mentorship could entail scaling up pre-existing mentorship processes and promoting faculty engagement. Application of SEM highlighted critical program features and determined that two components of interventions (creating tools to measure mentorship outcomes and systems for mentor recognition) were potential enablers of success.

CONCLUSIONS

Establishing 'mentorship outcome measures' can incentivize and maintain relationships. By tangibly delineating departmental expectations for mentorship and creating systems that recognize mentors, these measures can contribute to a culture of mentorship.

Learning to Prioritize Our Collaborative Opportunities: Overcoming the Bright Shiny Object Syndrome

ABSTRACT

There are multiple opportunities to participate in team science, leading to long-term benefits (eg, research impact, novelty, productivity). Scholars are not well-trained in how to choose among these opportunities, often learning via trial and error. The ability to navigate collaborations is framed by several principles and considerations: (1) locus of control (what control we have over our own behavior) and how it affects academic job satisfaction; (2) the scarcity mindset that may manifest as a result of the fear of missing future opportunities; and (3) power dynamics and inequities (eg, among women and racial/ethnic minority individuals). To provide a more systematic approach to weighing academic opportunities, the authors offer 30 questions across six overlapping domains. The domains include: the big picture (eg, Is the opportunity a building block for your career?), context (eg, How much do you have on your plate?), person (eg, Who is asking?), team (eg, Is the team productive?), role (eg, Will you lead or assist?), and outcomes (eg, Might the opportunity lead to publications and/or grants?). We offer advice for decision-making. For example, when presented with an opportunity involving a significant time commitment, it is useful to allow at least 24 hours before deciding. The authors offer advice and sample language for communicating your decision. Although every situation is different, there are several fundamental issues and questions to consider when one is presented with a new opportunity-these questions are suggested for mentors and mentees.

Publishing on a Shoestring: Understanding Barriers, Challenges, and Unique Opportunities to Academic Productivity in Psychiatry

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Clinical track faculty within psychiatry may struggle to meet goals for academic scholarship, particularly publishing. In this review, we explore potential barriers to publication and solutions to support early career psychiatrists.

RECENT FINDINGS

Current evidence highlights challenges for faculty throughout academic practice, including barriers at the individual and systems levels. Within psychiatry, publication has favored biological studies with significant gaps in the literature serving as both an opportunity and challenge. Interventions underscore the importance of mentorship and propose incentivization to facilitate academic scholarship among clinical track faculty. Barriers to publication within psychiatry exist at the level of the individual, system, and field itself. This review shares potential solutions from across the medical literature and an example of an intervention from our own department. More studies are needed within the field of psychiatry to understand how to best support early career faculty members in their academic productivity, growth, and development.

Gender, Racial, and Ethnic and Inequities in Receipt of Multiple National Institutes of Health Research Project Grants

Importance

Diversity in the biomedical research workforce is essential for addressing complex health problems. Female investigators and investigators from underrepresented ethnic and racial groups generate novel, impactful, and innovative research, yet they are significantly underrepresented among National Institutes of Health (NIH) investigators.

Objective

To examine the gender, ethnic, and racial distribution of super NIH investigators who received 3 or more concurrent NIH grants.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study included a national cohort of NIH-funded principal investigators (PIs) from the NIH Information for Management, Planning, Analysis, and Coordination (IMPAC II) database from 1991 to 2020.

Exposures

Self-identified gender, race and ethnicity, annual number of NIH grant receipt, career stage, and highest degree.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Distribution of investigators receiving 3 or more research project grants, referred to as super principal investigators (SPIs), by gender, race, and ethnicity.

Results

Among 33 896 investigators in fiscal year 2020, 7478 (22.01%) identified as Asian, 623 (1.8%) as Black, 1624 (4.8%) as Hispanic, and 22 107 (65.2%) as White; 21 936 (61.7%) identified as men; and 8695 (35.3%) were early-stage investigators. Between 1991 and 2020, the proportion of SPIs increased 3-fold from 704 (3.7%) to 3942 (11.3%). However, SPI status was unequal across gender, ethnic, and racial groups. Women and Black PIs were significantly underrepresented among SPIs, even after adjusting for career stage and degree, and were 34% and 40% less likely than their male and White colleagues, respectively, to be an SPI. Black women PIs were the least likely to be represented among SPIs and were 71% less likely to attain SPI status than White men PIs (adjusted odds ratio, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.21-0.41).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study of a national cohort of NIH-funded investigators, the gender, ethnic, and racial gaps in receipt of multiple research project grants among NIH investigators was clearly apparent and warrants further investigation and interventions.

The Report of the 2021-2022 AACP Research and Graduate Affairs Committee

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. The work of the 2021-2022 AACP Research and Graduate Affairs Committee (RGAC) focused on barriers to graduate education and research-related careers in pharmacy education. AACP President Stuart Haines charged the RGAC with identifying the critical barriers that hinder current PharmD students/recent graduates as well as under-represented groups (e.g., Black and Latino) from pursuing advanced degrees and research-related career paths in the pharmaceutical, social & behavioral, and clinical sciences and recommending changes that might address these barriers - this may include recommendations to change the fundamental structure of graduate education.The committee began its work with a literature review to survey current perspectives on these barriers and assess the supporting evidence for effective solutions and programs, including their relevance to pharmacy education. Based on the review, the committee was able to identify numerous obstacles to entry into and progression through research training, for both underrepresented learners and student pharmacists. Obstacles are individual, e.g., lack of exposure to and self-efficacy in research, financial constraints, structural, e.g., lengthy training time, programmatic rigidity, and institutional, e.g., implicit and explicit bias. The committee found evidence of effective approaches and programs to address these barriers that could be applied in pharmacy schools. These approaches include improvements to existing practices in recruitment, admissions and hiring practices as well as creation of new programs and structural changes to existing programs to increase accessibility to learners. The committee also recognized a need for more research and development of additional approaches to address these barriers.The committee makes a series of recommendations that AACP develop resource guides and programs to address key issues in the recruitment and retention of underrepresented students and student pharmacists into graduate education and research careers, including as faculty. The committee also proposes new AACP policies to support innovative graduate programs and early, longitudinal engagement of learners from elementary school onward to increase access to graduate education and to support environments and cultures of commitment to accessibility, diversity, equity, inclusiveness, antiracism in pharmacy education.

Faculty Rating of the Importance and Availability of Organizational Mentoring Climate

Organizational climate is the shared perception of and the meaning attached to the policies, practices, and procedures employees experience. University faculty can assess their organizational mentoring climate (OMC) using recently published, reliable, and valid OMC importance (OMCI) and availability (OMCA) scales. Factors affecting the OMC's importance and availability are, however, not known. By studying these factors, organizational leaders can determine whether and how to change the OMC to improve faculty mentoring outcomes. In this cross-sectional study, 300 faculty from the University of New Mexico (Main, Health Sciences Center [HSC] and branch campuses) and Arizona State University (a non-HSC campus) completed the online OMCI and OMCA scales, each with three subscales: Organizational Expectations, Mentor-Mentee Relationships, and Resources. OMCI scale items were rated from very unimportant (1) to very important (5); and, for OMCA, -1 (no), 0 (don't know), 1 (yes). The study used linear regression analysis after normalizing the scales to M=0 and SD=1. Although not explicitly targeted for recruitment, the respondents were predominantly women, non-Hispanic White, senior, tenure-track faculty members who were neither providing mentoring nor receiving mentoring. In the multivariable models, women faculty attached greater importance to mentoring climate components than men. HSC faculty and those receiving mentoring reported greater availability of mentoring climate components than their respective counterparts. Underrepresented minority (URM) faculty did not rate OMCI or OMCA differently than non-URM faculty. Faculty subgroups in this study attached varying levels of importance to the OMC and rated the availability of climate components differently. Factors impacting the importance of the OMC differed from those affecting the perceived availability of the climate components. Based on their relative importance and lack of availability, organizational leaders should create, modify and implement structures, programs, and policies to improve organizational mentoring expectations, mentor-mentee relationships, and mentoring resources, thereby strengthening their OMC.

Caution Before Embracing Team Mentoring in Academic Medical Research Training: Recommendations from a Qualitative Study

Background: Multidisciplinary team mentoring increasingly is being advocated for biomedical research training. Before implementing a curriculum that could include team mentoring, we asked faculty about their opinions of this mentoring approach. Questions/Purposes: The goals of this study were to ask faculty about the benefits, challenges, and drawbacks of team mentoring in research training. Methods: Twenty-two experienced mentors representing all academic departments at a single institution were interviewed about perceived benefits, drawbacks, and their willingness to participate in team mentoring. Responses were analyzed with qualitative techniques using grounded theory and a comparative analytic strategy. Results: Faculty noted academic pursuits in medicine usually occur within, and not across, specialties; thus, multidisciplinary team mentoring would require coordinating diverse work schedules, additional meetings, and greater time commitments. Other challenges included ensuring breadth of expertise without redundancy, skillfully managing group dynamics, and ensuring there is one decision-maker. Potential drawbacks for mentees included reluctance to voice preferences and forge unique paths, perceived necessity to simultaneously please many mentors, and less likelihood of establishing a professional bond with any particular mentor. Conclusions: Faculty recommended caution before embracing team mentoring models. An acceptable alternative might be a hybrid model with a primary mentor at the helm and a selected group of co-mentors committed to a multidisciplinary effort. This model requires training and professional development for primary mentors.

Faculty's attitudes and perceptions related to applying motivational principles to their teaching: a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

It is uncommon for faculty development professionals to assess faculty attitudes towards their teaching responsibilities and their perceived obstacles to teaching effectiveness. The purposes of this study were (a) to document faculty attitudes and practices related to applying motivation principles, and (b) to identify the perceived contextual factors that may shape these attitudes and practices.

METHODS

A sequential explanatory mixed methods design was used. Faculty members (n = 272; 32% response rate) were surveyed about their responsibility for and application of the five motivational principles that are part of the MUSIC Model of Motivation: eMpowerment, Usefulness, Success, Interest, and Caring. Repeated measures ANOVAs and Student's t-tests were computed to detect differences. Subsequently, two focus groups of faculty members (n = 11) interpreted the survey results. We conducted a thematic analysis and used the focus group results to explain the survey results.

RESULTS

Faculty rated their responsibilities for applying principles related to Usefulness, Interest, and Caring significantly higher than they did for Success and eMpowerment. Most faculty also reported that they actually applied Usefulness, Interest, and Caring strategies within the past year, whereas over half of the faculty applied Success strategies and about a third of faculty applied eMpowerment strategies. Focus group participants identified factors that affected their ability to apply eMpowerment strategies, (e.g., offering choices), including students lacking generic skills (e.g., critical thinking, problem-solving), a lack of confidence in their abilities to implement empowering strategies and meet the needs of students, passive students, and large lecture-type courses. Focus group participants cited obstacles to implementing Success strategies (e.g., providing feedback), including difficulty in providing feedback in large courses, lacking time and assistant teachers, limited knowledge of technologies, and lacking skills related to guiding effective student peer feedback.

CONCLUSIONS

Faculty appear adequately prepared to implement some types of motivational strategies, but not others, in part due to contextual factors that can influence their attitudes and, ultimately, their application of these strategies. We discuss how these factors affect attitudes and application of motivational strategies and formulate suggestions based on the results.

Participant perspectives on a seminar-based research career development program and its role in career independence

Health science researchers need training and support to effectively pursue independence in their research careers. Little data exist regarding the specific resources that faculty researchers have found or would find useful. In this study, we aimed to better understand the needs of health science researchers to develop recommendations for effective career development programming. The authors conducted a multi-method evaluation of early-career researcher faculty needs beginning by using post-session satisfaction surveys to assess the value of a long-standing "K-Club" seminar, which educates and supports those pursuing NIH Career Development (K) awards or similar. The authors then collected in-depth views on career development needs through a series of focus groups conducted with health science researchers at three career stages: early career, award-seeking junior faculty; mid-career faculty who have obtained some extramural funding; senior faculty who serve as mentors for early/mid-career faculty. Participants who attended the existing K-Club strongly endorse the program in supporting their career goals. Focus group participants described specific areas for program expansion that would add value across career stages: more flexible training options, conducted in smaller group settings with immediate feedback provided; more formalized training and resources for senior research mentors; in-depth guidance on individualized grantsmanship. The authors propose program development guidelines for helping researchers achieve research independence and success. Findings indicate that a broad-reaching K-Club style educational seminar can serve as a valuable foundation supporting professional development. The addition of tailored programs delivered across diverse platforms are predicted to heighten career development success.

Mentors' Beliefs About Their Roles in Health Care Education: A Qualitative Study of Mentors' Personal Interpretative Framework

PURPOSE

How mentors shape their mentoring is strongly influenced by their personal beliefs about the goals and purpose of mentoring, the possible activities associated with it, who decides on the focus of the mentoring relationship, and the strategies mentors choose to enact these beliefs in practice. In accordance with the personal interpretative framework, the authors operationalized mentors' beliefs as professional self-understanding (the what) and subjective educational theory (the how) of teaching and sought to identify different mentoring positions.

METHOD

Using a qualitative approach, the authors conducted semistructured interviews between December 2017 and January 2018 with 18 undergraduate mentors from Maastricht University in Maastricht, the Netherlands. The aim of the interviews was to reconstruct their personal interpretative framework. Before building a general pattern of explanation in a cross-case analysis, the authors performed a within-case analysis of the data, analyzing individual mentors.

RESULTS

This approach resulted in the identification and description of 4 mentoring positions: the (1) facilitator (service providing and responsive), (2) coach (development supporting and responsive), (3) monitor (signaling and collaborative), and (4) exemplar (service providing or development supporting and directive). Each position represents a coherent pattern of normative beliefs about oneself as a mentor (professional self-understanding) and how to enact these beliefs in practice (subjective educational theory).

CONCLUSIONS

Awareness of their mentoring position can help mentors understand why they act the way they do in certain situations and how this behavior affects their mentees' learning and development. It can also help mentors identify personal learning needs and, consequently, provide opportunities for faculty development.

Measuring organizational mentoring climate: Importance and availability scales

INTRODUCTION

Although organizational climate may affect faculty's mentoring behaviors, there has not been any way to measure that climate. The purpose of this study was to test the reliability and validity of two novel scales to measure organizational mentoring climate importance and availability at two public research universities.

METHODS

We developed 36 content-valid mentoring climate items in four dimensions: Structure, Programs/Activities, Policies/Guidelines, and Values. In total, 355 faculty completed an anonymous, structured, online survey asking about the importance (very important to very unimportant) and availability (no, don't know, yes) of each of the items. We conducted reliability analyses and construct validity testing using exploratory common factor analysis, principal axis factoring, and oblique rotation.

RESULTS

The majority of the predominantly female, White non-Hispanic, senior, tenure-track faculty were not currently mentoring another faculty or being mentored. Analyses demonstrated a 15-item solution for both the Organizational Mentoring Climate Importance (OMCI) and the Availability (OMCA) Scales, with three factors each: Organizational Expectations, Mentor-Mentee Relationships, and Resources. Standardized Cronbach alphas ranged from 0.74 to 0.90 for the subscales, and 0.94 (OMCI) and 0.87 (OMCA) for the full scales. Faculty rated all items as somewhat to very important; however, perceived availability was very low ranging from mentor training programs (40%) to guidelines for evaluating mentoring success or managing conflict (2.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

The scales will allow studying of how organizational climate may affect mentoring behavior and whether climate can be changed to improve faculty mentoring outcomes. We provide recommendations for furthering the science of organizational mentoring climate and culture.

Creating a culture that values diversity and inclusion: An action-oriented framework for schools of nursing

An organizational culture that values diversity and inclusion is essential for the achievement of high-quality nursing education, yet little literature exists to guide schools of nursing (SON) in accomplishing this goal. All SONs, regardless of size, need a framework that provides specific steps for developing and nurturing a culture that values diversity and inclusion. Using our SON as an exemplar, the goal of this article was to (a) review the barriers we faced when building a diverse and inclusive environment, (b) share our school's strategic plan designed to promote diversity and inclusion, and (c) highlight successful strategies as part of the development and ongoing implementation of our school's strategic plan. This process requires continuous commitment and intentionality as well as flexibility to address unforeseen circumstances. For example, the goals we have adopted and the strategies we have put in place have allowed members of our SON community to acknowledge and address the urgency and validity of the Black Lives Matter movement, as well as the disproportionate impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on racial and ethnic minority groups. Although we recognize that we still have work to do within our SON community, we believe our exemplar offers an action-oriented framework for increasing diversity and inclusion among students, faculty, staff, and leadership in SONs.

Effectiveness of a Faculty Mentor Development Program for Scholarship at an Academic Health Center

INTRODUCTION

Mentors are in short supply at academic health centers (AHCs). The effectiveness of training mentors (without preselection for their research skills) to support faculty mentees in scholarly activities at AHCs is not well known.

METHODS

The University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center has a two-component program to develop effective mentors for scholarship for faculty mentees. It has an online component supplemented by an optional face-to-face (F2F) component. Study outcomes included changes in self-reported knowledge scores for online users and Mentoring Competency Assessment scores for F2F users.

RESULTS

One hundred five mentors, mostly women associate professors, used the online program. Online users demonstrated improvement in self-reported knowledge scores. Thirty-eight users additionally completed the F2F program-63% on a clinician-educator track and none with a National Institutes of Health-funded K-award mentee. The self-reported Mentoring Competency Assessment composite score rose from 4.3 ± 1.0 to 5.5 ± 0.8 (paired t = 7.37, df = 37, P < .001) for the F2F participants, with similar improvement noted in the clinician-educator subgroup.

DISCUSSION

Users of the online and F2F components of the program improved their self-assessed knowledge and mentoring skill, respectively, demonstrating the effectiveness of the program. Such programs may help AHCs enhance the scholarship and the diversity of their scientific and clinician-educator workforce.

A scoping review of mentor training programs in medicine between 1990 and 2017

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.

Assigning mentors for new HSC faculty hires: A preliminary policy evaluation

Effective practices for selecting mentors for new faculty at academic health centers (AHC) are currently unknown. The University of New Mexico's School of Medicine assigns a mentor to all new faculty at the time of hire. The effectiveness of this policy measure has not been previously evaluated. The research question was to determine the proportion of new faculty mentees who meet with their assigned mentors before their mandatory orientation held within their first year of hire. At the orientation, faculty are surveyed about their response to the institutional policy of assigning mentors upon their hire. The proportion of new faculty mentees who met their assigned mentors prior to the orientation event constituted the primary study outcome. Of the 289 new faculty surveyed, 79.9% met their assigned mentors prior to the orientation - most meetings were weekly (48.8%) or monthly (27.9%). Among those who had not yet met their mentors, 65% planned to meet them within the month of the survey. 5.5% of all faculty reported a change of mentor from their initial assignment and 2.8% stated that they needed a different mentor. Physicians were less likely to meet with their assigned mentors than non-physician faculty (p=0.02). The preliminary policy evaluation demonstrates that most new faculty either meet or plan to meet their assigned mentors. Most participants stated that they did not need to be assigned a different mentor. Assigning mentors for new faculty hires may be considered a best practice at an AHC.

A randomized controlled pilot study of the University of Minnesota mentoring excellence training academy: A hybrid learning approach to research mentor training

INTRODUCTION

Research mentor training is a valuable professional development activity. Options for training customization (by delivery mode, dosage, content) are needed to address the many critical attributes of effective mentoring relationships and to support mentors in different institutional settings.

METHODS

We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial to evaluate a hybrid mentor training approach consisting of an innovative, 90-minute, self-paced, online module (Optimizing the Practice of Mentoring, OPM) followed by workshops based on the Entering Mentoring (EM) curriculum. Mentors (n = 59) were randomized to intervention or control arms; the control condition was receipt of a two-page mentoring tip sheet. Surveys (pre, post, 3-month follow up) and focus groups assessed training impact (self-appraised knowledge, skills, behavior change) and participants' perceptions of the blended training model.

RESULTS

The intervention (∼6.5 hours) produced significant improvements in all outcomes, including skills gains on par with those reported previously for the 8-hour EM model. Knowledge gains and intention-to-change mentoring practices were realized after completion of OPM and augmented by the in-person sessions. Mentors valued the synergy of the blended learning format, noting the unique strengths of each modality and specific benefits to completing a foundational online module before in-person engagement.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings from this pilot trial support the value of e-learning approaches, both as standalone curricula or as a component of hybrid implementation models, for the professional development of research mentors.

What Mentors Tell Us About Acknowledging Effort and Sustaining Academic Research Mentoring: A Qualitative Study

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.

Validating an Institutional Mentoring Climate Survey at a Health Sciences Center

Background

The institutional mentoring climate influences the success of mentoring programs. There currently exists no validated survey to assess this climate - a critical gap in this field.

Objective

To establish and validate a survey to assess the institutional climate for mentoring at a Health Sciences Center.

Methods

We created a survey with the following four dimensions - mentoring structure (with 13 items); mentoring programs/activities (with 11 items); and mentoring policies/guidelines (with nine items), followed by an overall value dimension (with four items). Four experts evaluated this survey for content validity. These experts rated each program item, on a score of one to four, on whether the item related to the overall conceptual framework and to the dimension in which it was placed in the survey.

Results

The mean scores for individual items as they related to the overall conceptual framework ranged from 3.25 to 4.0. On the other hand, the mean scores for items as they related to individual dimensions were lower. Items with lower score were associated with the following - a question simultaneously asked about multiple things, the possibility that faculty respondent might be unfamiliar with leader's role outlined in the question, and binary structure or lack of clarity of the question. All 37 items were retained, with modifications as necessary.

Conclusions

We established the content validity of our survey. The next step will be to establish its construct validity. Having a valid and reliable scale will help support and evaluate interventions for improving institutional mentoring climate at academic centers.

Strategies for Supporting Physician-Scientists in Faculty Roles: A Narrative Review With Key Informant Consultations

PURPOSE

Physician-scientists are a population in decline globally. Solutions to reverse this decline often have focused on the training pipeline. Less attention has been paid to reducing attrition post training, when physician-scientists take up faculty roles. However, this period is a known time of vulnerability because of the pressures of clinical duties and the long timeline to securing independent research funding. This narrative review explored existing knowledge regarding how best to support physician-scientists for success in their faculty roles.

METHOD

The authors searched the Medline, Embase, ERIC, and Cochrane Library databases for articles published from 2000 to 2016 on this topic and interviewed key informants in 2015 to solicit their input on the review results.

RESULTS

The authors reviewed 78 articles and interviewed 16 key informants. From the literature, they developed a framework of organizational (facilitate mentorship, foster community, value the physician-scientist role, minimize financial barriers) and individual (develop professional and research skills) strategies for supporting physician-scientists. They also outlined key knowledge gaps representing topics either rarely or never addressed in the reviewed articles (percent research time, structural hypocrisy, objective assessment, group metrics, professional identity). The key informants confirmed the identified strategies and discussed how the gaps were particularly important and impactful.

CONCLUSIONS

This framework offers a basis for assessing an organization's existing support strategies, identifying outstanding needs, and developing targeted programming. The identified gaps require attention, as they threaten to undermine the benefits of existing support strategies.

Mentors without Borders

Mentors without Borders is a proposed international mentoring network that allows trainee geneticists to identify mentors from a list of volunteers who are not at one's own institution. It is an experiment, a matchmaker between a junior and a senior professional. These mentors do not replace the mentors at the home institution but allow the mentee, if desired, to identify mentors outside of their own institution. We envision that different ways of communicating and/or different mentor‐mentee relationships may prove beneficial to the trainee and the mentor.