Independent investigator incubator (I3): a comprehensive mentorship program to jumpstart productive research careers for junior faculty

Development and Implementation of a Structured and Innovative Faculty-Wide Mentorship Program for a Large Department of Psychiatry

OBJECTIVES

Mentorship supports faculty to succeed in their careers with confidence, resilience, and satisfaction. To address inequities evident with an informal approach, a formal mentorship program was designed and implemented.

METHODS

The Quality Implementation Framework (QIF) was applied. Engagement with key stakeholders and users was emphasized. The goals of the program are to address inequities and create greater satisfaction with academic careers among diverse faculty working in various roles/sites. A central component is a primary 1:1 mentor/mentee model, supported with an online matching tool. 1:1 mentorship is augmented with several group mentorships, to support specific academic roles (e.g., clinician scientists; clinician teachers) or social identity. Mentorship training workshops and resources support mentors/mentees; topics include best practices, DEI, and mentorship and mentorship tools. Descriptive statistics (means, SDs, percentages) summarized findings on mentees/mentors at enrollment.

RESULTS

Sixty-six mentors registered. Recently hired faculty (n = 136) were invited to participate, resulting in 105 mentees (77%). There is a significant improvement in mentor perception of the department's culture of mentorship (t(198) = 4.188, p < 0.001). Key mentee goals were to gain career guidance and support, information on academic promotion, skills in professional relationships, and networking. Identified challenges among mentors/mentees include having differing goals, time commitment, and managing difficult conversations. Mentorship groups were well-received with high satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

Uptake and participation is encouraging. QIF will help identify contextual factors related to uptake and use of the program and additional implementation strategies needed. The project will contribute to literature on implementation and sustainability of mentorship programs.

Identifying the mentorship needs among faculty in a large department of psychiatry- support for the creation of a formal mentorship program

BACKGROUND

Study aims were to assess the current state and needs of faculty to inform the design of a formal mentorship program in a large academic Department of Psychiatry.

METHODS

A 57- item self-administered online survey questionnaire was distributed to all faculty members.

RESULTS

225 faculty members completed the survey (24%). 68% of respondents had a mentor and reported high satisfaction (mean = 4.3, SD = 1.05) (range 1 to 5). Among those respondents lacking access to mentorship, 65% expressed interest. Open-ended questions indicated that international medical graduates, faculty identifying as minority, women and clinician teachers may lack access to mentorship. PhD faculty felt disadvantaged compared to MD faculty in gaining first authorship (MNon-MD=1.64 ± 0.79 vs. MMD=1.36 ± 0.67; t = 2.51, p = .013); reported more authorship disputes (MNon-MD =1.99 ± 0.91 vs. MMD =1.66 ± 0.76; t = 2.63 p = .009) and experienced questionable scientific integrity concerning colleagues (MNon-MD =2.01 ± 0.92 vs. MMD =1.70 ± 0.81; t = 2.42 p = .017). For both MD and PhD faculty, women were significantly more likely to experience authorship disputes (χ2(2) = 8.67, p = .013). The department was perceived as treating faculty with respect (72% agreed) with 54% agreeing that it embraces diversity (54%). Identified benefits to mentorship included receiving advice about academic promotion, opportunities for career advancement, advocacy, and advice as a researcher, teacher or clinician. Only 26% of mentors received formal training to support their role; 59% expressed interest in education. Respondents supported a more formal, accessible, inclusive program, with training, tools, and a matching strategy based on mentee preferences.

CONCLUSIONS

Challenges and inequities were identified with the department's current ad hoc approach to mentorship. A limitation of the study was the response rate, while similar to response rates of other physician surveys, raises the potential for response bias. In comparing study participants to the department, the sample appeared to provide a fair representation. The study has implications for identifying the need and design of more formal mentorship programs in academic medicine.

Family medicine research: seizing the moment to advance the field

Despite a growing awareness that primary care is essential to an accessible, equitable, high-quality, cost-effective health care system, family medicine research remains woefully underdeveloped. The increased focus of both state and federal policy makers on primary care payment and care delivery models presents an opportunity for family medicine to redefine itself as an academically rigorous discipline at the forefront of generating evidence that improves patient care and population health while reducing costs. In a critical review of the literature, we identified five themes-leadership, funding, resources, team science, and departmental culture-that are integral to family medicine departments seeking to grow and expand their research capacity.

Mentorship Interventions in Postgraduate Medical and STEM Settings: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Mentorship is critical to success in postgraduate science, technology, engineering, math, and medicine (STEMM) settings. As such, the purpose of this study is to comprehensively explore the state of mentorship interventions in postgraduate STEMM settings to identify novel practices and future research directions. The selection criteria for reviewed articles included: 1) published between 2002 and 2022, 2) peer-reviewed, 3) in English, 4) postgraduate mentees, 5) a program where mentorship is a significant, explicit focus, and 6) a description of mentee outcomes related to the mentorship intervention. Overall, 2583 articles were screened, and 109 articles were reviewed.

RESULTS

Most postgraduate STEMM mentorship intervention studies lack strong evidence to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention, with only 5.5% of articles designed as randomized controlled trials. Most mentorship interventions (45.6%) were created for faculty, and few (4%) were for postdoctoral researchers. Also, only 18.8% of interventions focused on underrepresented groups in STEMM. Most interventions (53.7%) prescribed a dyadic structure, and there was more mentorship training for mentors than mentees.

CONCLUSION

Overall, these findings identify gaps in mentorship interventions and provide step-by-step guidance for future interventions, including a consideration for underrepresented groups and postdoctoral scholars, robust mentorship training, and more randomized controlled trials.

Identifying the Professional Development Needs Among Early Career Doctorally Prepared Oncology Professionals

This study aimed to identify the professional development needs of early career doctorally prepared professionals in psychosocial oncology. We used a cross-sectional descriptive survey design to assess professionally related skills deemed most important to participants' academic excellence and promotion, skills they felt most and least confident to engage in, and those they were most interested to learn more about. Seventeen participants completed the survey and were, on average, 39.3 years of age (range 29-55 years) and had completed doctoral or post-doctoral training 3.1 years previously (range 0-5 years). Participants identified seeking external funding as not only the most important skill to achieve their academic excellence and promotion, but also as the skill they felt least confident to engage in. They felt most confident to engage in career planning and getting published and were most interested to learn more about how to negotiate a career/position. Participants also expressed interest in having access to a forum wherein they could collaborate with others and receive mentorship from expert oncology professionals with doctoral degrees. The findings from this study point to the need for professional development opportunities for oncology professionals before and after they complete their doctoral or post-doctoral training. Study participants' perspectives offer insights about topics that may be enhanced in doctoral and post-doctoral mentorship programs.

Writing Support Group for Medical School Faculty-A Simple Way to Do It

Problem: Writing for publication is a core activity for many medical school faculty, but faculty report numerous challenges to publication. To help address these challenges, some medical schools establish writing support programs, but those programs are often resource-intensive, involving didactic courses, accountability groups, formal mentorships, and even assistance from professional writers. Not all medical schools, however, provide resources for such programs, and many faculty members, especially clinicians, lack time needed to participate. Furthermore, success of these programs is typically judged by the total number of papers published. However, many clinicians would judge success as publication of the occasional papers they decide to write, not the total number of papers they or the group publish. With these issues in mind, we established a low-resource writing program focused on individual acceptance rates rather than total publications. Intervention: Our writing program is an informal group that meets monthly. Members bring their ideas for papers and drafts of papers, and other members provide critique and suggestions for improvement. Members then revise their papers to address that critique prior to journal submission. There are no formal or assigned mentors, courses, lectures, or writing assistants. Context: The program takes place in our family medicine department, in which faculty have various roles. Some group members are clinician-educators seeking to publish occasional clinical reviews or research articles; others are PhDs seeking to publish on aspects of their work. Impact: During the six years of the program, 86% of papers reviewed by the group were accepted for publication and 94% of those were accepted by the journal to which they were first submitted. Publication success rate of individual members averaged 79%. This exceeds the 30-40% acceptance rate for scholarly journals worldwide. Group members published an average of 5.2 papers per member, with some publishing as few as 2-3 papers and others as many as 10-11. Lessons Learned: An informal, low-resource writing program in medical school departments can help faculty reach their publication goals. We found that members were satisfied by having the group help them publish whatever number of papers they decided to write. The program's simple, informal approach fostered a culture of respectful and collegial interactions, in which members learned to depend on and accept critiques from colleagues. Finally, an unexpected benefit of our program resulted from membership of both clinicians and non-clinicians. This provided feedback from individuals with different perspectives, which enhanced development of manuscripts.

Maximizing Training and Mentorship in Sex as a Biological Variable Research Across Different Brain-Body Disorders

The Specialized Center of Research Excellence (SCORE) on sex differences at University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) has a long track record studying bidirectional interactions between different organs and the brain in health and disease with a strong focus on sex as a biological variable (SABV). While the initial focus was on brain-gut interactions in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), one of the most common disorders of gut-brain interaction, the scope of our Center's research has expanded to a range of different diseases, including inflammatory bowel disease, alcohol use disorder, obesity, urological chronic pelvic pain syndrome, and vulvodynia. This expansion of research focused on the role of brain-body and brain-gut microbiome interactions in these various disorders, aligning well with the increasing importance of multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary team science. The SCORE's Career Enhancement Core (CEC) has modeled team science as applied to SABV research, with educational and training opportunities, a mentoring program, seed grant funding, and other career development experiences that enable mentees to work across the disciplines involved in brain body research. The CEC goals are: (1) To provide seed grant funds for innovative research relevant to the overall SCORE mission and research program; (2) to recruit and foster the career development of students, trainees, and junior investigators who conduct research focused on sex differences or women's health in IBS and chronic constipation and other brain-gut disorders; (3) to facilitate and promote collaboration between the UCLA SCORE and other academic programs involved in women's health education and research; and (4) to promote the importance of SABV through community outreach using collaborative and innovative approaches. These goals focus on establishing the leading research center in sex differences in basic, translational, and clinical aspects of brain-body interactions and on providing women and underrepresented individuals with research opportunities needed to become independent investigators.

Mentorship Landscape and Common Practices in an Academic Pharmacy Association

OBJECTIVES

To explore the landscape of mentorship within professional associations in pharmacy academia, including reviewing available literature and describing currently available programs within the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy, and recommend key considerations for the development of mentorship programs within professional associations.

FINDINGS

A literature review of mentorship programs within professional associations for pharmacy academics was conducted, with a total of 5 articles identified and summarized. Additionally, a survey was conducted to determine the landscape of available mentorship programs within American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy affinity groups to capture unpublished experiences. Information regarding common characteristics and assessment methods was collected for groups that have mentorship programs, while needs and barriers were collected for those who did not.

SUMMARY

Literature, while limited, supports positive perceptions of mentorship programs within professional associations. Based on the responses and working group experience, several recommendations are proposed for mentorship program development, including the need for clearly defined goals, relevant program outcomes, association support to reduce redundancies and promote participation, and, in some cases, implementation of an association-wide program to ensure access to mentorship.

Evaluating the success of American Society of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery research grants

BACKGROUND

Since 2004 the American Society of Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery (ASMBS) Foundation has funded competitive proposals by ASMBS members that are administered through the ASMBS Research Committee. These grants are intended to further the knowledge in the field of metabolic and bariatric surgery and support the scholarly growth of its members.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this project was to evaluate the factors associated with grant completion success and barriers encountered by investigators.

SETTING

ASMBS.

METHODS

Members of the ASMBS Research Committee retrospectively reviewed all awarded research grants since 2004. Information captured included research topic, status of awarded grants, and related publications. Further, a web-based survey of grant recipients was administered exploring the perceived factors of successful completion and barriers encountered.

RESULTS

Since 2004, ASMBS members have been awarded 28 research grants funded by the ASMBS Foundation totaling $1,033,000. Fifty-seven percent of awardees responded to the survey. Seventeen projects had been completed at the time of the survey leading to 13 publications, while 11 remain in progress. Seventy percent of non-completed grant recipients indicated that a publication was forthcoming in the next 12 months. Overall, 64% received additional funding. Factors reported to influence successful completion of grants included the effectiveness of the research team, principal investigator (PI) perseverance, PI protected time, institutional support and available resources, and mentorship. Over the last decade, the average time from the award to publication was 2 years.

CONCLUSIONS

The research grants awarded by the AMSBS are successful at producing peer reviewed publications at a high rate and often lead to further funding suggesting that they boost the career of their recipients. The identified factors of success can help guide future applicants and the ASMBS Research Committee during its grant selection process.

A Scoping Review of Health Care Faculty Mentorship Programs in Academia: Implications for Program Design, Implementation, and Outcome Evaluation

INTRODUCTION

Formal mentoring programs have direct benefits for academic health care institutions, but it is unclear whether program designs use recommended components and whether outcomes are being captured and evaluated appropriately. The goal of this scoping review is to address these questions.

METHODS

We completed a literature review using a comprehensive search in SCOPUS and PubMed (1998-2019), a direct solicitation for unpublished programs, and hand-searched key references, while targeting mentor programs in the United States, Puerto Rico, and Canada. After three rounds of screening, team members independently reviewed and extracted assigned articles for 40 design data items into a comprehensive database.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight distinct mentoring programs were represented in the data set. The team members clarified specific mentor roles to assist the analysis. The analysis identified mentoring program characteristics that were properly implemented, including identifying program goals, specifying the target learners, and performing a needs assessment. The analysis also identified areas for improvement, including consistent use of models/frameworks for program design, implementation of mentor preparation, consistent reporting of objective outcomes and career satisfaction outcomes, engagement of program evaluation methods, increasing frequency of reports as programs as they mature, addressing the needs of specific faculty groups (eg, women and minority faculty), and providing analyses of program cost-effectiveness in relation to resource allocation (return on investment).

CONCLUSION

The review found that several mentor program design, implementation, outcome, and evaluation components are poorly aligned with recommendations, and content for URM and women faculty members is underrepresented. The review should provide academic leadership information to improve these discrepancies.

For us by us: Instituting mentorship models that credit minoritized medical faculty expertise and lived experience

The woefully low proportion of scientists and clinicians underrepresented in medicine (UIM), including members of African-American/Black, Hispanic/Latinx, American Indian/Alaska Native or Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander communities, is well characterized and documented. Diversity in medicine is not only just, but it improves quality and outcomes. Yet, diversity in academic medicine remains stagnant, despite national recognition and urgent calls to improve diversity, equity, and inclusion across health sciences. One strategy that has shown to improve diversity in many sectors is high quality mentoring. While many institutions have adopted mentoring programs, there remains a lack of mentorship that is equitable, individualized, and sets a clear timeline for academic milestones that will position UIM mentees at the optimal trajectory for promotion and retention. A barrier to assembling these programs is the small number of UIM among the senior faculty ranks who are able to serve in this role, given the disproportionate burden to serve on a multitude of academic committees, task forces, and workgroups to fulfill institutional mandates to diversify representation. These time-consuming services, documented in the literature as the "minority tax," are generally uncompensated and unaccounted for in terms of consideration for promotion, leadership positions, and other measures of career advancement. The Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Academic Mentors (JAM) Council represents a novel, culturally responsive, and anti-racist approach to achieve a more equitable and inclusive institutional environment. This approach strategically leverages the intergenerational wisdom and experience of senior UIM faculty via time-protected effort with the overall goals of improving rates of promotion, retention, and career satisfaction of early career UIM colleagues. This community case study describes the rationale, resources needed, processes, and proposed workflow required to launch the JAM Council, as well as the major roles and responsibilities for JAM mentors and mentees, which may be considered by academic medical centers focused on improving diversity among the faculty ranks.

Mentoring strategies to support diversity in research-focused junior faculty: A scoping review

Objective

The purpose of this scoping review is two-fold: to assess the literature that quantitatively measures outcomes of mentorship programs designed to support research-focused junior faculty and to identify mentoring strategies that promote diversity within academic medicine mentoring programs.

Methods

Studies were identified by searching Medline using MESH terms for mentoring and academic medicine. Eligibility criteria included studies focused on junior faculty in research-focused positions, receiving mentorship, in an academic medical center in the USA, with outcomes collected to measure career success (career trajectory, career satisfaction, quality of life, research productivity, leadership positions). Data were abstracted using a standardized data collection form, and best practices were summarized.

Results

Search terms resulted in 1,842 articles for title and abstract review, with 27 manuscripts meeting inclusion criteria. Two studies focused specifically on women, and four studies focused on junior faculty from racial/ethnic backgrounds underrepresented in medicine. From the initial search, few studies were designed to specifically increase diversity or capture outcomes relevant to promotion within academic medicine. Of those which did, most studies captured the impact on research productivity and career satisfaction. Traditional one-on-one mentorship, structured peer mentorship facilitated by a senior mentor, and peer mentorship in combination with one-on-one mentorship were found to be effective strategies to facilitate research productivity.

Conclusion

Efforts are needed at the mentee, mentor, and institutional level to provide mentorship to diverse junior faculty on research competencies and career trajectory, create a sense of belonging, and connect junior faculty with institutional resources to support career success.

Impact of the Oklahoma IDeA Network of Biomedical Research Excellence research support and mentoring program for early-stage faculty

The Oklahoma IDeA Network of Biomedical Research Excellence (OK-INBRE) provides a formalized mentoring program and grant awards to new and early-stage faculty throughout Oklahoma. The OK-INBRE Research Project Investigator (RPI) award program has supported 30 faculty from both research-intensive universities and primarily undergraduate institutions (PUIs) over the past 15 yr. To examine the impact of this program, we assessed the career trajectory of OK-INBRE RPI awardees and compared their productivity with a control group of applicants who applied for but did not receive an RPI award. A mixed-methods approach was employed to assess longitudinal programmatic impact. Regression analyses were conducted to estimate the effect of an RPI award on faculty productivity, controlling for institutional affiliation. Key informant interviews were conducted to capture qualitative information about satisfaction and additional outcomes. OK-INBRE RPI awardees had a higher number in total and mean number of publications. In achieving extramural funding, RPI awardees were 12.5 times (P = 0.005) as likely to receive a grant award of any type and 4.5 times (P = 0.06) as likely to receive a subsequent federal grant as those in the control group. Many RPI awardees attributed their career success to OK-INBRE, but they also helped to identify barriers to advancement or productivity associated with their specific home institutions. The combined data indicate that OK-INBRE plays a significant role in launching new and early-stage investigators on a path toward independent research careers, which will in turn have a positive impact on the future of the biomedical research enterprise in Oklahoma.NEW & NOTEWORTHY The Oklahoma IDeA Network of Biomedical Research Excellence (OK-INBRE) has been offering a formalized mentoring program and grant awards to new and early-stage faculty throughout Oklahoma for the past 15 yr. The program has been shown to play a significant role in launching participants on a path toward productive research careers, which will in turn be impactful on the biomedical research enterprise in Oklahoma.

Mentors matter: Association of mentors with project success in the Apache Software Foundation Incubator

Mentoring has been a subject of study for 50 years. Most studies of mentoring programs evaluate the effect of the program on the participants but do not evaluate if different mentors have different effects on mentees. Open-source software (OSS) is software with a license that allows it to be freely used by other people. Such software has become foundational to the world economy. However, many OSS projects get abandoned by their creators. Various nonprofit organizations have arisen to help OSS projects become sustainable. One of the key services offered by many of these nonprofit organizations is a mentorship program where experienced OSS developers advise nascent projects on how to achieve sustainability. We use data from the Apache Software Foundation Incubator program where 303 mentors have mentored 286 projects, with most mentoring more than one project, to address this question: Is who a project has as a mentor associated with variation in project success? Who a project has as a mentor accounts for 45% of the variation in project outcomes, with some mentors being associated with positive and some with negative outcomes. These mentors could offer insights into how to improve the mentoring program. This result also demonstrates, more broadly, that the nature of specific mentoring relationships may be important to understanding how mentors impact outcomes in other mentoring programs.

Increasing Pediatricians' Scholarly Productivity on and off the Tenure Track

INTRODUCTION

Physician faculty have increasingly been appointed to nontenure track positions, which provide limited support for scholarly activity. We evaluated how a centralized departmental research group affected the scholarly productivity of faculty on and off the tenure track.

METHODS

A research team providing both mentorship and logistical study support was implemented in 2018. We identified a pre-intervention cohort of physician faculty employed in July 2016, and a postintervention cohort, employed in July 2018. A publication search was conducted for these cohorts in the period 2017 to 2018 and 2019 to 2020, respectively.

RESULTS

Seventy-five faculty were included in the analysis, with approximately two-thirds appointed on the clinical (nontenure) track. In the pre-intervention cohort (n = 59), 15 faculty (25%) had at least one publication in the period 2017 to 2018. In the postintervention cohort (n = 59), 33 faculty (56%) published at least one article in the period 2019 to 2020 (P = .001). Multivariable random-effects regression analysis confirmed that postintervention, odds of publishing in a given year increased for both clinical-track and tenure-track faculty.

CONCLUSION

Both clinical and tenure-track faculty contribute to the academic mission at medical schools, yet scholarly activity is supported and rewarded for tenure-track faculty more often than for clinical-track faculty. Our centralized research team successfully fostered scholarly activity among both clinical-track and tenure-track faculty.

Faculty writing accountability groups: A protocol for traditional and virtual settings

Publishing is a measure of faculty performance, yet barriers often include getting started, time management, and difficulty finishing. Manuscript submissions also lack deadlines, which creates additional challenges. Writing accountability groups (WAGs) are associated with increased faculty writing productivity. The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of WAGs, including the process, participants, writing productivity outcomes, benefits, challenges, and unintended consequences. To maintain our writing progress during the COVID-19 pandemic, we moved our WAG sessions to a virtual platform. Our WAG protocol (both face-to-face and virtual) is shared to help other faculty members or doctoral students implement writing accountability groups. We also advocate for hybrid WAG sessions to promote attendance. In addition to facilitation of scholarly writing and improved writing habits, our WAG created opportunities for scholarly communication and networking with colleagues.

Variations of a group coaching intervention to support early-career biomedical researchers in Grant proposal development: a pragmatic, four-arm, group-randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Funded grant proposals provide biomedical researchers with the resources needed to build their research programs, support trainees, and advance public health. Studies using National Institutes of Health (NIH) data have found that investigators from underrepresented groups in the biomedical workforce are awarded NIH research grants at disproportionately lower rates. Grant writing training initiatives are available, but there is a dearth of rigorous research to determine the effectiveness of such interventions and to discern their essential features.

METHODS

This 2 × 2, unblinded, group-randomized study compares the effectiveness of variations of an NIH-focused, grant writing, group coaching intervention for biomedical postdoctoral fellows and early-career faculty. The key study outcomes are proposal submission rates and funding rates. Participants, drawn from across the United States, are enrolled as dyads with a self-selected scientific advisor in their content area, then placed into coaching groups led by senior NIH-funded investigators who are trained in the intervention's coaching practices. Target enrollment is 72 coaching groups of 4-5 dyads each. Groups are randomized to one of four intervention arms that differ on two factors: [1] duration of coaching support (regular dose = 5 months of group coaching, versus extended dose = regular dose plus an additional 18 months of one-on-one coaching); and [2] mode of engaging scientific advisors with the regular dose group coaching process (unstructured versus structured engagement). Intervention variations were informed by programs previously offered by the NIH National Research Mentoring Network. Participant data are collected via written surveys (baseline and 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after start of the regular dose) and semi-structured interviews (end of regular dose and 24 months). Quantitative analyses will be intention-to-treat, using a 2-sided test of equality of the effects of each factor. An inductive, constant comparison analysis of interview transcripts will be used to identify contextual factors -- associated with individual participants, their engagement with the coaching intervention, and their institutional setting - that influence intervention effectiveness.

DISCUSSION

Results of this study will provide an empirical basis for a readily translatable coaching approach to supporting the essential grant writing activities of faculty, fellows, and other research trainees, including those from underrepresented groups.

The Proposal Preparation Program: A Group Mentoring, Faculty Development Model to Facilitate the Submission and Funding of NIH Grant Applications

This article describes the University of Minnesota Medical School Proposal Preparation Program (P3). P3 is designed to develop grant-writing skills for assistant professors preparing their first K- or R-series application to the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Three 4-month P3 cycles are conducted annually. For each cycle, a cohort of around 10 assistant professor participants and 5 regular faculty mentors meet for ten ~2-hour group sessions. Participants receive iterative oral and written feedback on their proposals in development within a small, interdisciplinary, group mentoring setting providing structure, accountability, guidance, and support. Between sessions, 1 peer and 1 mentor are assigned (on a rotating basis) to critique each participant's developing application. The sessions include a brief mentor-led presentation on a particular grant section followed by discussion of each participant's application conducted by the assigned reviewers. The cycle concludes with a mock NIH review session, in which each participant is matched with a University of Minnesota faculty content expert who critiques their completed application using NIH guidelines. In a survey sent to all past P3 participants as of 2018 (n = 194), 88% of respondents reported having submitted their P3-developed NIH grant, and 35% of these submitters reported funding success. A separate analysis of institutional data for all past P3 participants as of 2016 (n = 165) showed that 73% submitted at least 1 NIH proposal since completing P3 and that 43% of these had acquired NIH funding, for a combined total of $193 million in funding awarded. The estimated rate at which participants obtained funding for their P3-developed grant application (~35%) exceeds the national annual NIH grant funding rates (~20%) by approximately 50%. This article provides the practical information needed for other institutions to implement a P3-like program and presents a cost-benefit analysis showing the advantages of doing so.

Residency Education Reform Program in Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care: An Academic Reform Model

Background

Reform in medical education is a basic process in every academic department, especially in residency programs.

Objectives

This study was designed to assess the indices of education and research as part of the Medical Education Reform program (MERP) in the Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care (DACC), Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences (SBMU) for four years.

Methods

MERP in DACC, SBMU was designed and implemented as a modern academic reform model; different outcome measures in education and research were assessed to demonstrate the effects of the reform plan in academic improvements.

Results

there were significant improvements regarding education indices (i.e., teaching methods, passing comprehensive exams, mentorship, assessment methods, faculty development, professionalism in medical education, integration in education, and crisis management) and research indices (targeted research activities, innovation in research approaches, increasing the impact of research).

Conclusions

Based on the experiences of DACC, SBMU regarding clinical anesthesiology residency, reform could be achieved using painstaking plans and continuous efforts with tangible documented outcomes. Often, the management period is not durable, and these reforms require meticulous care to sustain.

Practical advice for mentoring and supporting faculty colleagues in STEM fields: Views from mentor and mentee perspectives

In 2020, the American Society of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB) Women in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Committee introduced the ASBMB Leadership Awards to recognize individuals with a strong commitment to advancing the careers of women in biochemistry and molecular biology along with demonstrated excellence in research, discovery, and/or service. This innovative award recognizes efforts to mentor and support trainees and colleagues at all levels. Such a leadership award provides the opportunity to focus briefly on the important role of mentoring within the STEM disciplines. The goal of this commentary, which brings together perspectives from a senior scientist and recent recipient of the ASBMB Mid-Career Leadership Award as well as two junior faculty, is to highlight approaches for purposeful support of colleagues, with an emphasis on going beyond formal mentoring committees. The commentary primarily focuses on mentoring within the academic arena of extramural funding and publication, highlighting the reality that multiple mentors with diverse expertise and perspectives are critical to support success within STEM careers.

Career Development Program for Underrepresented in Medicine Scholars in Academic Neurology: TRANSCENDS

BACKGROUND

The Training in Research for Academic Neurologists to Sustain Careers and Enhance the Numbers of Diverse Scholars (TRANSCENDS) program is a career advancement opportunity for individuals underrepresented in biomedical research funded by the National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke and American Academy of Neurology (AAN).

OBJECTIVE

To report on qualitative and quantitative outcomes in TRANSCENDS.

DESIGN

Early career individuals (neurology fellows and junior faculty) from groups underrepresented in medicine (UIM) were competitively selected from a national pool of applicants (2016-2019). TRANSCENDS activities comprised an online Clinical Research degree program, monthly webinars, AAN meeting activities, and mentoring. Participants were surveyed during and after completion of TRANSCENDS to evaluate program components.

OUTCOMES

Of 23 accepted scholars (comprising 4 successive cohorts), 56% were women, 61% Hispanic/Latinx, 30% Black/African American, and 30% assistant professors. To date, 48% have graduated the TRANSCENDS program and participants have published 180 peer-reviewed articles. Mentees' feedback noted that professional skills development (i.e., manuscript and grant writing), networking opportunities, and mentoring were the most beneficial elements of the program. Stated opportunities for improvement included incorporating a mentor-the-mentor workshop, providing more transitional support for mentees in the next stage of their careers, and requiring mentees to provide quarterly reports.

CONCLUSIONS

TRANSCENDS is a feasible program for supporting UIM neurologists towards careers in research and faculty academic appointments attained thus far have been sustained. Although longer-term outcomes and process enhancements are warranted, programs like this may help increase the numbers of diverse academic neurologists and further drive neurologic innovation.

Mentoring as an intervention to promote gender equality in academic medicine: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Mentoring is frequently suggested as an intervention to address gender inequalities in the workplace.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review evidence published since a definitive review in 2006 on the effectiveness of mentoring interventions aimed at achieving gender equality in academic medicine.

DESIGN

Systematic Review, using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication as a template for data extraction and synthesis.

SAMPLE

Studies were included if they described a specific mentoring intervention in a medical school or analogous academic healthcare organisation and included results from an evaluation of the intervention.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Mentoring was defined as (1) a formally organised intervention entailing a supportive relationship between a mentor, defined as a more senior/experienced person and a mentee defined as a more junior/inexperienced person; (2) mentoring intervention involved academic career support (3) the mentoring relationship was outside line management or supervision of performance and was defined by contact over an extended period of time.

OUTCOMES

The impact of mentoring was usually reported at the level of individual participants, for example, satisfaction and well-being or self-reported career progression. We sought evidence of impact on gender equality via reports of organisation-level effectiveness, of promotion or retention, pay and academic performance of female staff.

RESULTS

We identified 32 publications: 8 review articles, 20 primary observational studies and 4 randomised controlled trials. A further 19 discussed mentoring in relation to gender but did not meet our eligibility criteria. The terminology used, and the structures and processes reported as constituting mentoring, varied greatly. We identified that mentoring is popular with many who receive it; however, we found no robust evidence of effectiveness in reducing gender inequalities. Primary research used weak evaluation designs.

CONCLUSIONS

Mentoring is a complex intervention. Future evaluations should adopt standardised approaches used in applied health research to the design and evaluation of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

Grant application outcomes for biomedical researchers who participated in the National Research Mentoring Network's Grant Writing Coaching Programs

Background

A diverse research workforce is essential for catalyzing biomedical advancements, but this workforce goal is hindered by persistent sex and racial/ethnic disparities among investigators receiving research grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). In response, the NIH-funded National Research Mentoring Network implemented a Grant Writing Coaching Program (GCP) to provide diverse cohorts of early-career investigators across the United States with intensive coaching throughout the proposal development process. We evaluated the GCP’s national reach and short-term impact on participants’ proposal submissions and funding outcomes.

Methods

The GCP was delivered as six similar but distinct models. All models began with an in-person group session, followed by a series of coaching sessions over 4 to 12 months. Participants were surveyed at 6-, 12- and 18-months after program completion to assess proposal outcomes (submissions, awards). Self-reported data were verified and supplemented by searches of public repositories of awarded grants when available. Submission and award rates were derived from counts of participants who submitted or were awarded at least one grant proposal in a category (NIH, other federal, non-federal).

Results

From June 2015 through March 2019, 545 investigators (67% female, 61% under-represented racial/ethnic minority, URM) from 187 different institutions participated in the GCP. Among them, 324 (59% of participants) submitted at least one grant application and 134 (41% of submitters) received funding. A total of 164 grants were awarded, the majority being from the NIH (93, 56%). Of the 74 R01 (or similar) NIH research proposals submitted by GCP participants, 16 have been funded thus far (56% to URM, 75% to women). This 22% award rate exceeded the 2016–2018 NIH success rates for new R01s.

Conclusion

Inter- and intra-institutional grant writing coaching groups are a feasible and effective approach to supporting the grant acquisition efforts of early-career biomedical investigators, including women and those from URM groups.

Championing women working in health across regional and rural Australia - a new dual-mentorship model

BACKGROUND

Mentoring is a critical component of career development and job satisfaction leading to a healthier workforce and more productive outputs. However, there are limited data on mentorship models in regional areas and in particular for women aspiring to leadership positions. Mentorship programs that leverage off experienced mentors from diverse disciplines have the potential to foster the transfer of knowledge and to positively influence job satisfaction and build capacity within the context of workforce shortage.

METHODS

This study describes a dual-mentorship model of professional development for women working in health in regional and rural Australia. We present the framework and describe the evaluation findings from a 12-month pilot program.

RESULTS

Both academic and corporate mentors provided diverse perspectives to the mentees during the 12-month period. On average, corporate mentors met with mentees more often, and focused these discussions on strategy and leadership skills whilst academic mentors provided more technical advice regarding academic growth. Mentees reported an improvement in workplace interconnectedness and confidence at the completion of the program.

CONCLUSION

We developed a framework for establishing a professional mentorship program that matches women working in regional health with mentors from diverse sectors including business, government, philanthropy and health, to provide a holistic approach to improving career satisfaction, institutional productivity and supporting a diverse workforce in regional or resource-poor settings.

Academic Gender Disparity in Orthopedic Surgery in Canadian Universities

Introduction

Academic medicine is notorious for being "male-dominated." We hypothesized that there were significant and quantifiable levels of gender disparity in academic orthopedic surgery, and this article attempts to quantify the extent of the existing disparity. Also, we examined the research productivity of academic faculty in orthopedic surgery and its correlation with academic ranks and leadership positions.

Methods

Our study design was cross-sectional in nature. We searched the Canadian Resident Matching Service (CaRMS) to compile a list of medical schools that offer orthopedic surgery training for residency. A total of 713 academic orthopedic surgeons met our inclusion criteria. Of the 713 orthopedic surgeons, 518 had an H-index score available on Elsevier’s Scopus (Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands). The gender, academic rank, leadership position, and H-index were compared. Data analysis was done with Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS; IBM, Armonk, NY). The binomial negative regression was used to compare the average H-index between men and women at each rank.

Results

Our study results reveal that academic orthopedic surgery in Canada is male-dominated, with men holding 87% of the academic positions. Female academic orthopedic surgeons held lower academic ranks, such as assistant professor or lecturer. Women orthopedic surgeons had lower H-index scores compared to their counterparts in ranks above the assistant professor. Our findings imply that research productivity and the ratio of average H-index scores comparing men to women (HM/HF) grow larger with each academic rank. At a 90% confidence level, women were less likely to hold leadership positions than men at an odds ratio (OR) of 0.52 [90% confidence interval (CI): 0.29-0.925, p: 0.03]. There were no significant differences in H-index between men and women for departmental leadership positions.

Conclusion

Women were underrepresented in number, rank, and academic productivity (H-index). We offer possible factors that may have contributed to this finding as well as potential solutions.

Federal Funding in Emergency Medicine: Demographics and Perspectives of Awardees

INTRODUCTION

Emergency physicians face multiple challenges to obtaining federal funding. The objective of this investigation was to describe the demographics of federally-funded emergency physicians and identify key challenges in obtaining funding.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective database search of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool (NIH RePORTER) to collect data regarding the distribution and characteristics of federally-funded grants awarded to emergency medicine (EM) principal investigators between 2010-2017. An electronic survey was then administered to the identified investigators to obtain additional demographic data, and information regarding their career paths, research environment, and perceived barriers to obtaining federal funding.

RESULTS

We identified 219, corresponding to 51 unique, mentored career development awardees and 105 independent investigators. Sixty-two percent of investigators responded to the electronic survey. Awardees were predominantly White males, although a larger portion of the mentored awardee group was female. Greater than half of respondents reported their mentor to be outside of the field of EM. The most common awarding institution was the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute. Respondents identified barriers in finding adequate mentorship, time to gather preliminary data, and the quality of administrative support.

CONCLUSION

The last five years have showed a trend toward increasing grants awarded to EM investigators; however, we identified several barriers to funding. Initiatives geared toward support and mentorship of junior faculty, particularly to females, minorities, and those in less heavily funded areas of the country are warranted.

Characteristics of Faculty at Risk of Leaving Their Medical Schools: An Analysis of the StandPoint™ Faculty Engagement Survey

Purpose

This study seeks to identify the characteristics and attitudes of faculty in US medical colleges who are at risk of leaving their institution.

Methods

This research leverages data from the AAMC StandPoint Faculty Engagement Survey administered to 37,779 faculty representing 36 institutions participating during 2013–2016. Univariate and multivariable robust logistic regression models were used to assess predictors of the intent to leave based on the question: “Do you plan to leave this medical school in the next 1–2 years?”.

Results

Thirty percent (n=5559/18,475) of faculty responded that they were considering leaving their institution. Thirty-one percent of female faculty vs 29% of male faculty expressed an intent to leave. At-risk faculty were likely to be at junior faculty rank and at their institutions for 6–15 years vs other time periods (OR=1.16; p≤0.001). Having an administrative title (OR=0.72; p≤0.001) and receiving formal mentorship (OR=0.65; p≤0.001) were protective. Finally, faculty answering “disagree” or “strongly disagree” to any one of these StandPoint Survey questions were at > 6 fold risk of expressing an intent to leave: 1) I am satisfied with my opportunities for professional development, 2) I feel appreciated by my supervisor, 3) My day-to-day activities give me a sense of accomplishment.

Conclusion

Faculty expressing an intent to leave their institution have an identifiable profile. Top concerns of at-risk faculty relate to supervisory relationships and growth opportunities rather than compensation or governance. Institutional leaders should consider these factors in the development of a proactive strategy to retain talented faculty.

How Culture Is Understood in Faculty Development in the Health Professions: A Scoping Review

PURPOSE

To examine the ways in which culture is conceptualized in faculty development (FD) in the health professions.

METHOD

The authors searched PubMed, Web of Science, ERIC, and CINAHL, as well as the reference lists of identified publications, for articles on culture and FD published between 2006 and 2018. Based on inclusion criteria developed iteratively, they screened all articles. A total of 955 articles were identified, 100 were included in the full-text screen, and 70 met the inclusion criteria. Descriptive and thematic analyses of data extracted from the included articles were conducted.

RESULTS

The articles emanated from 20 countries; primarily focused on teaching and learning, cultural competence, and career development; and frequently included multidisciplinary groups of health professionals. Only 1 article evaluated the cultural relevance of an FD program. The thematic analysis yielded 3 main themes: culture was frequently mentioned but not explicated; culture centered on issues of diversity, aiming to promote institutional change; and cultural consideration was not routinely described in international FD.

CONCLUSIONS

Culture was frequently mentioned but rarely defined in the FD literature. In programs focused on cultural competence and career development, addressing culture was understood as a way of accounting for racial and socioeconomic disparities. In international FD programs, accommodations for cultural differences were infrequently described, despite authors acknowledging the importance of national norms, values, beliefs, and practices. In a time of increasing international collaboration, an awareness of, and sensitivity to, cultural contexts is needed.

Enhancing Mentoring in Palliative Care: An Evidence Based Mentoring Framework

BACKGROUND

Growing concerns over ethical issues in mentoring in medicine and surgery have hindered efforts to reinitiate mentoring for Palliative Care (PC) physicians following the easing of COVID-19 restrictions. Ranging from the misappropriation of mentee's work to bullying, ethical issues in mentoring are attributed to poor understanding and structuring of mentoring programs, underlining the need for a consistent approach to mentoring practices.

METHODS

Given diverse practices across different settings and the employ of various methodologies, a novel approach to narrative reviews (NR)s is proposed to summarize, interpret, and critique prevailing data on novice mentoring. To overcome prevailing concerns surrounding the reproducibility and transparency of narrative reviews, the Systematic Evidenced Based Approach (SEBA) adopts a structured approach to searching and summarizing the included articles and employed concurrent content and thematic analysis that was overseen by a team of experts.

RESULTS

A total of 18 915 abstracts were reviewed, 62 full text articles evaluated and 41 articles included. Ten themes/categories were ascertained identified including Nature; Stakeholders; Relationship; Approach; Environment; Benefits; Barriers; Assessments; Theories and Definitions.

CONCLUSION

By compiling and scrutinizing prevailing practice it is possible to appreciate the notion of the mentoring ecosystem which sees each mentee, mentor, and host organization brings with them their own microenvironment that contains their respective goals, abilities, and contextual considerations. Built around competency based mentoring stages, it is possible to advance a flexible yet consistent novice mentoring framework.

The Pivotal Role of Host Organizations in Enhancing Mentoring in Internal Medicine: A Scoping Review

In undergraduate and postgraduate medical education, mentoring offers personalized training and plays a key role in continuing medical education and the professional development of healthcare professionals. However, poor structuring of the mentoring process has been attributed to failings of the host organization and, as such, we have conducted a scoping review on the role of the host organization in mentoring programs. Guided by Levac et al's methodological framework and a combination of thematic and content analysis, this scoping review identifies their "defining" and secondary roles. Whilst the "defining" role of the host is to set standards, nurture, and oversee the mentoring processes and relationships, the secondary roles comprise of supporting patient care and specific responsibilities toward the mentee, mentor, program, and organization itself. Critically, striking a balance between structure and flexibility within the program is important to ensure consistency in the mentoring approach whilst accounting for the changing needs and goals of the mentees and mentors.

Mentorship in academic radiology: why it matters

Mentorship plays a critical role in the success of academic radiologists. Faculty members with mentors have better career opportunities, publish more papers, receive more research grants, and have greater overall career satisfaction. However, with the increasing focus on clinical productivity, pressure on turn-around times, and the difficult funding climate, effective mentoring in academic radiology can be challenging. The high prevalence of “burnout” among radiologists makes mentorship even more important. This article reviews benefits and challenges of mentorship in academic radiology, discusses how to institute a faculty mentoring program, examines different types of mentoring, and reviews challenges related to diversity and inclusion.

Developing a Research Mentorship Program: The American Society of Pediatric Nephrology's Experience

Background: Most pediatric nephrologists work in academia. Mentor-mentee relationships provide support and guidance for successful research career. Mentorship program implementation is valuable in medical fields for providing research opportunities to young faculty. Methods: The American Society of Pediatric Nephrology (ASPN) established a research mentorship program to (a) assist with matching of appropriate mentor-mentee dyads and (b) establish metrics for desirable mentor-mentee outcomes with two independent components: (1) the grants review workshop, a short-term program providing mentor feedback on grant proposals, and (2) the longitudinal program, establishing long-term mentor-mentee relationships. Regular surveys of both mentors and mentees were reviewed to evaluate and refine the program. Results: Twelve mentees and 17 mentors participated in the grant review workshop and 19 mentees were matched to mentors in the longitudinal program. A review of NIH RePORTER data indicated that since 2014, 13 NIH grants have been awarded. Mentees in the longitudinal program reported that the program helped most with identifying an outside mentor, improving grant research content, and with general career development. Mentors perceived themselves to be most helpful in assisting with overall career plans. Email communications were preferred over phone or face-to-face communications. Mentees endorsed strong interest in staying in touch with their mentors and 100% of mentors expressed their willingness to serve in the future. Conclusion: This mentorship program was initiated and supported by a relatively small medical society and has shown early success in cultivating mentoring relationships for a future generation of clinician-scientists.

Onramp to Scholarship: Putting Clinical Faculty Members on the Path to Academic Productivity

Many faculty members in the health professions who come from a clinical background lack the research experience to produce original scholarship. Most faculty development programs focus on supporting individual projects, which helps faculty members who are already pursuing an intellectual question to locate useful resources. Those programs provide limited benefit, however, to faculty members without an identified academic project. An independent, health sciences graduate school designed and implemented a solution to create scholarship groups in which early career faculty members joined ongoing projects led by an experienced investigator. Groups presented internally at a midyear check-in and an end of the academic year poster session. Of the four groups launched in September 2017, three pursued systematic reviews or analyses of existing data. At the end of 9 months, all 4 groups had drafted a manuscript for peer review. Collectively, members of the group had made five poster presentations at national or international conferences and hosted one continuing education workshop. The experience suggests that collaborative projects are a viable form of faculty development to enhance scholarly productivity. Borrowing from the postdoctoral model of scientific mentoring, early career faculty members sacrifice some autonomy of intellectual pursuits in exchange for expert guidance. Senior investigators invest time in coaching novice researchers in exchange for additional intellectual labor and perspectives.