Retention, mobility, and successful transition to independence of health sciences postdocs

INTRODUCTION

Obtaining a tenure track faculty position (TTFP) after postdoctoral appointment (PDA) completion is considered an indicator of successful transition to independence (TTI). Whether cross-institutional mobility (CIM)-moving to a different institution from that of the PDA-contributes to TTI is unclear, as data evaluating retention and mobility is lacking. We tested the hypothesis that, for postdocs (PDs) at R1 institutions, CIM is a significant predictor of successful TTI defined as TTFP-status 3 years post-PDA.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using University of Pittsburgh data for health sciences PDs we tested the association of CIM at PDA completion (moved to a different institution (CIM = 1) or retained at Pitt (CIM = 0)) with TTFP-status 3 years post-PDA (TTFP, non-TTFP, or left faculty position) using multinomial logistic regression models.

RESULTS

Among all 622 Pitt PDs, 3-year retention in a faculty position at Pitt was 21%, while 14% had a faculty position outside of Pitt. Among the analytic sample of PDs with an academic career outcome during the study period (N = 238; 50% women, 8% underrepresented minorities (URM)), at baseline PDA completion 39% moved to a different institution (CIM = 1), and 61% remained at Pitt (CIM = 0) in any job type. Those with CIM = 1 had greater odds of having a TTFP at follow-up than those with CIM = 0 [adjusted OR (95% CI): 4.4 (2.1, 9.2)].

DISCUSSION

One fifth of Pitt PDs were retained by Pitt as faculty. While Pitt PDs were equally likely to get a faculty position whether they were retained at Pitt or left, those who left had greater odds of obtaining a TTFP. Future work with longer follow-up times, expanded markers of TTI, and samples from other R1 institutions is needed to better understand the reason for these results. This knowledge can lead to better support for the next generation of PDs as they successfully transition to faculty.

Evaluation of two longitudinal faculty leadership training programs: behavioral change and institutional impact

Purpose

Building leadership skills among faculty in academic medicine is essential, yet professional development programs focused on leadership are not always attentive to the needs of faculty on diverse career pathways or at differing career stages—nor are they often rigorously assessed. Evaluations commonly focus on participant satisfaction and short-term learning but not behavior change and institutional impact, which are difficult to assess but arguably more meaningful. Given the substantial time and money invested in these programs, more rigorous evaluation is critical.

Design/methodology/approach

The authors evaluated an intensive, shared leadership-focused training program for early-career and mid-career faculty, offered by the University of Pittsburgh’s School of Medicine over the course of a year. They administered a pre/post-program assessment of confidence in key skill areas, and conducted semi-structured interviews with 21 participants between 1–4 years after program completion.

Findings

Participants in both programs showed statistically significant improvement (p < 0.001) on every item measured in the pre/post-test. Analysis of the interviews revealed indications of substantial behavior change as well as institutional impact. The evaluation also suggested particular benefits for female professionals.

Originality/value

The authors conducted a long-term assessment of leadership training focused on career pathway and career stage and found that it (a) prompted both positive behavioral change and institutional impact and (b) suggested benefits for female faculty in particular, which could potentially help to eliminate gender-based disparities in leadership in academic medical centers.

Advancing institutional efforts to support research mentorship: a conceptual framework and self-assessment tool

The purpose of this article is to assist institutions in advancing their efforts to support research mentorship. The authors begin by describing how institutions can shape the key domains of research mentorship: (1) the criteria for selecting mentors, (2) incentives for motivating faculty to serve effectively as mentors, (3) factors that facilitate the mentor-mentee relationship, (4) factors that strengthen a mentee's ability to conduct research responsibly, and (5) factors that contribute to the professional development of both mentees and mentors. On the basis of a conceptual analysis of these domains as currently documented in the literature, as well as their collective experience examining mentoring programs at a range of academic medicine institutions and departments, the authors provide a framework that leaders of institutions and/or departments can adapt for use as a tool to document and monitor policies for guiding the mentorship process, the programs/activities through which these policies are implemented, and the structures that are responsible for maintaining policies and implementing programs. The authors provide an example of how one hypothetical institution might use the self-assessment tool to track its policies, programs, and structures across the key domains of research mentorship and, on the basis of this information, identify a range of potential actions to strengthen its research mentoring efforts. The authors conclude with a brief discussion of the limitations of the self-assessment tool, the potential drawbacks and benefits of the overall approach, and proposed next steps for research in this area.