Multiple-role mentoring: mentors' conceptualisations, enactments and role conflicts.
ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Outcome-based approaches to education and the inherent emphasis on programmatic assessment in particular, require models of mentoring in which mentors fulfil dual roles: coach and assessor. Fulfilling multiple roles could result in role confusion or even role conflicts, both of which may affect mentoring processes and outcomes. In this study, we explored how mentors conceptualise and enact their role in a multiple-role mentoring system and to what extent they experience role conflicts. METHODS:We conducted a constructivist grounded theory study at one undergraduate medical school. A purposive sample of 12 physician-mentors active in a programmatic assessment system was interviewed. Data analysis followed stages of open, axial and selective coding through which themes were constructed. RESULTS:Three predominant mentoring approaches were constructed: (i) empowering (a reflective and holistic approach to student development); (ii) checking (an observant approach to check whether formal requirements are met), and (iii) directing (an authoritative approach to guide students' professional development). Each approach encompassed a corresponding type of mentor-mentee relationship: (i) partnership; (ii) instrumental, and (iii) faculty-centred. Furthermore, mentors' strategies, focus, agency provided to students and perception of the assessment system characterised mentoring approaches and relationships. Role conflicts were mainly experienced by mentors with a directing mentoring approach. They used various coping mechanisms, including deviation from assessment guidelines. CONCLUSIONS:In multiple-role mentoring in the context of programmatic assessment, mentors adopted certain predominant mentoring approaches, which were characterised by different strategies for mentoring and resulted in different mentor-mentee relationships. Multiple-role mentoring does not necessarily result in role conflict. Mentors who do experience role conflict seem to favour the directing approach, which is most at odds with key principles of competency-based education and programmatic assessment. These findings build upon existing mentoring literature and offer practical suggestions for faculty development regarding approaches to mentoring in programmatic assessment systems.
Project description:INTRODUCTION:An acute shortage of senior mentors saw the Palliative Medicine Initiative (PMI) combine its novice mentoring program with electronic and peer mentoring to overcome insufficient mentoring support of medical students and junior doctors by senior clinicians. A three-phased evaluation was carried out to evaluate mentees' experiences within the new CNEP mentoring program. METHODS:Phase 1 saw use of a Delphi process to create a content-valid questionnaire from data drawn from 9 systematic reviews of key aspects of novice mentoring. In Phase 2 Cognitive Interviews were used to evaluate the tool. The tool was then piloted amongst mentees in the CNEP program. Phase 3 compared mentee's experiences in the CNEP program with those from the PMI's novice mentoring program. RESULTS:Thematic analysis of open-ended responses revealed three themes-the CNEP mentoring process, its benefits and challenges that expound on the descriptive statistical analysis of specific close-ended and Likert scale responses of the survey. The results show mentee experiences in the PMI's novice mentoring program and the CNEP program to be similar and that the addition of near peer and e-mentoring processes enhance communications and support of mentees. CONCLUSION:CNEP mentoring is an evolved form of novice mentoring built on a consistent mentoring approach supported by an effective host organization. The host organization marshals assessment, support and oversight of the program and allows flexibility within the approach to meet the particular needs of mentees, mentors and senior mentors. Whilst near-peer mentors and e-mentoring can make up for the lack of senior mentor availability, their effectiveness hinges upon a common mentoring approach. To better support the CNEP program deeper understanding of the mentoring dynamics, policing and mentor and mentee training processes are required. The CNEP mentoring tool too needs to be validated.
Project description:Background:Mentoring is crucial to the growth and development of mentors, mentees, and host organisations. Yet, the process of mentoring in surgery is poorly understood and increasingly mired in ethical concerns that compromise the quality of mentorship and prevent mentors, mentees, and host organisations from maximising its full potential. A systematic scoping review was undertaken to map the ethical issues in surgical mentoring to enhance understanding, assessment, and guidance on ethical conduct. Methods:Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework was used to guide a systematic scoping review involving articles published between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2018 in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, ERIC, ScienceDirect, Mednar, and OpenGrey databases. Braun and Clarke's thematic analysis approach was adopted to compare ethical issues in surgical mentoring across different settings, mentee and mentor populations, and host organisations. Results:A total of 3849 abstracts were identified, 464 full-text articles were retrieved, and 50 articles were included. The 3 themes concerned ethical lapses at the levels of mentor or mentee, mentoring relationships, and host organisation. Conclusions:Mentoring abuse in surgery involves lapses in conduct, understanding of roles and responsibilities, poor alignment of expectations, and a lack of clear standards of practice. It is only with better structuring of mentoring processes and effective support of host organisation tasked with providing timely, longitudinal, and holistic assessment and oversight will surgical mentoring overcome prevailing ethical concerns surrounding it.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Identification and development of young investigators (YI) is critical to the long-term success of research organizations. In 2004, the Children's Oncology Group (COG) created a mentorship program to foster the career development of YIs (faculty <10 years from initial appointment). This study sought to assess mentors' long-term assessment of this program. PROCEDURE:In 2018, 101 past or current mentors in the COG YI mentorship program completed an online survey. Statistical comparisons were made with the Kruskal-Walis test. RESULTS:The response rate was 74.2%. As some mentors had multiple mentees, we report on 138 total mentee-mentor pairs. Mentors were 57.4% male, and mentees were 39.1% male. Mentors rated being mentored as a YI as important with a median rating of 90 on a scale of 1-100, interquartile range (IQR) 80-100. Most mentors reported that being mentored themselves helped their own success within COG (78.2%) and with their overall career development (92.1%). Most mentors enjoyed serving in the program (72.3%) and the median success rating (on a scale of 1-100) across the mentor-mentee pairings was 75, IQR 39-90. Success ratings did not differ by mentor/mentee gender, but improved with increased frequency of mentor-mentee interactions (P < .001). Mentor-mentee pairs who set initial goals reported higher success ratings than those who did not (P < .001). Tangible successes included current mentee COG committee involvement (45.7%), ongoing mentor-mentee collaboration (53.6%), and co-authored manuscript publication (38.4%). CONCLUSION:These data indicate that mentorship is important for successful professional development. Long-term mentoring success improves when mentors and mentees set goals upfront and meet frequently.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Mentoring provides mentees and mentors with holistic support and research opportunities. Yet, the quality of this support has been called into question amidst suggestions that mentoring is prone to bullying and professional lapses. These concerns jeopardise mentoring's role in medical schools and demand closer scrutiny. METHODS:To better understand prevailing concerns, a novel approach to systematic scoping reviews (SSR) s is proposed to map prevailing ethical issues in mentoring in an accountable and reproducible manner. Ten members of the research team carried out systematic and independent searches of PubMed, Embase, ERIC, ScienceDirect, Scopus, OpenGrey and Mednar databases. The individual researchers employed 'negotiated consensual validation' to determine the final list of articles to be analysed. The reviewers worked in three independent teams. One team summarised the included articles. The other teams employed independent thematic and content analysis respectively. The findings of the three approaches were compared. The themes from non-evidence based and grey literature were also compared with themes from research driven data. RESULTS:Four thousand six titles were reviewed and 51 full text articles were included. Findings from thematic and content analyses were similar and reflected the tabulated summaries. The themes/categories identified were ethical concerns, predisposing factors and possible solutions at the mentor and mentee, mentoring relationship and/or host organisation level. Ethical concerns were found to stem from issues such as power differentials and lack of motivation whilst predisposing factors comprised of the mentor's lack of experience and personality conflicts. Possible solutions include better program oversight and the fostering of an effective mentoring environment. CONCLUSIONS:This structured SSR found that ethical issues in mentoring occur as a result of inconducive mentoring environments. As such, further studies and systematic reviews of mentoring structures, cultures and remediation must follow so as to guide host organisations in their endeavour to improve mentoring in medical schools.
Project description:Research mentors are reticent to address, and sometimes unaware of how, racial or ethnic differences may influence their mentees' research experiences. Increasing research mentors' cultural diversity awareness (CDA) is one step toward improving mentoring effectiveness, particularly with mentees from underrepresented racial/ethnic groups in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields. The indicators of CDA for research mentors are not yet known. Thus, we developed a scale to assess CDA related to race/ethnicity (CDA-R/E) in research mentoring relationships informed by multicultural counseling theory and social cognitive theory. The validation process was guided by classical test theory and item response theory and involved qualitative data, cognitive interviews, and an iterative series of item testing with national samples of mentors and mentees. Confirmatory factor analysis evidenced validity for a three-factor mentor scale assessing attitudes, behavior, and confidence, and a two-factor mentee scale assessing attitudes and behavior. The mentee version captures mentees' perception of the relevance of culturally aware mentoring ("Attitudes") and their perception of the frequency of mentor's culturally aware mentoring behaviors ("Behaviors"). Implications for use of the CDA-R/E scale in practice, such as assessing alignment between mentor and mentee CDA scores, and use in future studies are discussed.
Project description:To determine whether a structured mentoring curriculum improves research mentoring skills.The authors conducted a randomized controlled trial (RCT) at 16 academic health centers (June 2010 to July 2011). Faculty mentors of trainees who were conducting clinical/translational research ?50% of the time were eligible. The intervention was an eight-hour, case-based curriculum focused on six mentoring competencies. The primary outcome was the change in mentors' self-reported pretest to posttest composite scores on the Mentoring Competency Assessment (MCA). Secondary outcomes included changes in the following: mentors' awareness as measured by their self-reported retrospective change in MCA scores, mentees' ratings of their mentors' competency as measured by MCA scores, and mentoring behaviors as reported by mentors and their mentees.A total of 283 mentor-mentee pairs were enrolled: 144 mentors were randomized to the intervention; 139 to the control condition. Self-reported pre-/posttest change in MCA composite scores was higher for mentors in the intervention group compared with controls (P < .001). Retrospective changes in MCA composite scores between the two groups were even greater, and extended to all six subscale scores (P < .001). More intervention-group mentors reported changes in their mentoring practices than control mentors (P < .001). Mentees working with intervention-group mentors reported larger changes in retrospective MCA pre-/posttest scores (P = .003) and more changes in their mentors' behavior (P = .002) than those paired with control mentors.This RCT demonstrates that a competency-based research mentor training program can improve mentors' skills.
Project description:<h4>Objective</h4>To determine perceived barriers and facilitators to effective mentoring for early career rheumatology investigators and to develop a framework for an inter-institutional mentoring program.<h4>Methods</h4>Focus groups or interviews with rheumatology fellows, junior faculty, and mentors were conducted, audiorecorded, and transcribed. Content analysis was performed using NVivo software. Themes were grouped into categories (e.g., mentor-mentee relationship, barriers, and facilitators of a productive relationship). Rheumatology fellows and early career investigators were also surveyed nationwide to identify specific needs to be addressed through an inter-institutional mentoring program.<h4>Results</h4>Twenty-five individuals participated in focus groups or interviews. Attributes of the ideal mentee-mentor relationship included communication, accessibility, regular meetings, shared interests, aligned goals, and mutual respect. The mentee should be proactive, efficient, engaged, committed, focused, accountable, and respectful of the mentor's time. The mentor should support/promote the mentee, shape the mentee's goals and career plan, address day-to-day questions, provide critical feedback, be available, and have team leadership skills. Barriers included difficulty with career path navigation, gaining independence, internal competition, authorship, time demands, funding, and work-life balance. Facilitators of a successful relationship included having a diverse network of mentors filling different roles, mentor-mentee relationship management, and confidence. Among 187 survey respondents, the primary uses of an inter-institutional mentoring program were career development planning and oversight, goal-setting, and networking.<h4>Conclusions</h4>In this mixed-methods study, tangible factors for optimizing the mentor-mentee relationship were identified and will inform the development of an adult rheumatology inter-institutional mentoring program.
Project description:<h4>Objective</h4>To explore the acceptability of peer mentoring for people with a traumatic brain injury (TBI) in New Zealand.<h4>Design</h4>This is a qualitative descriptive study exploring the experiences reported by mentees and mentors taking part in a feasibility study of peer mentoring. Interviews with five mentees and six mentors were carried out. Data were analysed using conventional content analysis.<h4>Setting</h4>The first mentoring session took place predischarge from the rehabilitation unit. The remaining five sessions took place in mentees' homes or community as preferred.<h4>Participants</h4>Twelve people with TBI took part: six mentees (with moderate to severe TBI; aged 18-46) paired with six mentors (moderate to severe TBI >12 months previously; aged 21-59). Pairing occurred before mentee discharge from postacute inpatient brain injury rehabilitation. Mentors had been discharged from rehabilitation following a TBI between 1 and 5 years previously.<h4>Intervention</h4>The peer mentoring programme consisted of up to six face-to-face sessions between a mentee and a mentor over a 6-month period. The sessions focused on building rapport, exploring hopes for and supporting participation after discharge through further meetings and supported community activities.<h4>Results</h4>Data were synthesised into one overarching theme: making sense of recovery. This occurred through the sharing of experiences and stories; was pivotal to the mentoring relationship; and appeared to benefit both mentees and mentors. Mentors were perceived as valued experts because of their personal experience of injury and recovery, and could provide support in ways that were different from that provided by clinicians or family members. Mentors required support to manage the uncertainties inherent in the role.<h4>Conclusions</h4>The insight mentors developed through their own lived experience established them as a trusted and credible source of hope and support for people re-engaging in the community post-TBI. These findings indicate the potential for mentoring to result in positive outcomes.
Project description:BACKGROUND:Mentorship plays an essential role in enhancing the success of junior faculty. Previous evaluation tools focused on specific types of mentors or mentees. The main objective was to develop and provide validity evidence for a Mentor Evaluation Tool (MET) to assess the effectiveness of one-on-one mentoring for faculty in the academic health sciences. METHODS:Evidence was collected for the validity domains of content, internal structure and relationship to other variables. The 13 item MET was tested for internal structure evidence with 185 junior faculty from Schools of Dentistry, Medicine, Nursing, and Pharmacy. Finally, the MET was studied for additional validity evidence by prospectively enrolling mentees of three different groups of faculty (faculty nominated for, or winners of, a lifetime achievement in mentoring award; faculty graduates of a mentor training program; and faculty mentors not in either of the other two groups) at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) and asking them to rate their mentors using the MET. Mentors and mentees were clinicians, educators and/or researchers. RESULTS:The 13 MET items mapped well to the five mentoring domains and six competencies described in the literature. The standardized Cronbach's coefficient alpha was 0.96. Confirmatory factor analysis supported a single factor (CFI = 0.89, SRMR = 0.05). The three mentor groups did not differ in the single overall assessment item (P = 0.054) or mean MET score (P = 0.288), before or after adjusting for years of mentoring. The mentorship score means were relatively high for all three groups. CONCLUSIONS:The Mentor Evaluation Tool demonstrates evidence of validity for research, clinical, educational or career mentors in academic health science careers. However, MET did not distinguish individuals nominated as outstanding mentors from other mentors. MET validity evidence can be studied further with mentor-mentee pairs and to follow prospectively the rating of mentors before and after a mentorship training program.
Project description: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.