Training Mentor-Mentee Pairs to Build a Robust Culture for Mentorship and a Pipeline of Clinical and Translational Researchers: The Colorado Mentoring Training Program.
ABSTRACT: The Colorado Mentoring Training program (CO-Mentor) was developed at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus in 2010, supported by the Colorado Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute. CO-Mentor represents a different paradigm in mentorship training by focusing equally on the development of mentees, who are valued as essential to institutional capacity for effective mentorship. The training model is unique among Clinical and Translational Science Award sites in that it engages mentors and mentees in an established relationship. Dyads participate in 4 day-long sessions scheduled throughout the academic year. Each session features workshops that combine didactic and experiential components. The latter provide structured opportunities to develop mentorship-related skills, including self-knowledge and goal setting, communication skills (including negotiation), "managing up," and the purposeful development of a mentorship support network. Mentors and mentees in 3 recent cohorts reported significant growth in confidence with respect to all mentorship-related skills assessed using a pre-post evaluation survey (P = .001). Mentors reported the most growth in relation to networking to engage social and professional support to realize goals as well as sharing insights regarding paths to success. Mentees reported the most growth with respect to connecting with potential/future mentors, knowing characteristics to look for in current/future mentors, and managing the work environment (e.g., prioritizing work most fruitful to advancing research/career objectives). CO-Mentor represents a novel approach to enhancing mentorship capacity by investing equally in the development of salient skills among mentees and mentors and in the mentorship relationship as an essential resource for professional development, persistence, and scholarly achievement.
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:<h4>Introduction</h4>Mentorship is a vital component of academic and professional development. Mentees report positive impacts from mentorship programs, yet institutions and societies may struggle to meet their mentees' needs due to factors such as mentor fatigue and lack of mentor training. To address this in our own professional society, the Association of Pediatric Program Directors, we developed a mentor toolkit in order to utilize a variety of mentoring models, provide faculty development for midlevel mentors, and offer guidance to mentees.<h4>Methods</h4>Most of these tools were designed to be administered in an interactive format such as a workshop or seminar with think-pair-share opportunities. The toolkit begins by providing a definition of <i>mentoring</i> and reinforcing the benefits and the characteristics of effective mentoring relationships. Next, we discuss the important role that mentees have in creating and maintaining effective mentoring relationships (i.e., mentee-driven mentoring). We then introduce a mentoring mosaic activity designed to help mentees examine their professional network and think about how they might expand it to fulfill the spectrum of their mentoring needs. Next, we present guidelines for the implementation of four mentoring models that can be used within one's institution: traditional dyadic mentoring, peer group mentoring, meet the professor mentoring, and speed mentoring. We then provide tools that can be used to help facilitate effective mentoring development.<h4>Results</h4>This toolkit has successfully served as a self-guided resource at national meetings for many years, garnering positive feedback from mentors and mentees alike.<h4>Discussion</h4>The principles and methods are easily generalizable and may be used to guide mentorship programs within institutional and professional societies, as well as to assist mentors and mentees in optimizing their individual mentoring relationships.
Project description:<h4>Objective</h4>To study medical students' views and experiences of the benefits and influences regarding a mentoring programme aimed at preparing them for future practice as a doctor during their Obstetrics and Gynaecology (O&G) placement in a UK teaching hospital.<h4>Design</h4>A qualitative approach, employing focus groups and thematic analysis.<h4>Setting</h4>Single-centre UK Teaching hospital.<h4>Participants</h4>Thirteen undergraduate medical students at the University of Southampton who had completed their standard 8-week placement in O&G and had been assigned a mentor throughout.<h4>Main outcome measures</h4>Medical students' experiences and perceptions of the benefits and influences of having a mentor throughout their O&G placement.<h4>Results</h4>From our data, four central themes were identified: integration, feedback, seniority and expectations. Students found mentorship useful for integration into the team, and an opportunity for constructive feedback on their clinical skills and professional skills for example, communication and team-working. Seniority and the level of contact of their mentor was the main reason for differing mentoring experiences: although senior mentors spent less time with their mentees, they were able to offer more careers advice. Students felt that the mentors and mentees were not always clear on the expectations of the mentoring programme.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Mentorship may be a useful addition to help prepare students for future clinical practice. Mentor training may improve consistency of experiences. This study demonstrates that a mentoring programme is deliverable and widely accepted by medical students in a clinical placement such as O&G, and may have wider benefits if introduced on a regional/national level.
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:Mentorship programs are perceived as valuable, yet little is known about the effect of program design on mentoring effectiveness.We developed a program focused on mentoring relationship quality and evaluated how subsequent relationships compared to preexisting informal pairings.Faculty members were invited by e-mail to participate in a new mentoring program. Participants were asked to complete a biography, subsequently provided to second- and third-year internal medicine residents. Residents were instructed to contact available mentors, and ultimately designate a formal mentor. All faculty and residents were provided a half-day workshop training, written guidelines, and e-mails. Reminders were e-mailed and announced in conferences approximately monthly. Residents were surveyed at the end of the academic year.Thirty-seven faculty members completed the biography, and 70% (26 of 37) of residents responded to the survey. Of the resident respondents, 77% (20 of 26) chose a formal mentor. Of the remainder, most had a previous informal mentor. Overall, 96% (25 of 26) of the residents had identified a mentor of some kind compared to 50% (13 of 26) before the intervention (P?<?.001), and 70% (14 of 20) who chose formal mentors identified them as actual mentors. Similar numbers of residents described their mentors as invested in the mentorship, and there was no statistical difference in the number of times mentors and mentees met.Facilitated selection of formal mentors produced relationships similar to preexisting informal ones. This model may increase the prevalence of mentorship without decreasing quality.
Project description:A formal Mentorship Program within the Children's Oncology Group (COG) was established to pair young investigators (mentees) with established COG members (mentors). Despite the American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement promoting mentorship programs, there are no publications describing and evaluating national mentorship programs in pediatric subspecialties. In this study, a series of internal program evaluations were performed using surveys of both mentors and mentees. Responses were deidentified and analyzed to determine the utility of the program by both participant satisfaction and self-reported academic productivity. Results indicated that mentees were generally satisfied with the program. Mentor-mentee pairs that met at least quarterly demonstrated greater academic productivity than pairings that met less frequently. This formal mentorship program appeared to have subjective and objective utility for the development of academic pediatric subspecialists.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>A paradigm shift is required in faculty development programs on research skills, from theory-driven to hands-on practical approach. The objective of this study was to develop and implement a structured mentorship model for training of medical faculties in research skills.<h4>Methods</h4>An interventional study using functional mentorship and experiential learning based on a research project was conducted over a period of one year through two prevalidated modules: protocol and manuscript writing. We included early and mid-career medical faculty as mentees (mentor:mentee ratio-1:2). Module 1 consisted of eight days of active learning and 25 days of refinement period-the end point being submission of research proposal to the ethics committee. Module 2 consisted of six days of active learning and 15 days of refinement period with the end point being manuscript submission to a peer-reviewed journal. Context, Input, Process and Product model of evaluation was used for this program.<h4>Results</h4>All eight faculty who participated as mentees in this program completed the first module, developed protocols under this program and processed them through the ethics committee. Six of the eight participants of this original cohort attended the second module and five could submit their manuscript to a peer-reviewed journal within the stipulated date. Participants expressed improvement in their self-rating of research skills, satisfaction with the program and an overall favourable change in attitude towards research.<h4>Conclusion</h4>Structured mentorship program with the help of local mentors could enhance research skills of medical faculty.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>Physicians are in a position of great influence to advocate for health equity. As such, it is important for physicians-in-training to develop the knowledge and skills necessary to fulfil this role. Although various undergraduate medical programs have implemented health advocacy training, they often lack experiential learning and physician involvement. These aspects are foundational to the Advocacy Mentorship Initiative (AMI) which utilizes cascading mentorship as a novel approach to advocacy training. Medical students develop advocacy competency as peer mentors to youth raised in at-risk environments, while also being mentored themselves by physician residents. We aim to determine whether there are specific advantages to utilizing cascading mentorship to facilitate the attainment of advocacy competencies in undergraduate medical education.<h4>Methods</h4>Medical students participating in AMI between 2017 to 2020 completed pre- and post-exposure questionnaires. Questionnaires assessed confidence in advocacy-related skills and knowledge of youth advocacy concepts, as well as learning goals, skills gained, benefits of AMI and resident mentors, and impact on future career. Sign tests were utilized to analyze quantitative results, and content analysis was used for open-ended responses. A triangulation protocol was also utilized.<h4>Results</h4>Fifty mentors participated, 24 (48%) of which completed both pre- and post-exposure questionnaires. Participants gained confidence in advocacy-related skills (p?<?0.05) such as working with vulnerable populations and advocating for medical and non-medical needs. They also reported significant improvements (p?<?0.01) in their understanding of social determinants of health and concepts related to children's health and development. Content analysis showed that participants built meaningful relationships with mentees in which they learned about social determinants of health, youth advocacy, and developed various advocacy-related skills. Participants greatly valued mentorship by residents, identifying benefits such as support and advice regarding relations with at-risk youth, and career mentorship. AMI impacted participants' career trajectories in terms of interest in working with youth, psychiatry, and advocacy.<h4>Conclusions</h4>AMI offers a unique method of advocacy training through cascading mentorship that engages medical students both as mentors to at-risk youth and mentees to resident physicians. Through cascading mentorship, medical students advance in their advocacy-related skills and understanding of social determinants of health.
Project description:<h4>Study design</h4> A generic qualitative design. <h4>Objectives</h4> To obtain a deeper understanding of the outcomes of spinal cord injury (SCI) peer mentorship programs delivered by community-based organizations. <h4>Setting</h4> Peer mentorship programs of community-based SCI organizations <h4>Methods</h4> We interviewed 36 individuals who shared their experiences of SCI peer mentorship from the perspective of a peer mentee, peer mentor, or family member of a peer mentee/mentor, or staff of SCI community-based organizations. Interview data were analyzed using an inductive thematic analysis approach. <h4>Results</h4> Four overarching themes with sub-themes were identified. (1) Positive outcomes for mentees such as understanding, emotional outlet/psychological support, inspiration/hope, and belonging. (2) Positive outcomes for mentors such as gaining gratitude, confidence, pride, and personal growth. (3) Reciprocity in positive/negative outcomes for mentors and mentees, such as shared learning and a lack of connection. (4) Negative outcomes for mentors such as impact of negativity, emotional toll, and time/energy demands. <h4>Conclusions</h4> Peer mentorship programs delivered by community-based SCI organizations are important, impactful resources for individuals with SCI who engage in these programs. These results provide insights into the variety of positive and negative outcomes linked with these programs.
Project description:Purpose: Diversity at all levels of medical training remains relatively stagnant, despite efforts to address equity in medical schools. Early career-specific mentoring may address barriers to the pursuit of medical education for students underrepresented in medicine (URiM). By surveying a program that engages medical students as drivers of career-specific mentorship for URiM high school students, this study evaluates medical student mentors' experiences mentoring and seeks to develop a mentorship curriculum. Methods: The authors describe a medical student-led pipeline program, which connects medical students with URiM high school students. Medical student mentors participated in focus groups and gave written responses evaluating reasons for involvement, sociocultural attitudes, and skills needed for mentoring. Thematic analysis was applied. Results: Themes that emerged in this analysis include motivation to mentor, skills used to approach the mentoring relationship, and benefits to the mentor. Mentors felt their experiences had a high impact factor, and they employed dynamic discovery. It provided personal reward and a deeper understanding of disparities. Conclusion: Bringing medical school mentors together for peer to peer idea sharing, creating communities of practice, will help these students develop effective mentorship skills. A curriculum based on appreciative inquiry of mentors' strengths will enrich idea sharing, fostering cultural humility and avoiding burnout. Medical students involved in this program believe they gained benefits, including improving their mentorship skills, expanding their cultural humility, increasing their comfort with caring for underserved populations, and improving their ability to recognize health disparities.