Functional mentoring: A practical approach with multilevel outcomes

Thorndyke, Luanne E.; Gusic, Maryellen E.; Milner, Robert J.

doi:10.1002/chp.178

Cited by 94 publications

(72 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…18,19 This yielded a representation of 34 total programs among the 38 publications. Both public (68%, n523) and private (32%, n511) institutions were represented.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying Components of Success Within Health Sciences-Focused Mentoring Programs Through a Review of the Literature

McRae

Zimmerman

2019

American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. To identify programmatic components and structural features associated with success of mentoring programs within the health sciences. Findings. Thirty-eight manuscripts representing 34 individual programs were reviewed. Of the institutions represented, 68% were public. Sixty-eight percent of programs included single disciplines only, with four focused in pharmacy, 13 in medicine, and six in nursing. Of the 34 individual programs, all programs reporting participant confidence and self-efficacy reported success in that domain. Eighteen programs reported outcomes related to scholarly activity that included publications or funding/ grantsmanship; 16 reported success. Eleven of 16 programs reporting promotion/tenure and/or faculty retention rates reported success. Program components associated with successful programs included frequent meetings (at least monthly) and delivering content within formal curricula. Content categories common within programs reporting success were content related to research, funding/grantsmanship and networking/collaboration. In addition, specific for the promotion/retention domain, content related to curriculum/teaching was commonly found within successful programs. Summary. Although somewhat dependent on the program's specific goals, curriculum most commonly associated with success contained content on research, grantsmanship/funding, curriculum/ teaching, and networking/collaboration. Among many programs, the reporting lacked objective, standardized metrics and often included only generalized descriptions/categorization of course content. The incomplete and inconsistent reporting limited our ability to draw conclusions regarding individual topics important for each program component. Proper planning, execution, and assessment of faculty mentoring programs is critical to the identification of additional program characteristics for optimal faculty success.Keywords: faculty mentoring, health sciences, faculty, program development, faculty development INTRODUCTIONFaculty attrition is a significant concern within the health sciences. Poor attrition rates increase both direct and indirect costs to institutions. This includes cost of the lost opportunity, new faculty recruitment efforts, and the training of inexperienced faculty. Other intangible costs include loss of faculty continuity and faculty connectedness.1 In at least one study, 34% of medical faculty resigned within three years of hire.2 Of those faculty who remained active, an additional 48% reported they were considering leaving their positions within the next five years.2 In another survey of faculty across 26 U.S. medical schools, 35% of faculty reported they had seriously considered leaving their current position during the prior year.3 Faculty leave their positions for various reasons, including lack of professional development, inclusiveness, or institutional recognition and support.2 In one report, 34% of recent former faculty at a small, private research university cited lack of mentoring as a cause of their dissat...

show abstract

“…18,19 This yielded a representation of 34 total programs among the 38 publications. Both public (68%, n523) and private (32%, n511) institutions were represented.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying Components of Success Within Health Sciences-Focused Mentoring Programs Through a Review of the Literature

McRae

Zimmerman

2019

American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It likely is underpowered to detect significant differences in mentorship quality, and it is uncertain which measures of mentorship quality are best, with some advocating for outcome-based assessment. 13,14 The survey instrument used in this assessment was not piloted or assessed for comprehension, and respondents may have interpreted the questions differently than intended. All residents and many mentors are active duty military officers, which may limit generalizability.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Results of a Formal Mentorship Program for Internal Medicine Residents: Can We Facilitate Genuine Mentorship?

Cohee¹,

Koplin²,

Shimeall³

et al. 2015

Journal of Graduate Medical Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Mentorship programs are perceived as valuable, yet little is known about the effect of program design on mentoring effectiveness. Intervention We developed a program focused on mentoring relationship quality and evaluated how subsequent relationships compared to preexisting informal pairings. Methods 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. Results 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. Conclusions Facilitated selection of formal mentors produced relationships similar to preexisting informal ones. This model may increase the prevalence of mentorship without decreasing quality.

show abstract

“…Numerous innovative approaches to effective mentoring are now being developed across medical specialties (6,13,17,(21)(22)(23). While the effectiveness of these various programs remains to be qualitatively assessed, the diversity of these models, which encompasses formalized traditional mentoring, peer mentoring (6), functional mentoring (23), and mentoring committees, provides encouraging evidence that AHCs are beginning to recognize mentoring as a core academic responsibility.…”

Section: Mentoringmentioning

confidence: 99%