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

Abstract

BackgroundIn the highly competitive environment of academic medicine, junior faculty investigators face high attrition rates due to challenges in finding effective mentorship, securing grant funding, and obtaining resources to support their career development and research productivity. The purpose of this study was to describe the centralized, cost-sharing design of the Independent Investigator Incubator (I3) program as a novel approach to junior faculty mentoring and to evaluate quantitative outcomes for program improvement.MethodsIn September 2014, the I3 pilot program, a comprehensive mentorship program targeting junior faculty pursuing research careers, was launched. Participants included junior faculty during the crucial first three years of their research careers or during their transition from career development awards to more independent research. Following initial screening, the I3 mentees were paired with a senior faculty “super-mentor” with expertise in either basic science or clinical research. Mentees were provided with robust traditional one-on-one mentoring, targeted feedback from a super-mentor review committee, as well as biostatistician and grant writing support. To assess the effectiveness of the I3 program, we tracked outcome measures via baseline and 12-month mentee surveys. Data collected assessed program diversity, mentee self-assessments, evaluation of the mentoring relationship, scholarship and productivity metrics. Raw data were analyzed using a paired t-test in Excel (P < 0.05).ResultsResults of the baseline mentee self-assessment survey found that the I3 mentees indicated common “perceive deficits” including navigating the organizational and institutional culture, clear direction in achieving promotion and tenure, among others. When baseline mentee survey responses were compared to 12-month responses, we identified strong “perceived growth” in categories, such as Research and Interpersonal Skills and Career Development Skills. Further, productivity metrics at 12-months revealed that roughly 80% of I3 mentees successfully published a manuscript(s). The I3 program has helped generate roughly $12.1 million dollars in investigator-initiated funding after two years in the program.ConclusionThe I3 program allows for shared costs between institutions and increased availability of successful subject matter experts. Study results imply that the I3 mentoring program provides transformative mentorship for junior faculty. Using our findings, we developed courses and an annual “snapshot” of mentee performance for mentors.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12909-018-1290-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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

“…The importance of mentorship has been demonstrated in several recent studies and has been linked to faculty satisfaction, vitality, climate, and productivity. [15][16][17] Mentorship is widely regarded as a key component in retention of faculty at academic medical centers. 18,19 Despite the known value of mentoring, StandPoint Surveys reports that only 30% of faculty are engaged in formal mentorship.…”

“…Our data support prior studies demonstrating that junior faculty should receive formal mentorship from an early stage. [15][16][17][18][19] In addition, faculty should have opportunities for careerenhancing activities at their institution or as offered by their professional societies. A robust annual review process for each faculty is a good way to provide performance feedback, recognize achievements, and prepare career development priorities for the upcoming year.…”

Academic Gender Disparity in Orthopedic Surgery in Canadian Universities

“…A pilot study at the Indiana University School of Medicine found that 80% of individuals who participated in a mentorship program successfully published a manuscript. This survey suggested that mentorship increases research productivity through increased opportunity, professional and personal development such as research proficiency, interpersonal skills, and career development skills [27].…”

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

“…Mentorship can improve mentee productivity, self-efficacy and career satisfaction [11][12][13][14] and be a personally fulfilling experience for mentors [15,16]. Wellstructured and inclusive mentoring programs are highly beneficial for health professionals, including training researchers across varied disciplines [12,[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]. Mentoring relationships that offer the greatest impact on success are likely to be influenced by individual attributes [25] and the social context within which the program is instituted [26].…”