Randomized controlled trial of a group peer mentoring model for U.S. academic medicine research faculty

Abstract

Introduction: Midcareer is a critical transition point for biomedical research faculty and a common dropout point from an NIH-funded career. We report a study to assess the efficacy of a group peer mentoring program for diverse biomedical researchers in academic medicine, seeking to improve vitality, career advancement, and cross-cultural competence. Methods: We conducted a stratified randomized controlled trial with a waitlist control group involving 40 purposefully diverse early midcareer research faculty from 16 states who had a first-time NIH R01 (or equivalent) award, a K training grant, or a similar major grant. The yearlong intervention (2 to 3 days quarterly) consisted of facilitated, structured, group peer mentoring. Main study aims were to enhance faculty vitality, self-efficacy in achieving research success, career advancement, mentoring others, and cultural awareness and appreciation of diversity in the workplace. Results: Compared to the control group, the intervention group’s increased vitality did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.20), but perceived change in vitality was 1.47 standard deviations higher (D = 1.47, P = 0.03). Self-efficacy for career advancement was higher in the intervention group (D = 0.41, P = 0.05) as was self-efficacy for research (D = 0.57, P = 0.02). The intervention group also valued diversity higher (D = 0.46, P = 0.02), had higher cognitive empathy (D = 0.85, P = 0.03), higher anti-sexism/racism skills (D = 0.71, P = 0.01), and higher self-efficacy in mentoring others (D = 1.14, P = 0.007). Conclusions: The mentoring intervention resulted in meaningful change in important dimensions and skills among a national sample of diverse early midcareer biomedical faculty. This mentoring program holds promise for addressing the urgencies of sustaining faculty vitality and cross-cultural competence.

Group peer mentoring is effective for different demographic groups of biomedical research faculty: A controlled trial

“…The sources used did not provide needed information to apply inclusion/exclusion criteria, so recruiting covered all potential subjects located via our search criteria for whom we could find contact information. Hard copy invitations to apply to the Institute were mailed to 4,791 individuals in the recruitment pool, and emails were sent to 5,202 individuals, with most sent both methods of communication (4,438) [ 22 ].…”

“…Finally, deans and others with responsibility for diversity at medical institutions were contacted to identify and alert eligible faculty members of the opportunity to participate in the Institute. Those identified as possibly belonging to these underrepresented groups received additional customized emails [ 22 ].…”

“…The cognitive empathy scale measured the ability to comprehend others’ experiences. It consisted of a subset of items from a valid long instrument developed by Reniers and colleagues, the QCAE: A Questionnaire of Cognitive and Affective Empathy [ 22 , 35 ]. Items included characteristics such as ability to predict whether someone is concealing their true emotions, anchored on a seven-point ordinal scale ranging from “completely false” to “completely true” [ 22 ].…”

“…For our hypothesized outcome of greater appreciation of diversity, we wrote new items to assess various aspects of valuing diversity [ 22 ], which resulted in the creation of a measure of valuing diversity focused on: a) attitudes about the benefits of a diverse workforce, and b) behaviors to achieve a diverse workforce (e.g., consideration of diversity in recruitment). Subjects responded to each belief statement on an anchored six-point ordinal scale ranging from “very untrue” to “very true” [ 22 ].…”

“…The mentoring model implemented the experience of a novel culture of learning for medical school faculty. We conducted a randomized controlled study (RCT) of the mentoring model which demonstrated its overall efficacy for research faculty [ 22 ]. The RCT compared overall outcomes for an intervention faculty group with faculty who did not receive the intervention.…”