Dataset Information

Standing on the shoulders of giants: results from the Radiation Oncology Academic Development and Mentorship Assessment Project (ROADMAP).

ABSTRACT: To analyze survey information regarding mentorship practices and cross-correlate the results with objective metrics of academic productivity among academic radiation oncologists at US Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited residency training programs.An institutional review board-approved survey for the Radiation Oncology Academic Development and Mentorship Assessment Project (ROADMAP) was sent to 1031 radiation oncologists employed at an ACGME-accredited residency training program and administered using an international secure web application designed exclusively to support data capture for research studies. Data collected included demographics, presence of mentorship, and the nature of specific mentoring activities. Productivity metrics, including number of publications, number of citations, h-index, and date of first publication, were collected for each survey respondent from a commercially available online database, and m-index was calculated.A total of 158 academic radiation oncologists completed the survey, 96 of whom reported having an academic/scientific mentor. Faculty with a mentor had higher numbers of publications, citations, and h- and m-indices. Differences in gender and race/ethnicity were not associated with significant differences in mentorship rates, but those with a mentor were more likely to have a PhD degree and were more likely to have more time protected for research. Bivariate fit regression modeling showed a positive correlation between a mentor's h-index and their mentee's h-index (R2=0.16; P<.001). Linear regression also showed significant correlates of higher h-index, in addition to having a mentor (P=.001), included a longer career duration (P<.001) and fewer patients in treatment (P=.02).Mentorship is widely believed to be important to career development and academic productivity. These results emphasize the importance of identifying and striving to overcome potential barriers to effective mentorship.

SUBMITTER: Holliday EB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4085773 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Standing on the shoulders of giants: results from the Radiation Oncology Academic Development and Mentorship Assessment Project (ROADMAP).

Holliday Emma B EB Jagsi Reshma R Thomas Charles R CR Wilson Lynn D LD Fuller Clifton D CD

International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics 20131107 1

<h4>Purpose</h4>To analyze survey information regarding mentorship practices and cross-correlate the results with objective metrics of academic productivity among academic radiation oncologists at US Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited residency training programs.<h4>Methods and materials</h4>An institutional review board-approved survey for the Radiation Oncology Academic Development and Mentorship Assessment Project (ROADMAP) was sent to 1031 radiation oncol ...[more]

PMID: 24210670

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeAlthough mentorship has been associated with promotion, job satisfaction, and retention, data are limited on the mentorship experience of clinical- versus research-track physicians as well as feasibility and relative priority of formal program components.Methods and materialsWithin a single-institution, multi-site, academic network, we implemented a Radiation Oncology AcaDemic Mentorship Program (ROADMAP) for junior faculty. Validated surveys assessing mentee satisfaction were distributed at baseline and 1 year. The statistical analysis included Wilcoxon rank sum and signed tests. Mentees assessed the likelihood to recommend each program component (10-point Likert-type scale), and means with standard error (SE) are reported.ResultsAmong 42 eligible junior faculty, 36 (86%) opted into the program. The median time since residency was 2.5 years (interquartile range, 1.75-5.25) on the clinical track (n = 12) and 3 years (interquartile range, 2.75-5.00) on the research track (n = 24). At baseline, research-track physicians reported higher satisfaction with mentoring than physicians on the clinical track (2.92 vs 2.16; P = .02). Among 32 physicians completing 1 year, overall satisfaction with mentoring increased compared with baseline (2.72 vs 3.87; P < .001), which persisted on subset analysis for both clinical- (2.16 vs 4.03; P < .001) and research-track physicians (2.99 vs 3.77; P = .005). At 1 year, 28 mentees (88%) opted to continue the program. Program components were rated 8.25 (SE, 0.37) for mentor-mentee pairings, 7.22 (SE, 0.39) for goal setting, 6.84 (SE, 0.47) for administrative support, 6.69 (SE, 0.44) for peer mentoring, and 6.53 (SE, 0.45) for steering committee oversight. Ratings of peer mentoring were not associated with track (P = .59) or years in practice (P = .29).ConclusionsClinical-track physicians may be less satisfied with mentorship than research-track faculty. However, all junior faculty, regardless of track, appeared to benefit from formalizing dyadic mentor-mentee relationships, goal setting, and peer mentoring. Further work is needed to determine the role of mentorship in addressing physician burnout.

Project description:PurposeAlthough mentorship is described extensively in academic medical literature, there are few descriptions of mentorship specific to radiation oncology. The goal of the current study was to investigate the state of mentorship in radiation oncology through a scoping review of the literature.Methods and materialsA search protocol was defined according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. Predefined search terms and medical subject headings were used to search PubMed for English language articles published after January 1, 1990, on mentorship in radiation oncology. Additionally, in-press articles from major radiation oncology and medical education journals were searched. Three reviewers determined article eligibility. Included articles were classified based on predefined evaluation criteria.ResultsFourteen publications from 2008 to 2019 met inclusion criteria. The most commonly described form of mentorship was the dyad (64.3%), followed by team (14.3%) and peer (7.1%); 2 articles did not specify mentorship type (14.3%). The most commonly mentored participants were residents (35.7%), followed by medical students (35.7%) and attendings (21.4%); 1 study included participants of all levels (7.1%). Thirteen studies (92.9%) identified an experimental study design, most of which were cross-sectional (42.9%), followed by cohort studies (28.6%) and before/after (21.4%). Median sample size, reported in 12 of 13 experimental studies, was 132 (coefficient of variation, 1.06). Although outcomes varied widely, the majority described successful implementation of mentorship initiatives with high levels of participant satisfaction.ConclusionsAlthough few initiatives are currently reported, the present study suggests that these initiatives are successful in promoting career development and increasing professional satisfaction. The interventions overwhelmingly described mentorship dyads; other forms of mentorship are either less common or understudied. Limitations included interventions not being evaluated in a controlled setting, and many were assessed using surveys with low response rates. This review highlights rich opportunities for future scholarship to develop, evaluate, and disseminate radiation oncology mentorship initiatives.

Dataset Information

Standing on the shoulders of giants: results from the Radiation Oncology Academic Development and Mentorship Assessment Project (ROADMAP).

Publications

Standing on the shoulders of giants: results from the Radiation Oncology Academic Development and Mentorship Assessment Project (ROADMAP).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets