Dataset Information

Mentors' perspectives on the successes and challenges of mentoring in the COG Young Investigator mentorship program: A report from the Children's Oncology Group.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Esbenshade AJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6707882 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Mentors' perspectives on the successes and challenges of mentoring in the COG Young Investigator mentorship program: A report from the Children's Oncology Group.

Esbenshade Adam J AJ Kahalley Lisa S LS Baertschiger Reto R Dasgupta Roshni R Goldsmith Kelly C KC Nathan Paul C PC Harker-Murray Paul P Kitko Carrie L CL Kolb Edward Anders EA Murphy Erin S ES Muscal Jodi A JA Pierson Christopher R CR Reed Damon D Schore Reuven R Unguru Yoram Y Venkatramani Rajkumar R Wistinghausen Birte B Dhall Girish G

Pediatric blood & cancer 20190716 10

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Procedure</h4>In 2018, 101 past or current mentors in the COG YI mentorship program completed an online survey. Statisti ...[more]

PMID: 31309744

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFormal education of oncology is lacking in many undergraduate medical curricula. Mentoring schemes can expose participants to specific areas of medicine and may address the shortfalls in oncology education. Few mentoring schemes have been designed within the United Kingdom, especially within oncology. There is a need to understand reasons for mentor and mentee participation in such schemes and to identify ways to minimize barriers to engagement.ObjectiveThis study identifies motivations for participation in an oncology mentoring scheme and its benefits and limitations to both the mentee and the mentor.MethodsThe British Oncology Network for Undergraduate Societies launched a National Oncology Mentorship Scheme (NOMS) on September 1, 2021. Mentees (medical student or foundation doctor) were paired with mentors (specialty registrar or consultant), for 6 months of mentoring. In total, 86 mentors and 112 mentees were recruited to the scheme. The mentees and mentors were asked to meet at least 3 times during this period and suggestions were provided on the content of mentoring. Mentees and mentors were invited to complete a prescheme questionnaire, exploring motivations for involvement in the scheme, current experiences within oncology, and knowledge and interests in the field. At the end of the scheme, mentors and mentees were asked to complete a postscheme questionnaire exploring experiences and benefits or limitations of participation. Paired analysis was performed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. For free text data, content analysis was applied to summarize the main themes in the data.ResultsOf the 66 (59%) mentees who completed the prescheme questionnaire, 41 (62%) were clinical, 21 (32%) preclinical medical students, and the remainder were junior doctors. For mentees, networking was the primary reason for joining the scheme (n=25, 38%). Mentees ranked experience of oncology at medical school at 3 on 10 (IQR 2-5). In this, 46 (53%) mentors completed the prescheme questionnaire, 35 (76%) were registrar level, and the remainder were consultant level (n=11). The most common reason for mentor participation was to increase awareness and interest in the field (n=29, 63%). Of those who completed the prescheme questionnaire, 23 (35%) mentees and 25 (54%) mentors completed the postscheme questionnaire. Knowledge in all areas of oncology assessed significantly increased during the scheme (P<.001). Most mentees (n=21, 91%) and mentors (n=18, 72%) felt they had benefited from the scheme. Mentees cited gaining insights into oncology as most beneficial; and mentors, opportunities to develop professionally. Whilst mentees did not report any barriers to participating in the scheme, mentors stated lack of time as the greatest barrier to mentoring.ConclusionsBritish Oncology Network for Undergraduate Societies' NOMS is expanding and is beneficial for mentees through increasing knowledge, providing exposure, and career advice in oncology. Mentors benefit from improving their mentoring skills and personal satisfaction.

Project description:HIV clinical mentoring has been utilized for capacity building in Africa, but few formal program evaluations have explored mentee perspectives on these programs. EQUIP is a PEPFAR-USAID funded program in Malawi that has been providing HIV mentoring on clinical and health systems since 2010. We sought to understand the successes and challenges of EQUIP's mentorship program. From June-September 2014 we performed semi-structured, in-depth interviews with EQUIP mentees who had received mentoring for ≥ 1 year. Interview questions focused on program successes and challenges and were performed in English, audio recorded, coded, and analyzed using inductive content analysis with ATLAS.ti v7. Fifty-two mentees from 32 health centers were interviewed. The majority of mentees were 18-40 years old (79%, N = 41), 69% (N = 36) were male, 50% (N = 26) were nurses, 29% (N = 15) medical assistants, and 21% (N = 11) clinical officers. All mentees felt that EQUIP mentorship was successful (100%, N = 52). The most common benefit reported was an increase in clinical knowledge allowing for initiation of antiretroviral therapy (33%, N = 17). One-third of mentees (N = 17) reported increased clinic efficiency and improved systems for patient care due to EQUIP's systems mentoring including documentation, supply chain and support for minor construction at clinics. The most common challenge (52%, N = 27) was understaffing at facilities, with mentees having multiple responsibilities during mentorship visits resulting in impaired ability to focus on learning. Mentees also reported that medication stock-outs (42%, N = 22) created challenges for the mentoring process. EQUIP's systems-based mentorship and infrastructure improvements allowed for an optimized environment for clinical training. Shortages of health workers at sites pose a challenge for mentoring programs because mentees are pulled from learning experiences to perform non-HIV-related clinic duties. Evaluations of existing mentoring models are needed to continue to improve mentoring strategies that result in sustainable benefits for mentees, facilities, and patients.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Outcome-based approaches to education and the inherent emphasis on programmatic assessment in particular, require models of mentoring in which mentors fulfil dual roles: coach and assessor. Fulfilling multiple roles could result in role confusion or even role conflicts, both of which may affect mentoring processes and outcomes. In this study, we explored how mentors conceptualise and enact their role in a multiple-role mentoring system and to what extent they experience role conflicts. METHODS:We conducted a constructivist grounded theory study at one undergraduate medical school. A purposive sample of 12 physician-mentors active in a programmatic assessment system was interviewed. Data analysis followed stages of open, axial and selective coding through which themes were constructed. RESULTS:Three predominant mentoring approaches were constructed: (i) empowering (a reflective and holistic approach to student development); (ii) checking (an observant approach to check whether formal requirements are met), and (iii) directing (an authoritative approach to guide students' professional development). Each approach encompassed a corresponding type of mentor-mentee relationship: (i) partnership; (ii) instrumental, and (iii) faculty-centred. Furthermore, mentors' strategies, focus, agency provided to students and perception of the assessment system characterised mentoring approaches and relationships. Role conflicts were mainly experienced by mentors with a directing mentoring approach. They used various coping mechanisms, including deviation from assessment guidelines. CONCLUSIONS:In multiple-role mentoring in the context of programmatic assessment, mentors adopted certain predominant mentoring approaches, which were characterised by different strategies for mentoring and resulted in different mentor-mentee relationships. Multiple-role mentoring does not necessarily result in role conflict. Mentors who do experience role conflict seem to favour the directing approach, which is most at odds with key principles of competency-based education and programmatic assessment. These findings build upon existing mentoring literature and offer practical suggestions for faculty development regarding approaches to mentoring in programmatic assessment systems.

Dataset Information

Mentors' perspectives on the successes and challenges of mentoring in the COG Young Investigator mentorship program: A report from the Children's Oncology Group.

Publications

Mentors' perspectives on the successes and challenges of mentoring in the COG Young Investigator mentorship program: A report from the Children's Oncology Group.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets