Dataset Information

A structured mentorship program for medical college faculty on health research.

ABSTRACT:

Background

A paradigm shift is required in faculty development programs on research skills, from theory-driven to hands-on practical approach. The objective of this study was to develop and implement a structured mentorship model for training of medical faculties in research skills.

Methods

An interventional study using functional mentorship and experiential learning based on a research project was conducted over a period of one year through two prevalidated modules: protocol and manuscript writing. We included early and mid-career medical faculty as mentees (mentor:mentee ratio-1:2). Module 1 consisted of eight days of active learning and 25 days of refinement period-the end point being submission of research proposal to the ethics committee. Module 2 consisted of six days of active learning and 15 days of refinement period with the end point being manuscript submission to a peer-reviewed journal. Context, Input, Process and Product model of evaluation was used for this program.

Results

All eight faculty who participated as mentees in this program completed the first module, developed protocols under this program and processed them through the ethics committee. Six of the eight participants of this original cohort attended the second module and five could submit their manuscript to a peer-reviewed journal within the stipulated date. Participants expressed improvement in their self-rating of research skills, satisfaction with the program and an overall favourable change in attitude towards research.

Conclusion

Structured mentorship program with the help of local mentors could enhance research skills of medical faculty.

SUBMITTER: Chavda P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7873702 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description: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.

Project description:BackgroundBurnout can have negative consequences for providers' health and patient care. Mentorship has positive effects including stress mitigation. We sought to evaluate the impact of a mentorship program on burnout in fourth-year medical students during their 4-week emergency medicine subinternship.MethodsThis was a prospective, quasi-experimental, mixed-methods study at two institutions. We assessed burnout using the Maslach Burnout Inventory, comprising three subscales: Emotional Exhaustion (EE), Depersonalization (DP), and Personal Accomplishment (PA). We compared changes in burnout scores before and after implementation of a resident-student mentorship program. We compared categorical variables using risk ratios and continuous variables using Wilcoxon rank-sum test. To account for potential confounders, we performed multivariable analysis. Students and mentors completed an evaluative survey. We reported descriptive statistics and performed thematic qualitative analysis on free-response data.ResultsA total of 135 students (intervention = 51; control = 84) and 59 mentors participated. Intervention students demonstrated decreased EE and DP and increased PA scores, medians of -2 (-4 to 4), -1 (-3 to 2), and 1 (-1 to 4), respectively, compared to controls, median difference of 0 for all subscales. After adjusting for potential confounders, there was no significant difference in EE (mean difference = -0.2 [-0.5 to 0.2], p = 0.4) or DP scores (mean difference = -0.2 [-1.8 to 1.5], p = 0.9). There was a significant difference in PA scores (mean difference = 2.2 [0.1 to 4.3], p = 0.04). Most students felt the program positively impacted their rotation (39/48) and decreased stress (28/48). Students felt that the program provided career guidance and positively impacted their personal and professional development. The majority (34/37) of mentors enjoyed participating. Qualitative analysis revealed five major themes: relationship building, different perspective, knowledge sharing, personal fulfillment, and self-reflection.ConclusionWe found an increased sense of personal accomplishment after implementation of a mentorship program. Both mentors and mentees viewed the program positively and perceived multiple benefits.

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.