Mentoring at the University of Pennsylvania: Results of a Faculty Survey

BACKGROUND: Research suggests mentoring is related to career satisfaction and success. Most studies have focused on junior faculty. OBJECTIVE: To explore multiple aspects of mentoring at an academic medical center in relation to faculty rank, track, and gender. DESIGN: Cross-sectional mail survey in mid-2003. PARTICIPANTS: Faculty members, 1,432, at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine MEASUREMENTS: Self-administered survey developed from existing instruments and stakeholders. RESULTS: Response rate was 73% (n = 1,046). Most (92%) assistant and half (48%) of associate professors had a mentor. Assistant professors in the tenure track were most likely to have a mentor (98%). At both ranks, the faculty was given more types of advice than types of opportunities. Satisfaction with mentoring was correlated with the number of types of mentoring received (r = .48 and .53, P < .0001), job satisfaction (r = .44 and .31, P < .0001), meeting frequency (r = .53 and .61, P < .0001), and expectation of leaving the University within 5 years (Spearman r = −.19 and −.18, P < .0001), at the assistant and associate rank, respectively. Significant predictors of higher overall job satisfaction were associate rank [Odds ratio (OR) = 2.04, CI = 1.29–3.21], the 10-point mentoring satisfaction rating (OR = 1.27, CI = 1.17–1.35), and number of mentors (OR = 1.60, CI = 1.20–2.07). CONCLUSIONS: Having a mentor, or preferably, multiple mentors is strongly related to satisfaction with mentoring and overall job satisfaction. Surprisingly, few differences were related to gender. Mentoring of clinician–educators, research track faculty, and senior faculty, and the use of multiple mentors require specific attention of academic leadership and further study

One year outcomes of a mentoring scheme for female academics: a pilot study at the Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The professional development of under-represented faculty may be enhanced by mentorship, but we understand very little about the mechanisms by which mentoring brings about change. Our study posed the research question, what are the mechanisms by which mentoring may support professional development in under-represented groups?</p> <p>The study aims to: (i) to pilot a mentoring scheme for female academics; (ii) to compare various health-related and attitudinal measures in mentees at baseline, 6 months, and 1 year into the mentoring relationship and, (iii) to compare pre-mentoring expectations to outcomes at 6 months and 1 year follow-up for mentees and mentors.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Female academic mentees were matched 1:1 or 2:1 with more senior academic mentors. Online surveys were conducted to compare health-related and attitudinal measures and expectations of mentoring at baseline with outcomes at 6 months and 1 year using paired t-tests and McNemar's test for matched cohort data.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>N = 46 mentoring pairs, 44 (96%) mentees completed the pre-mentoring survey, 37 (80%) at 6 months and 30 (65%) at 1 year. Job-related well-being (anxiety-contentment), self-esteem and self-efficacy all improved significantly and work-family conflict diminished at 1 year. Highest expectations were career progression (39; 89%), increased confidence (38; 87%), development of networking skills (33; 75%), better time-management (29; 66%) and better work-life balance (28; 64%). For mentees, expectations at baseline were higher than perceived achievements at 6 months or 1 year follow-up.</p> <p>For mentors (N = 39), 36 (92%) completed the pre-mentoring survey, 32 (82%) at 6 months and 28 (72%) at 1 year. Mentors' highest expectations were of satisfaction in seeing people progress (26; 69%), seeing junior staff develop and grow (19; 53%), helping solve problems (18; 50%), helping women advance their careers (18; 50%) and helping remove career obstacles (13; 36%). Overall, gains at 6 months and 1 year exceeded pre-mentoring expectations.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This uncontrolled pilot study suggests that mentoring can improve aspects of job-related well-being, self-esteem and self-efficacy over 6 months, with further improvements seen after 1 year for female academics. Work-family conflict can also diminish. Despite these gains, mentees' prior expectations were shown to be unrealistically high, but mentors' expectations were exceeded.</p

The positive impact of a facilitated peer mentoring program on academic skills of women faculty

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In academic medicine, women physicians lag behind their male counterparts in advancement and promotion to leadership positions. Lack of mentoring, among other factors, has been reported to contribute to this disparity. Peer mentoring has been reported as a successful alternative to the dyadic mentoring model for women interested in improving their academic productivity. We describe a facilitated peer mentoring program in our institution's department of medicine.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Nineteen women enrolled in the program were divided into 5 groups. Each group had an assigned facilitator. Members of the respective groups met together with their facilitators at regular intervals during the 12 months of the project. A pre- and post-program evaluation consisting of a 25-item self-assessment of academic skills, self-efficacy, and academic career satisfaction was administered to each participant.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>At the end of 12 months, a total of 9 manuscripts were submitted to peer-reviewed journals, 6 of which are in press or have been published, and another 2 of which have been invited to be revised and resubmitted. At the end of the program, participants reported an increase in their satisfaction with academic achievement (mean score increase, 2.32 to 3.63; <it>P </it>= 0.0001), improvement in skills necessary to effectively search the medical literature (mean score increase, 3.32 to 4.05; <it>P </it>= 0.0009), an improvement in their ability to write a comprehensive review article (mean score increase, 2.89 to 3.63; <it>P </it>= 0.0017), and an improvement in their ability to critically evaluate the medical literature (mean score increased from 3.11 to 3.89; <it>P </it>= 0.0008).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This facilitated peer mentoring program demonstrated a positive impact on the academic skills and manuscript writing for junior women faculty. This 1-year program required minimal institutional resources, and suggests a need for further study of this and other mentoring programs for women faculty.</p

Medical school faculty discontent: prevalence and predictors of intent to leave academic careers

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Medical school faculty are less enthusiastic about their academic careers than ever before. In this study, we measured the prevalence and determinants of intent to leave academic medicine.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A 75-question survey was administered to faculty at a School of Medicine. Questions addressed quality of life, faculty responsibilities, support for teaching, clinical work and scholarship, mentoring and participation in governance.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of 1,408 eligible faculty members, 532 (38%) participated. Among respondents, 224 (40%; CI95: 0.35, 0.44) reported that their careers were not progressing satisfactorily; 236 (42%; CI95: 0.38, 0.46) were "seriously considering leaving academic medicine in the next five years." Members of clinical departments (OR = 1.71; CI95: 1.01, 2.91) were more likely to consider leaving; members of inter-disciplinary centers were less likely (OR = 0.68; CI95: 0.47, 0.98). The predictors of "serious intent to leave" included: Difficulties balancing work and family (OR = 3.52; CI95: 2.34, 5.30); inability to comment on performance of institutional leaders (OR = 3.08; CI95: 2.07, 4.72); absence of faculty development programs (OR = 3.03; CI95: 2.00, 4.60); lack of recognition of clinical work (OR = 2.73; CI95: 1.60, 4.68) and teaching (OR = 2.47; CI95: 1.59, 3.83) in promotion evaluations; absence of "academic community" (OR = 2.67; CI95: 1.86, 3.83); and failure of chairs to evaluate academic progress regularly (OR = 2.60; CI95: 1.80, 3.74).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Faculty are a medical school's key resource, but 42 percent are seriously considering leaving. Medical schools should refocus faculty retention efforts on professional development programs, regular performance feedback, balancing career and family, tangible recognition of teaching and clinical service and meaningful faculty participation in institutional governance.</p

Does mentoring matter: results from a survey of faculty mentees at a large health sciences university

Background: To determine the characteristics associated with having a mentor, the association of mentoring with self-efficacy, and the content of mentor&#x2013;mentee interactions at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), we conducted a baseline assessment prior to implementing a comprehensive faculty mentoring program. Method: We surveyed all prospective junior faculty mentees at UCSF. Mentees completed a web-based, 38-item survey including an assessment of self-efficacy and a needs assessment. We used descriptive and inferential statistics to determine the association between having a mentor and gender, ethnicity, faculty series, and self-efficacy. Results: Our respondents (n=464, 56%) were 53% female, 62% white, and 7% from underrepresented minority groups. More than half of respondents (n=319) reported having a mentor. There were no differences in having a mentor based on gender or ethnicity (p&#x2265;0.05). Clinician educator faculty with more teaching and patient care responsibilities were statistically significantly less likely to have a mentor compared with faculty in research intensive series (p&#60;0.001). Having a mentor was associated with greater satisfaction with time allocation at work (p&#60;0.05) and with higher academic self-efficacy scores, 6.07 (sd&#x200A;=&#x200A;1.36) compared with those without a mentor, 5.33 (sd&#x200A;=&#x200A;1.35, p&#60;0.001). Mentees reported that they most often discussed funding with the mentors, but rated highest requiring mentoring assistance with issues of promotion and tenure. Conclusion: Findings from the UCSF faculty mentoring program may assist other health science institutions plan similar programs. Mentoring needs for junior faculty with greater teaching and patient care responsibilities must be addressed

A global call for action to include gender in research impact assessment

Global investment in biomedical research has grown significantly over the last decades, reaching approximately a quarter of a trillion US dollars in 2010. However, not all of this investment is distributed evenly by gender. It follows, arguably, that scarce research resources may not be optimally invested (by either not supporting the best science or by failing to investigate topics that benefit women and men equitably). Women across the world tend to be significantly underrepresented in research both as researchers and research participants, receive less research funding, and appear less frequently than men as authors on research publications. There is also some evidence that women are relatively disadvantaged as the beneficiaries of research, in terms of its health, societal, and economic impacts. Historical gender biases may have created a path dependency that means that the research system and the impacts of research are biased towards male researchers and male beneficiaries, making it inherently difficult (though not impossible) to eliminate gender bias. In this commentary, we – a group of scholars and practitioners from Africa, America, Asia, and Europe– argue that gender-sensitive research impact assessment could become a force for good in moving science policy and practice towards gender equity. Research impact assessment is the multidisciplinary field of scientific inquiry that examines the research process to maximise scientific, societal, and economic returns on investment in research. It encompasses many theoretical and methodological approaches that can be used to investigate gender bias and recommend actions for change to maximise research impact. We offer a set of recommendations to research funders, research institutions, and research evaluators who conduct impact assessment on how to include and strengthen analysis of gender equity in research impact assessment and issue a global call for action

Self-efficacy beliefs of medical students : A review of the research

Self-efficacy is a theoretically and empirically robust motivation belief that has been shown to play an important role in the learning and development of new skills and knowledge. In this article, we critically review research on the self-efficacy beliefs of medical students, with a goal to evaluate the existing research and to strengthen future work. In particular, we sought to describe the state of research on medical student self-efficacy and to critically examine the conceptualization and measurement of the construct. Finally, we aimed to provide directions for future self-efficacy research