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