Randomized controlled trial of a group peer mentoring model for U.S. academic medicine research faculty

Abstract Introduction:Midcareer is a critical transition point for biomedical research faculty and a common dropout point from an NIH-funded career. We report a study to assess the efficacy of a group peer mentoring program for diverse biomedical researchers in academic medicine, seeking to improve vitality, career advancement, and cross-cultural competence. Methods:We conducted a stratified randomized controlled trial with a waitlist control group involving 40 purposefully diverse early midcareer research faculty from 16 states who had a first-time NIH R01 (or equivalent) award, a K training grant, or a similar major grant. The yearlong intervention (2 to 3 days quarterly) consisted of facilitated, structured, group peer mentoring. Main study aims were to enhance faculty vitality, self-efficacy in achieving research success, career advancement, mentoring others, and cultural awareness and appreciation of diversity in the workplace. Results:Compared to the control group, the intervention group’s increased vitality did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.20), but perceived change in vitality was 1.47 standard deviations higher (D = 1.47, P = 0.03). Self-efficacy for career advancement was higher in the intervention group (D = 0.41, P = 0.05) as was self-efficacy for research (D = 0.57, P = 0.02). The intervention group also valued diversity higher (D = 0.46, P = 0.02), had higher cognitive empathy (D = 0.85, P = 0.03), higher anti-sexism/racism skills (D = 0.71, P = 0.01), and higher self-efficacy in mentoring others (D = 1.14, P = 0.007). Conclusions:The mentoring intervention resulted in meaningful change in important dimensions and skills among a national sample of diverse early midcareer biomedical faculty. This mentoring program holds promise for addressing the urgencies of sustaining faculty vitality and cross-cultural competence

Towards a Common Lexicon for Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Work in Academic Medicine

Differential rewarding of work and experience has been a longtime feature of academic medicine, resulting in a series of academic disparities. These disparities have been collectively called a cultural or minority tax, and, when considered beyond academic medicine, exist across all departments, colleges, and schools of institutions of higher learning-from health sciences to disciplines located on university campuses outside of medicine and health. A shared language can provide opportunities for those who champion this work to pool resources for larger impacts across the institution. This article aims to catalog the terms used across academic medicine disciplines to establish a common language describing the inequities experienced by Black, Latinx, American Indian/Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, Women, and other underrepresented people as well as queer, disabled, and other historically marginalized or excluded groups. These ideas are specific to academic medicine in the United States, although many can be used in academic medicine in other countries. The terms were selected by a team of experts in equity, diversity, and inclusion, (EDI) who are considered national thought leaders in EDI and collectively have over 100 years of scholarship and experience in this area

Why are a quarter of faculty considering leaving academic medicine? A study of their perceptions of institutional culture and intentions to leave at 26 representative U.S. medical schools

PURPOSE: Vital, productive faculty are critical to academic medicine, yet studies indicate high dissatisfaction and attrition. The authors sought to identify key personal and cultural factors associated with intentions to leave one\u27s institution and/or academic medicine. METHOD: From 2007 through early 2009, the authors surveyed a stratified random sample of 4,578 full-time faculty from 26 representative U.S. medical schools. The survey asked about advancement, engagement, relationships, diversity and equity, leadership, institutional values and practices, and work-life integration. A two-level, multinomial logit model was used to predict leaving intentions. RESULTS: A total of 2,381 faculty responded (52%); 1,994 provided complete data for analysis. Of these, 1,062 (53%) were female and 475 (24%) were underrepresented minorities in medicine. Faculty valued their work, but 273 (14%) had seriously considered leaving their own institution during the prior year and 421 (21%) had considered leaving academic medicine altogether because of dissatisfaction; an additional 109 (5%) cited personal/family issues and 49 (2%) retirement as reasons to leave. Negative perceptions of the culture-unrelatedness, feeling moral distress at work, and lack of engagement-were associated with leaving for dissatisfaction. Other significant predictors were perceptions of values incongruence, low institutional support, and low self-efficacy. Institutional characteristics and personal variables (e.g., gender) were not predictive. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that academic medicine does not support relatedness and a moral culture for many faculty. If these issues are not addressed, academic health centers may find themselves with dissatisfied faculty looking to go elsewhere

Mentoring Faculty in Academic Medicine: A New Paradigm?

In this paper, we discuss an alternative structure and a broader vision for mentoring of medical faculty. While there is recognition of the need for mentoring for professional advancement in academic medicine, there is a dearth of research on the process and outcomes of mentoring medical faculty. Supported by the literature and our experience with both formal dyadic and group peer mentoring programs as part of our federally funded National Center of Leadership in Academic Medicine, we assert that a group peer, collaborative mentoring model founded on principles of adult education is one that is likely to be an effective and predictably reliable form of mentoring for both women and men in academic medicine