Survey of mentoring programs for KL2 scholars

There is limited information on how academic institutions support effective mentoring practices for new investigators. A national semistructured telephone interview was conducted to assess current “state of the art” mentoring practices for KL2 scholars among the 46 institutions participating in the Clinical Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Consortium. Mentoring practices examined included: mentor selection, articulating and aligning expectations, assessing the mentoring relationship, and mentor training. Telephone interviews were conducted in winter/fall 2009, with 100% of the CTSAs funded (n=46) through 2009, participating in the survey. Primary findings include: fi ve programs selected mentors for K scholars, 14 programs used mentor contracts to define expectations, 16 programs reported formal mentor evaluation, 10 offered financial incentives to mentors, and 13 offered formal mentoring training. The interviews found considerable variation in mentoring practices for training new investigators among the 46 CTSAs. There was also limited consensus on“what works” and what are the core elements of “effective mentoring practices. Empirical research is needed to help research leaders decide on where and how to place resources related to mentoring     

Identifying and aligning expectations in a mentoring relationship

The mentoring relationship between a scholar and their primary mentor is a core feature of research training. Anecdotal evidence suggests this relationship is adversely affected when scholar and mentor expectations are not aligned. We examined three questions: (1) What is the value in assuring that the expectations of scholars and mentors are mutually identified and aligned? (2) What types of programmatic interventions facilitate this process? (3) What types of expectations are important to identify and align? We addressed these questions through a systematic literature review, focus group interviews of mentors and scholars, a survey of Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) KL2 program directors, and review of formal programmatic mechanisms used by KL2 programs. We found broad support for the importance of identifying and aligning the expectations of scholars and mentors and evidence that mentoring contracts, agreements, and training programs facilitate this process. These tools focus on aligning expectations with respect to the scholar's research, education, professional development and career advancement as well as support, communication, and personal conduct and interpersonal relations. Research is needed to assess test the efficacy of formal alignment activities.     

Evaluating and Giving Feedback to Mentors: New Evidence‐Based Approaches

A comprehensive mentoring program includes a variety of components. One of the most important is the ongoing assessment of and feedback to mentors. Scholars need strong active mentors who have the expertise, disposition, motivation, skills, and the ability to accept feedback and to adjust their mentoring style. Assessing the effectiveness of a given mentor is no easy task. Variability in learning needs and academic goals among scholars makes it difficult to develop a single evaluation instrument or a standardized procedure for evaluating mentors. Scholars, mentors, and program leaders are often reluctant to conduct formal evaluations, as there are no commonly accepted measures. The process of giving feedback is often difficult and there is limited empirical data on efficacy. This article presents a new and innovative six‐component approach to mentor evaluation that includes the assessment of mentee training and empowerment, peer learning and mentor training, scholar advocacy, mentee–mentor expectations, mentor self‐reflection, and mentee evaluation of their mentor. Clin Trans Sci 2012; Volume 5: 71–77     

Nurse Engagement and Contributions to the Clinical and Translational Science Awards Initiative

CTSAs are mandated to follow a multidisciplinary model. Requests for applications direct responsive applications to “integrate clinical and translational science across multiple departments, schools,” listing disciplines in addition to medicine such as engineering, nursing, and public health. This inventory of nurse engagement in CTSAs describes the extent of nursing''s CTSA engagement from the perspective of participating nurse scientists within individual CTSAs, including institutional/national contributions and best practices that foster a multidisciplinary model. Of the 50 CTSAs affiliated with a nursing school, 44 responded (88% response rate). Of the ten CTSAs not affiliated with a nursing school, four responded (40% response rate). Overall funding success rates of nurse applicants are: TL1 fellowships 81%, KL2 fellowships 54%, and nurse‐led pilots 58%. At most CTSAs nursing is contributing to the accomplishment of the CTSA mandate. The strongest categories of contribution are community engagement, implementation science, and training. Best practices to enhance multidisciplinary collaboration are: (1) inclusion of multiple disciplines on key committees who meet regularly to guide individual core and overall CTSA strategic planning and implementation; (2) required multidisciplinary co‐mentors (ideally from different schools within the CTSA) on training grants and as co‐investigators on pilot projects; and (3) documentation of multidisciplinary activity in annual reports.     

Evaluating research mentors working in the area of clinical translational science: a review of the literature

The goal of this paper is to review the evaluation of mentors with a focus on training new investigators in clinical translational science. These scholars include physicians and Ph.D. scientists who are generally assistant professors in clinical departments. This white paper is one of a series of articles focused on the programmatic elements of effective mentoring practices and the "current state of the art." Evaluating mentor performance and providing formative feedback can lead to stronger mentoring and ultimately lead to increased success of new clinical and translational investigators. While there is general agreement that mentor evaluation can be helpful, the process is difficult. Trainees are reluctant to share negative experiences and to rate their mentors. Mentors are not sure they want to be evaluated. Program leaders are not sure how to effectively use the information. This white paper provides mentees, mentors, and program leaders with new perspectives on mentor evaluation and ideas for future research.     

Mentoring in Clinical‐Translational Research: A Study of Participants in Master's Degree Programs

Research projects in translational science are increasingly complex and require interdisciplinary collaborations. In the context of training translational researchers, this suggests that multiple mentors may be needed in different content areas. This study explored mentoring structure as it relates to perceived mentoring effectiveness and other characteristics of master''s‐level trainees in clinical‐translational research training programs. A cross‐sectional online survey of recent graduates of clinical research master''s program was conducted. Of 73 surveys distributed, 56.2% (n = 41) complete responses were analyzed. Trainees were overwhelmingly positive about participation in their master''s programs and the impact it had on their professional development. Overall the majority (≥75%) of trainees perceived they had effective mentoring in terms of developing skills needed for conducting clinical‐translational research. Fewer trainees perceived effective mentoring in career development and work‐life balance. In all 15 areas of mentoring effectiveness assessed, higher rates of perceived mentor effectiveness was seen among trainees with ≥2 mentors compared to those with solo mentoring (SM). In addition, trainees with ≥2 mentors perceived having effective mentoring in more mentoring aspects (median: 14.0; IQR: 12.0–15.0) than trainees with SM (median: 10.5; IQR: 8.0–14.5). Results from this survey suggest having ≥2 mentors may be beneficial in fulfilling trainee expectations for mentoring in clinical‐translational training.     

A Research Mentor Training Curriculum for Clinical and Translational Researchers

Purpose

To design and evaluate a research mentor training curriculum for clinical and translational researchers. The resulting 8‐hour curriculum was implemented as part of a national mentor training trial.

Method

The mentor training curriculum was implemented with 144 mentors at 16 academic institutions. Facilitators of the curriculum participated in a train‐the‐trainer workshop to ensure uniform delivery. The data used for this report were collected from participants during the training sessions through reflective writing, and following the last training session via confidential survey with a 94% response rate.

Results

A total of 88% of respondents reported high levels of satisfaction with the training experience, and 90% noted they would recommend the training to a colleague. Participants also reported significant learning gains across six mentoring competencies as well as specific impacts of the training on their mentoring practice.

Conclusions

The data suggest the described research mentor training curriculum is an effective means of engaging research mentors to reflect upon and improve their research mentoring practices. The training resulted in high satisfaction, self‐reported skill gains as well as behavioral changes of clinical and translational research mentors. Given success across 16 diverse sites, this training may serve as a national model. Clin Trans Sci 2013; Volume 6: 26–33     

Mentoring K scholars: strategies to support research mentors

The goal of this paper is to present strategies utilized to support K scholar research mentors. K scholars are generally assistant professors who are close to developing independent research programs. Of all the various types of mentees, K scholars offer the greatest challenges, as well as the greatest rewards, for research mentors. To see one's mentee achieve independent PI status and become an established investigator is one of the great joys of being a research mentor. Research mentors for K scholars, however, may not directly benefit from their mentoring relationship, neither in terms of obtaining data to support their research program or laboratory, nor in assistance with grants or scientific papers. There is a pressing need for the research community to address the workload, institutional expectations, and reward system for research mentors. The dearth of research mentors and role models in clinical translational science parallels the decreasing number of physicians choosing careers in clinical research. While there is limited empirical information on the effectiveness of mentor support mechanisms, this white paper concludes that providing mentor support is critical to expanding the available pool of mentors, as well as providing training opportunities for K scholars.     

Training the Next Generation of Research Mentors: The University of California,San Francisco,Clinical & Translational Science Institute Mentor Development Program

Mentoring is a critical component of career development and success for clinical translational science research faculty. Yet few programs train faculty in mentoring skills. We describe outcomes from the first two faculty cohorts who completed a Mentor Development Program (MDP) at UCSF. Eligibility includes having dedicated research time, expertise in a scientific area and a desire to be a lead research mentor. A post‐MDP survey measured the program''s impact on enhancement of five key mentoring skills, change in the Mentors‐in‐Training (MIT) self‐rated importance of being a mentor to their career satisfaction, and overall confidence in their mentoring skills. Since 2007, 29 MITs participated in and 26 completed the MDP. Only 15% of the MITs reported any previous mentor training. Overall, 96% of MITs felt that participation in the MDP helped them to become better mentors. A majority reported a significant increase in confidence in mentoring skills and most reported an increased understanding of important mentoring issues at UCSF. MITs reported increased confidence in overall and specific mentoring skills after completion of the MDP. The MDP can serve as a model for other institutions to develop the next generation of clinical‐translational research mentors.     

Mentor Training within Academic Health Centers with Clinical and Translational Science Awards

Multiple studies highlight the benefits of effective mentoring in academic medicine. Thus, we sought to quantify and characterize the mentoring practices at academic health centers (AHCs) with Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA). Here we report findings pertaining specifically to mentor training at the level of the KL2 mentored award program, and at the broader institutional level. We found only four AHCs did not provide any form of training. One‐time orientation was most prevalent at the KL2 level, whereas formal face‐to‐face training was most prevalent at the institutional level. Despite differences in format usage, there was general consensus at both the KL2 and institutional level about the topics of focus of face‐to‐face training sessions. Lower‐resource training formats utilized at the KL2 level may reveal a preference for preselection of qualified mentors, while institutional selection of resource‐heavy formats may be an attempt to raise the mentoring qualifications of the academic community as a whole. The present work fits into the expanding landscape of academic mentoring literature and sets the framework for future longitudinal, outcome studies focused on identifying the most efficient strategies to develop effective mentors.     

A Sustainable Course in Research Mentoring

In this report, we describe a six‐year experience (2007‐2012) in a single CTSA awardee institution on the development, implementation and evaluation of a hybrid online mentoring curriculum that is applicable to CTSA trainees at various levels (graduate, medical students, and junior faculty) of career training. The curriculum offers convenience, engagement, and financial sustainability. Overall, we found high levels of satisfaction with the curriculum and mentoring experience among both protégés and mentors. Qualitative data showed remarkable consensus of 14 of the 15 domains of mentoring that form the framework of the mentoring curriculum: (1) accessibility, (2) selectivity, (3) engagement/support, (4) teaching/training, (5) clarity of performance/expectations, (6) sponsorship/sharing power judiciously, (7) demystifying the system (academia), (8) challenging/encouraging risk taking, (9) affirming, (10) providing exposure/visibility, (11) being an intentional role model, (12) protecting, (13) providing feedback, (14) self‐disclosure, and lastly (15) counseling, with the fifteenth domain “counseling” being the most controversial. Quantitative survey data of both mentors and protégés indicated a high degree of overall satisfaction in their mentor‐protégé dyad with 86% (59) of protégés and 86% (55) of mentors responding good or excellent to the “quality of time spent.” Mentors and protégés were most satisfied in the area of research, with 93% (62) of protégés and 96% (57) of mentors finding discussions in research very to somewhat useful for their own career advancement. Along with wide acceptability, this format is a useful option for institutions where face‐to‐face time is limited and education budgets are lean.     

Mentoring in Radiologic Science

Mentoring occurs every day in the workplace, as experienced employees (mentors) help guide inexperienced ones (protégés) toward a common goal. Both the mentor and protégé possess hallmark characteristics that contribute to a successful mentorship. The typology of mentoring includes formal versus informal, as well as group, one-on-one, peer, remote, and invisible mentors. The benefits of these mentorships can impact students, inexperienced employees, health care institutions, education institutions, patient care, and the mentors themselves. Finally, there are recommendations for fostering mentoring for educators and managers.     

Instruction in the Responsible Conduct of Research: An Inventory of Programs and Materials within CTSAs

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) require instruction in the responsible conduct of research (RCR) as a component of any Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA). The Educational Materials Group of the NIH CTSA Consortium''s Clinical Research Ethics Key Function Committee (CRE‐KFC) conducted a survey of the 38 institutions that held CTSA funding as of January 2009 to determine how they satisfy RCR training requirements. An 8‐item questionnaire was sent by email to directors of the Clinical Research Ethics, the Educational and Career Development, and the Regulatory Knowledge cores. We received 78 completed surveys from 38 CTSAs (100%). We found that there is no unified approach to RCR training across CTSAs, many programs lack a coherent plan for RCR instruction, and most CTSAs have not developed unique instructional materials tailored to the needs of clinical and translational scientists. We recommend collaboration among CTSAs and across CTSA key function committees to address these weaknesses. We also requested that institutions send electronic copies of original RCR training materials to share among CTSAs via the CTSpedia website. Twenty institutions submitted at least one educational product. The CTSpedia now contains more than 90 RCR resources.     

Training NIH K Award Recipients: The Role of the Mentor

Mentors play important roles in training new investigators. This study was designed to determine characteristics of NIH mentored K award recipients and their mentors, their interpersonal interactions, and the factors, which influence satisfaction within this relationship. Method: A survey of 3027 NIH mentored K recipients and 1384 mentors was conducted in 2009. Nine hundred twenty‐nine (30.7%) of the K recipients and 448 (32.4%) mentors completed the survey. Results: The gender of K respondents was evenly divided while the mentors were 72.1% male. The overall rating of their mentors was positive. Ideally, both thought the mentor should be important in research training; however, in actual practice, both rated the importance as lower. A total of 88.2% of recipients were satisfied with their relationship. Although the number of black K recipients was low, this group was more likely to be dissatisfied with the mentor relationship (6/29 or 20.7%) than their white counterparts. The frequency of meeting or communicating was correlated with K recipient satisfaction. Conclusions: Overall K recipients are satisfied with their mentor relationships. Although the number of black K recipient respondents was small, the higher level of mentor dissatisfaction should be further evaluated. Qualities of mentors, including the frequency of interactions and accessibility, can influence satisfaction. Clin Trans Sci 2012; Volume 5: 386–393     

Models of Interinstitutional Partnerships between Research Intensive Universities and Minority Serving Institutions (MSI) across the Clinical Translational Science Award (CTSA) Consortium

Health disparities are an immense challenge to American society. Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSAs) housed within the National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS) are designed to accelerate the translation of experimental findings into clinically meaningful practices and bring new therapies to the doorsteps of all patients. Research Centers at Minority Institutions (RCMI) program at the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD) are designed to build capacity for biomedical research and training at minority serving institutions. The CTSA created a mechanism fostering formal collaborations between research intensive universities and minority serving institutions (MSI) supported by the RCMI program. These consortium‐level collaborations activate unique translational research approaches to reduce health disparities with credence to each academic institutions history and unique characteristics. Five formal partnerships between research intensive universities and MSI have formed as a result of the CTSA and RCMI programs. These partnerships present a multifocal approach; shifting cultural change and consciousness toward addressing health disparities, and training the next generation of minority scientists. This collaborative model is based on the respective strengths and contributions of the partnering institutions, allowing bidirectional interchange and leveraging NIH and institutional investments providing measurable benchmarks toward the elimination of health disparities.     

Characterization of Investigators' Approach to Translational Research: A Qualitative Study

Background

Little is known about how investigators approach their research programs along the translational research continuum. Many consider the translational continuum to be linear, with research beginning at the bench and concluding with research at the bedside or in the community. We aimed to understand if translational investigators approach and view their research in this fashion.

Methods

We conducted semistructured individual interviews with 16 graduates of the University of Pittsburgh''s Multidisciplinary Clinical Research Scholars Program (KL2) in 2012.

Results

Our research revealed three characteristic models. The first model we called “linear” and represented the traditional approach. The second we called “holistic”; these investigators began with central research questions and sought to explore them in every direction of translation, not necessarily taking linear steps. The third model we called “technical”; in this model, investigators focused on a unique technology or methodology and applied it across multiple research contexts.

Conclusion

This study found that there are multiple ways that translational investigators approach their research program. Better understanding of these models can help educators and mentors guide investigators so that they can be more productive in their clinical or translational research career.     

The value of nurse mentoring relationships: Lessons learnt from a work‐based resilience enhancement programme for nurses working in the forensic setting

This study aimed to evaluate a mentoring programme embedded in a work‐based personal resilience enhancement intervention for forensic nurses. This qualitative study formed part of a wider mixed‐methods study that aimed to implement and evaluate the intervention. Twenty‐four semistructured interviews were carried out with forensic nurse mentees and senior nurse mentors; these explored their experiences of the mentoring programme and any benefits and challenges involved in constructing and maintaining a mentor–mentee relationship. Qualitative data were analysed thematically using the Framework Method. Four key themes relating to the initiation and maintenance of mentor–mentee relationships were identified: finding time and space to arrange mentoring sessions; building rapport and developing the relationship; setting expectations of the mentoring relationship and the commitment required; and the impact of the mentoring relationship for both mentees and mentors. Study findings highlight the benefits of senior nurses mentoring junior staff and provide evidence to support the integration of mentoring programmes within wider work‐based resilience enhancement interventions. Effective mentoring can lead to the expansion of professional networks, career development opportunities, increased confidence and competence at problem‐solving, and higher levels of resilience, well‐being, and self‐confidence.     

The Changing Faces of Mentorship: Application of a Developmental Network Framework in a Health Services Research Career Development Program

Historically, mentorship has been conceived of as a dyadic relationship between a senior mentor and an early‐career investigator. Models involving multiple mentors have gained favor in recent years, but empirical research on multiple‐mentor models has been lacking. The current work aims to fill this gap by describing a long‐standing health services research mentoring program at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs which has adopted a network‐based approach to mentoring. As part of a broader project, we surveyed VA HSR&D Career Development Awardees who received an award between 2000 and 2012. In total, 133 awardees participated (84%). Awardees reported on the structure of mentoring relationships with their two most influential mentors. Awardees were mentored by teams consisting of one to five mentors (M = 2.7 mentors). Most often, one mentor served as primary mentor while one or more mentors played a supporting role. In most cases, an awardee‘s primary mentor was co‐located with the awardee, with fewer secondary mentors co‐located. More recently funded CDAs had more mentors and were less likely to be co‐located with secondary mentors. The VA HSR&D CDA program incorporates current thinking about Developmental Network models of mentorship into a comprehensive program providing a rich mentorship experience for its awardees.     

Carer mentoring: A mixed methods investigation of a carer mentoring service

Background

Worldwide with ageing populations, the numbers of informal carers are likely to increase. Although being a carer is often satisfying, it can be challenging and require support. Volunteer-provided carer mentoring services where carers are supported by volunteer mentors are one such intervention. However, little is known about the impact of mentoring, carers’ experiences or the mechanisms by which these schemes may work. Previous quantitative findings have been inconsistent suggesting a different, mixed methods approach using qualitative and quantitative methods may be valuable.

Objectives

Objectives were to explore two main questions: whether mentoring had a significant positive effect on carer mentees in terms of mental health, quality of life and confidence in caring and to explore how carers experience and perceive the process and benefits of mentoring. In addition, the study aimed to suggest possible mechanisms to understand how mentoring may benefit carers.

Methods and setting

Mixed methods (quantitative questionnaires and depth interviews) investigated an established mentoring service provided by volunteer mentors. During the study period, 28 carers received mentoring. Of these, 25 carers completed structured questionnaires both before and after mentoring, to determine whether mentoring had an impact on carer wellbeing and confidence in caring. Depth interviews were also undertaken with 11 purposively sampled carers to explore how carers experience and perceive the process and benefits of mentoring.

Results

Statistically significant improvements in carer anxiety (p < 0.001), depression (p < 0.001), quality of life (p = 0.02) and confidence in caring (p < 0.05 on all dimensions except one) were found. Depth interviews revealed that carers were very positive about mentoring and highlighted many benefits. Findings suggested emotional support, information provision, problem solving facilitation and gaining new perspectives may be mechanisms by which mentoring achieves positive outcomes. Mentor personal characteristics, experiences and training are possible facilitators of the process.

Conclusions

Carer mentoring services can be a valuable form of carer support that falls somewhere between formal and informal support. Adopting mixed methods permitted greater understanding of how mentoring may benefit carers and has implications for mentor recruitment and training. The fact that mentoring can be provided by volunteer mentors makes it an attractive, potentially cost-effective means of supporting carers.