Repaving the road to academic success: the IMeRGE approach to peer mentoring.

In recent years, academic health centers have made a considerable effort to encourage medical students and physicians-in-training to consider academic medicine as a career choice. For physicians, selecting a career in academic medicine may be the first hurdle, but the challenge of successfully maintaining an academic career is perhaps a more formidable task. Mentoring is a much-needed response to this challenge. But the success of traditional mentoring programs at academic institutions is often limited by, among other things, the availability of senior faculty who can serve as mentors. The authors describe the formation and organization of the Internal Medicine Research Group at Emory (IMeRGE), an innovative peer mentoring group within the Division of General Medicine at Emory University. This group, born partially out of the mentoring needs of our women and minority faculty, shared the primary goal of fostering a collaborative atmosphere among junior faculty, while simultaneously acquiring experience through advanced faculty development. The authors present our methods of garnering division support for designated time and financial resources, defining member responsibilities, developing a curriculum, providing peer support, and seeking advisors with expertise in the areas on which we wished to focus. In addition to the development of IMeRGE, the authors provide an overview of the pros and cons of traditional mentoring versus peer mentoring; discuss the challenges faced by IMeRGE and strategies for addressing these issues; and present the paradigm of IMeRGE as a template for alternative forms of academic mentorship.     

Improving the retention of underrepresented minority faculty in academic medicine

BACKGROUND: Although several studies have outlined the need for and benefits of diversity in academia, the number of underrepresented minority (URM) faculty in academic health centers remains low, and minority faculty are primarily concentrated at the rank of assistant professor. In order to increase the diversity of the faculty of the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) School of Medicine, the UCSD National Center for Leadership in Academic Medicine, in collaboration with the UCSD Hispanic Center of Excellence, implemented a junior faculty development program designed in part to overcome the differential disadvantage of minority faculty and to increase the academic success rate of all faculty. METHODS: Junior faculty received counseling in career and research objectives; assistance with academic file preparation, introduction to the institutional culture; workshops on pedagogy and grant writing; and instrumental, proactive mentoring by senior faculty. RESULTS: After implementation of the program, the retention rate of URM junior faculty in the school of medicine increased from 58% to 80% and retention in academic medicine increased from 75% to 90%. CONCLUSION: A junior faculty development program that integrates professional skill development and focused academic career advising with instrumental mentoring is associated with an increase in the retention of URM faculty in a school of medicine.     

Mentoring program for minority faculty at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine.

Research indicates that having a faculty mentor and being part of an active network of peers are critical ingredients of successful academic medicine careers. Minority physicians, however, often do not have mentors, and the problem is greatest for minority groups underrepresented in medicine. The University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine in 1994-1996 undertook to learn the extent of mentoring programs in its departments and divisions and to compare the experiences of underrepresented-minority faculty and others. The results were used to establish a system for mentoring and networking support for minority faculty members. Examining the reports of division and department heads on their formal mentoring programs, it was clear that these leaders considered a mentor essential for career development, but many reported having no systematic plan for mentors for junior faculty. In looking at the reported experiences of minority and non-minority assistant professors (matched for promotion track, department, appointment date, and, where possible, gender), it was found that approximately half of either group did not have mentors. As a result of this information, the school established a faculty development program to meet the faculty members' demonstrated needs: annual career development meetings with new minority faculty; assistance in identifying and assigning mentors; assistance in developing research skills; and monitoring of the retention of minority faculty. As experience with the program produces additional insights into the needs of minority faculty--and particularly of junior faculty--the program will be adjusted and expanded to meet these identified needs.     

The Junior Faculty Laboratory: an innovative model of peer mentoring

Mentoring in academic medicine has been shown to contribute to the success of junior faculty, resulting in increased productivity, career satisfaction, and opportunities for networking. Although traditional dyadic mentoring, involving one senior faculty member and one junior protégé, is the dominant model for mentoring in the academic environment, there is increasing recognition that the sharing of knowledge, skills, and experiences among peers may also contribute to the career development of junior faculty. The authors describe the structure, activities, and outcomes of the Junior Faculty Laboratory (JFL), a self-organized, flexible, and dynamic peer-mentoring model within the Duke University Center for the Study of Aging and Human Development. As an innovative mentoring model, JFL is entirely peer driven, and its activities are determined by the real-time needs of members. In contrast to some other peer-mentoring models, JFL lacks senior faculty input or a structured curriculum, members are multidisciplinary, meeting times are project driven rather than preset, and participation in collaborative projects is optional based on the interests and needs of group members. Additionally, JFL was not formed as a substitute for, but as a complement to, the dyadic mentoring relationships enjoyed by its members. The model, now in its fifth year, has demonstrated success and sustainability. The authors present the JFL as an innovative, mentoring model that can be reproduced by other junior faculty seeking to foster collegial relationships with peers while simultaneously enhancing their career development.     

"Having the right chemistry": a qualitative study of mentoring in academic medicine.

PURPOSE: To develop a deeper understanding of mentoring by exploring lived experiences of academic medicine faculty members. Mentoring relationships are key to developing productive careers in academic medicine, but such alliances hold a certain "mystery." METHOD: Using qualitative techniques, between November 1999 and March 2000, the authors conducted individual telephone interviews of 16 faculty members about their experiences with mentoring. Interviews were taped and transcribed and authors identified major themes through multiple readings. A consensus taxonomy for classifying content evolved from comparisons of coding by four reviewers. Themes expressed by participants were studied for patterns of connection and grouped into broader categories. RESULTS: Almost 98% of participants identified lack of mentoring as the first (42%) or second (56%) most important factor hindering career progress in academic medicine. Finding a suitable mentor requires effort and persistence. Effective mentoring necessitates a certain chemistry for an appropriate interpersonal match. Prized mentors have "clout," knowledge, and interest in the mentees, and provide both professional and personal support. In cross-gender mentoring, maintaining clear boundaries is essential for an effective relationship. Same-gender or same-race matches between mentor and mentee were not felt to be essential. CONCLUSIONS: Having a mentor is critical to having a successful career in academic medicine. Mentees need to be diligent in seeking out these relationships and institutions need to encourage and value the work of mentors. Participants without formalized mentoring relationships should look to peers and colleagues for assistance in navigating the academic system.     

Evaluation of an Enhanced Peer Mentoring Program on Scholarly Productivity and Promotion in Academic Emergency Medicine: A Five-Year Review

ObjectiveTo design, implement, and evaluate the effectiveness of an enhanced peer mentoring program (EPMP) for faculty in emergency medicine aimed at overcoming traditional mentoring challenges.MethodsFull time faculty (Clinical Instructor, Assistant, and Associate levels) were placed into peer groups (based upon their primary academic roles) led by senior faculty advisors at the Professor level. Peer groups met at least quarterly from 2012 to 2017. In lieu of a structured curriculum, session topics were informed by individual faculty surveys and peer group consensus. Areas of focus included work-life balance, prioritizing academic commitments, identification of mentors (both within and external to the department and university), networking opportunities, promotions goals, and career satisfaction.ResultsEffectiveness of the EPMP was evaluated by academic productivity and advancement over a 5- year period. A total of 22 faculty members participated in the program. There was an increase in promotions to the next academic level, from 3 promotions in the five years before the program to 7 promotions in the five years of the program. Total grant funding increased 3-fold from $500,000 to $1,706,479 from the first year to the last year of the evaluation period.ConclusionsThis enhanced peer mentoring program was effective in mitigating many of the traditional mentoring challenges faced by faculty in academia and was successful in improving both academic productivity and advancement.     

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

Background

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?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.

Methods

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.

Results

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.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.

Conclusions

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.

     

The POD: a new model for mentoring underrepresented minority faculty.

Mentoring, long recognized as a catalyst for successful careers, is particularly important to the career development of underrepresented minority (URM) faculty. In academic medicine, mentor-protégé relationships are seriously threatened by increased clinical, research, and administrative demands and an emphasis on scholarship over citizenship. New mentoring models are needed, and they should be adaptable to a medical school's unique structure and mission. The Peer-Onsite-Distance (POD) model, developed in 2002 by the authors and introduced at the College of Medicine at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, is a targeted, multilevel mentoring prototype that is built on a solid research foundation and tailored to the unique needs of URM medical school faculty. The mentee's individual needs for guidance related to career goals, resources, and the content and interaction skills that are known to be critical to successful academic careers are targeted for development. The multilevel approach provides a unique network of peer and faculty mentors who provide site-specific career guidance. Also in the network are leaders in their fields who can provide access to accurate information, cautions, predictions, and announcements of future resources or potential restrictions in academic medicine. Mentor commitments are clearly defined and time contributions are maximized. The POD model aims to promote retention and advance the careers of URM faculty by wrapping them in a protective cushion of interpersonal and intrapersonal support. The flexibility of the design allows for adaptation to any institution's unique structure and mission.     

Comparing millennial and generation X medical students at one medical school.

PURPOSE: Two main generational cohorts comprising students enrolled in medical schools today are Generation Xers (born 1965-1980) and Millennial students (born 1981-1999). A subset is Cuspars (born 1975-1980), who share traits with both generations. Population theorists ascribe different personal characteristics, attitudes, and preferences to each group. The authors examined whether selected characteristics describing Generation X and Millennial students were quantifiable using a personality measure. Differences among Generation X, Millennial, and Cuspar medical students were investigated. METHOD: Eight hundred and nine medical students (399 females and 410 males) who matriculated between 1989-94 and 2001-04 at the Northeastern Ohio Universities College of Medicine completed the 16 Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF). Differences in responses to the 16PF among the three generations were analyzed using multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). RESULTS: Analyses showed significant differences for Generation X versus Millennial students on 10 of the 16 personality factors. Millennial students scored significantly higher than Generation X students on factors including Rule-Consciousness, Emotional Stability, and Perfectionism; Generation X students scored higher than Millennials on Self-Reliance. Millennials also were significantly different from Generation Xers on several other factors. Significant differences were noted among Cuspars, Generation Xers, and Millennials. CONCLUSIONS: The 16PF is a useful tool to examine differences among these groups and to help understand the factors that constitute their personalities. Given differences among the generational groups, the authors forecast possible educational implications for medical school academic affairs and student services, and suggest areas for future research.     

Empowering junior faculty: Penn State's faculty development and mentoring program.

Empowerment of faculty is essential for academic success. The Junior Faculty Development Program (JFDP), sponsored by the Office of Professional Development of the Penn State College of Medicine, was established in 2003 with the goal of promoting the development and advancement of junior faculty so they can achieve success in their academic careers. The program consists of two components: a curriculum in research, education, clinical practice, and career development, and an individual project completed under the guidance of a senior faculty mentor. The curriculum provides faculty with knowledge, skills, and resources. Mentoring provides relationships and support. Together, these elements combine to empower junior faculty to better manage their careers.The effectiveness of the program has been demonstrated by several measures: participants evaluated the program highly, demonstrated increases in their perceptions of their own abilities, and completed tasks important to the advancement of their careers. Participants stated they were better prepared to advance their academic careers and that the individual projects would contribute to their career advancement.On the basis of this experience, the authors suggest that faculty development programs should empower faculty so that they can more effectively chart a successful career in academic medicine. This report describes an empowerment model, and the design, implementation, and evaluation of the Junior Faculty Development Program in 2003-04 and 2004-05. The authors offer this program as a model for the benefit of other institutions and for one of their most valuable assets: junior faculty.     

Results of a gender-climate and work-environment survey at a midwestern academic health center.

AND CLIMATE determine how faculty's perceptions of medical school gender climate differ by gender, track, rank, and departmental affiliation. METHOD: In 1997, a 115-item questionnaire was sent to all University of Wisconsin Medical School faculty to assess their perceptions of mentoring, networking, professional environment, obstacles to a successful academic career, and reasons for considering leaving academic medicine. Using Fisher's exact two-tailed test, the authors assessed gender differences both overall and by track, rank, and departmental cluster. RESULTS: Of the 836 faculty on tenure, clinician-educator, and clinical tracks, 507 (61%) responded. Although equal proportions of men and women had mentors, 24% of the women (compared with 6% of men; p < .001) felt that informal networking excluded faculty based on gender. Women's and men's perceptions differed significantly (p < .001) on 12 of 16 professional environment items (p < .05 on two of these items) and on five of six items regarding obstacles to academic success. While similar percentages of women and men indicated having seriously considered leaving academic medicine, their reasons differed: women cited work-family conflicts (51%), while men cited uncompetitive salaries (59%). These gender differences generally persisted across tracks, ranks, and departmental clusters. The greatest gender differences occurred among clinician-educators, associate professors, and primary care faculty. CONCLUSIONS: Women faculty perceived that gender climate created specific, serious obstacles to their professional development. Many of those obstacles (e.g., inconvenient meeting times and lack of child care) are remediable. These data suggest that medical schools can improve the climate and retain and promote women by more inclusive networking, attention to meeting times and child care, and improved professional interactions between men and women faculty.     

Women's attitudes toward careers in academic medicine at the University of California, San Francisco.

In order to identify the concerns and possible barriers for women considering careers in academic medicine, in 1990 the authors surveyed both men and women medical students, housestaff, postdoctoral students, and junior faculty at The University of California, San Francisco (UCSF). The authors achieved a 58% response rate from students and faculty, a 21% response rate from postdoctoral students, and a 15% response rate from housestaff. Results indicated that women at all levels were less interested in academic careers than were their male colleagues. Concerns about balancing family responsibilities, clinical practice, and teaching in addition to the research required of an academic career were mentioned most frequently. Women, especially those among the housestaff and junior faculty, reported fewer mentor relationships and role models. The authors discuss these findings in relation to other studies and describe what they are doing to foster women's interest and success in academic medicine at UCSF.     

The advisory dean program: a personalized approach to academic and career advising for medical students.

Advising and mentoring programs for medical students vary in their official names, scope, and structures. Catalyzed by negative student feedback regarding career advising and a perceived disconnection between faculty and students, in academic year 2003-2004, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons implemented its formal Advisory Dean (AD) Program and disbanded its former advising system that used faculty volunteers. The AD Program has become a key element for enhancing the students' professional development throughout their student training, focusing on topics including, but not limited to, career counseling, professionalism, humanism, and wellness resources. Advisory deans and the dean for student affairs, familiar with resources for academic development, student support, and extracurricular activities, operate at the nexus of the program, providing personalized mentoring and advising for each student. Fully supported by administration and faculty, the program has shown early success according to student feedback. Early feedback from the Class of 2006, who had been involved in our AD Program for three years, has been encouraging. Out of 152 students, 104 (68%) provided feedback, with 93 (89%) of the respondents reporting the AD Program as a valuable initiative. Expecting to further improve on this early positive response, the AD Program will continue to foster an environment conducive to a seamless transition from student to physician.     

An initiative in mentoring to promote residents' and faculty members' careers.

Internal medicine trainees and faculty recognize the value of effective mentoring to help meet the personal and professional needs of residents. However, the paradigm of the mentor-trainee relationship is seriously threatened by increased clinical, research, and administrative demands on both faculty and housestaff. Moreover, the current criteria for promotion in most teaching hospitals emphasize scholarship, rather than citizenship, so activities such as mentoring devolve to a lower priority. In 2000, the Department of Medicine at Brigham and Women's/Faulkner Hospital initiated a program to improve the effectiveness of housestaff mentoring and recognize faculty contributions to resident career development. The authors report the feedback received from a survey of the 2002-03 medical housestaff (74% response rate) and describe their experiences with the initiation of this program. Over 90% of the housestaff respondents thought it important that the Department assigns an individual faculty mentor. In practice, time-consuming professional responsibilities made meetings difficult, but most pairs supplemented their interactions with e-mail. Discussions primarily focused on career advice and support. Housestaff thought mentors were helpful and available when needed. The department has established new metrics for recognizing faculty mentoring and now publicly rewards mentoring excellence. Of note, unassigned mentoring has increased since the initiation of this program. The authors conclude that the formal mentoring program has ensured that all trainees are provided with a mentor, which has facilitated faculty-housestaff interactions and increased recognition of faculty contributions to mentoring.     

A conceptual model for faculty development in academic medicine: the underrepresented minority faculty experience

In May 2010, the Association of American Medical Colleges reported that nonwhite professors have a lower promotion rate than white professors. A cohort of 30 underrepresented minority (URM) junior faculty who participated in a structured faculty development program at a public, research-intensive, academic medical center were followed in a 10-year longitudinal study. This paper reports on the career status of 12 of the 30 URM faculty who were eligible for promotion during this period. Ninety-two percent (11/12) of URM faculty eligible for promotion were promoted to associate professor. When asked what factors contributed to their success, these URM faculty identified access and support of senior faculty mentors, peer networking, professional skill development, and knowledge of institutional culture. A faculty development program that addresses these components can promote the success of URM faculty in academic medicine.     

Clinical faculty tracks and academic success at the University of California Medical Schools.

PURPOSE: To describe the five faculty series for medical school faculty in the University of California (UC) system, their criteria for advancement, associated challenges, and the different ways they are used by each school. METHOD: During 2001-02, the associate dean for academic affairs at each UC medical school was interviewed for information on the number of faculty in each academic series, the role of each series, and problematic issues associated with them. The averaged merit and promotion results for each series for 1999-2002 at the University of California, Davis, School of Medicine, were examined. RESULTS: The two clinical faculty series showed the most variability among the UC campuses for number of faculty, and strategy for appointment and advancement. The percentage of faculty in the Clinical X series varied from 8% to 39% at the five campuses. All campuses agreed that faculty in the Clinical X series must participate in applied or translational clinical investigation or educational investigation, and disseminate their work. All campuses required that the Ladder-Rank and In-Residence faculty devote the majority of their time to hypothesis-driven research. At University of California, Davis, the two clinical series had the highest approval rates for merits and promotion actions. The Ladder-Rank series had the highest denial rate for merits and promotion. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical series in the UC system are used differently at the five medical schools. Appointing junior faculty in series with minimal expectations as a "safe starting place" is favored for building long-term faculty. Faculty in all series tend to do well in the academic review process, indicating that these series define distinct expectations. Clinical faculty's accomplishments are increasingly understood, valued, and rewarded.     

Mentoring for women and underrepresented minority faculty and students: experience at two institutions of higher education

Women and minority faculty and students are seriously underrepresented in university and academic healthcare institutions. The role of mentoring has been identified as one of the significant factors in addressing this underrepresentation. We have described the mentoring efforts at two institutions of higher learning in assisting women and minority students and faculty in being accomplished in their academic pursuits. One-hundred-thirty students and >50 women and minority faculty have participated in the mentoring programs described. The number of participants has increased dramatically over the years and continues to evolve positively. These programs appear to be quite successful in the short term. Further evaluation of measurable outcomes will be necessary to fully determine their true impact. The mentoring models for women and underrepresented minority faculty and students at Creighton University Health Sciences Schools and Wake Forest University School of Medicine will serve as a guide for other Health Sciences Schools.     

Getting residents involved in research: a challenge in the era of managed care.

The changing climate of health care, with the associated increasing financial constraints, challenges faculty and residents to find time for mentoring and pursuing research. Departments and institutions can encourage residents to conduct research by assuring them that they have a supportive infrastructure. Only when the institution and faculty value research will residents do the same. More than half of academic surgeons spend less than 20% of their effort in research; how can residency programs expect residents to enthusiastically pursue research when members of the teaching faculty are themselves not writing and publishing? If the ACGME is serious about asking residents to devote their time and energy to becoming more active in research activities, we must be prepared to decrease service commitments, and we must provide clinically active mentors and visible career models.