Introduction
Effective mentorship is the cornerstone of faculty development in academic medicine and is shown to not only enhance career development but also strengthen institutional and department support for junior faculty [Reference Abedin, Rebello, Richards and Pincus1–Reference Cross, Lee, Bridgman, Thapa, Cleary and Kornhaber4]. While there is neither a universal definition of mentoring nor qualifications for who can serve as a mentor, when effective mentorship can significantly enhance professional identity, personal competence, research productivity, and faculty advancement [Reference Abedin, Rebello, Richards and Pincus1,Reference Tillman, Jang, Abedin, Richards, Spaeth-Rublee and Pincus5–Reference Henry-Noel, Bishop, Gwede, Petkova and Szumacher7]. Specific examples of career successes and professional development among junior faculty that have resulted from successful mentoring relationships include advancement in the promotion and tenure process, acquisition of independent grant funding, appointment to leadership positions, and increased productivity with regards to peer-reviewed publications [Reference Abedin, Rebello, Richards and Pincus1,Reference Blood, Ullrich and Hirshfeld-Becker2,Reference Cooke, Patt and Prabhu6]. In addition, personal development, career satisfaction, quality of life, and self-esteem have also been reported [Reference Abedin, Rebello, Richards and Pincus1,Reference Blood, Ullrich and Hirshfeld-Becker2,Reference Cooke, Patt and Prabhu6].
Faculty seeking to conduct research as a part of their academic medicine career face an additional layer of difficulty in defining and succeeding in their career path [Reference Ragsdale, Vaughn and Klein8–Reference Johnson, Subak, Brown, Lee and Feldman10]. Training in research methods, dedicated time for research, and mentorship specific to their research role are noted as important facilitators of success [Reference Ragsdale, Vaughn and Klein8–Reference Johnson, Subak, Brown, Lee and Feldman10]. In fact, the National Institute of Health and the Institute of Medicine identified research mentoring as critically important to increase the capacity of clinical and translational researchers in the USA [Reference Johnson, Subak, Brown, Lee and Feldman10,Reference Wingard, Garman and Reznik11].
However, diversity, equity, and inclusion in science and the scientific workforce are necessary for academic medicine to be at the forefront of innovation in the future [Reference Ragsdale, Vaughn and Klein8,Reference Boulware, Vitale and Ruiz12,Reference Fleming, Simmons and Xu13]. Diverse scholars, including junior faculty who are women and junior faculty from racial and ethnic backgrounds underrepresented in medicine, need access to training, learning communities, and mentorship, in addition to the removal of structural inequities within institutions [Reference Cross, Lee, Bridgman, Thapa, Cleary and Kornhaber4,Reference Boulware, Vitale and Ruiz12,Reference Boulware, Corbie and Aguilar-Gaxiola14,Reference Lewis, Martina and McDermott15]. For example, effective mentoring among women can be complicated by organizational factors such as the lack of available mentors with mutual interests or with research experience and by personal and relationship dynamics such as differences in age, gender, culture, and past experiences [Reference Cross, Lee, Bridgman, Thapa, Cleary and Kornhaber4]. In addition, the power differential posed by the traditional hierarchical structure of mentor–mentee relationships has served as a barrier to mentoring among women [Reference Cross, Lee, Bridgman, Thapa, Cleary and Kornhaber4]. Similarly, junior faculty from racial and ethnic backgrounds underrepresented in medicine can experience challenges such as biases, discrimination, and prejudice, resulting in feelings of isolation [Reference Lewis, Martina and McDermott15]. They can also experience a lack of confidence and increased self-doubt, leading to higher attrition from academic careers at institutions of higher education [Reference Lewis, Martina and McDermott15]. Fortunately, mentoring can serve as the mechanism for providing support, removing inequities, and ultimately, facilitating career development and success for junior faculty [Reference Cross, Lee, Bridgman, Thapa, Cleary and Kornhaber4,Reference Lewis, Martina and McDermott15]. Factors such as the availability, expertise, and responsiveness of the mentor; mutuality; protected time for mentor–mentee contact; and supportive relationships have been shown to facilitate personal and career development among junior faculty [Reference Blood, Ullrich and Hirshfeld-Becker2,Reference Cross, Lee, Bridgman, Thapa, Cleary and Kornhaber4,Reference Carapinha, Ortiz-Walters, McCracken, Hill and Reede16].
Given the demonstrated benefits of successful and effective mentor–mentee relationships, and the need to enhance mentorship for diverse junior faculty focused on incorporating research into their academic medical career, a review of successful mentoring strategies are warranted. While a number of reviews on mentorship in medicine exist, there are two primary gaps, that this review aims to fill. First, this review focuses on mentorship programs designed for research-focused junior faculty, defined as junior faculty conducting clinical or translational research as part of their academic medicine career. As such, mentorship regarding administrative time, clinical expertise, or educational efforts was not a focus of this review. Secondly, this review focuses on mentorship programs that quantitatively measured outcomes related to academic medical career trajectory, satisfaction within a research career, and research productivity, including grants and manuscripts. Finally, this review aimed to identify successful strategies that could be used to enhance existing and inform new mentorship programs that aim to increase diversity in academic medicine and research. As such, mentorship programs were not excluded for a lack of diversity, but it was noted if adaptations were made to specifically promote diversity. Therefore, the purpose of this review is two-fold: (1) to assess the literature that quantitatively measures outcomes of mentorship programs designed to support research-focused junior faculty in academic medical settings and (2) to identify mentoring strategies that promote diversity.
Methods
Search Term Selection, Eligibility Criteria, and Search Strategy
We followed PRISMA guidelines for conducting and reporting systematic reviews as a guide in conducting this scoping review [Reference Page, McKenzie and Bossuyt17]. A reproducible method was used to identify published papers on the measurable impact of mentoring on career success. Career success was defined to include career trajectory (including promotion through academic ranks), career satisfaction, quality of life, research productivity (grant funding, peer-reviewed publications), and leadership position(s) attainment in academic medicine.
Studies were identified by searching the Medline database using PubMed through August 3, 2022. The search terms were based on search strategies identified in published systematic reviews for mentoring [Reference House, Dracup, Burkinshaw, Ward and Bryant18,Reference Farkas, Bonifacino, Turner, Tilstra and Corbelli19] and careers in academic medicine [Reference Farkas, Bonifacino, Turner, Tilstra and Corbelli19–Reference Darbyshire, Gordon, Baker, Agius and McAleer21] with final search terms simplified to include only MESH terms. Search terms and resulting number of articles identified with each step of the search can be found in Table 1.
Table 1. Structure of search and search terms for PubMed
Eligibility criteria were created based on the PICOS (participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, study design) approach recommended by PRISMA guidelines [Reference Page, McKenzie and Bossuyt17]. Inclusion criteria included studies addressing, (a) junior faculty, (b) in research-focused faculty positions, (c) receiving mentorship, (d) in an academic medical center, (e) in the USA, (f) with outcomes collected to measure career success (career trajectory, career satisfaction, quality of life, research productivity, leadership position attainment). Studies that were not published in English, used qualitative methods only, and systematic reviews were excluded. To account for articles that did not explicitly characterize strategies as being focused on mentorship efforts to increase diversity, this search included all mentee characteristics for a comprehensive assessment of available literature on mentorship programs.
Study Selection and Data Collection
Figure 1 outlines the strategy used to identify eligible articles. Titles and abstracts were initially screened by three reviewers (JSW, RJW, and KMB) to ensure articles were conducted in US academic settings, with junior faculty, and focused on research careers. Two reviewers (JSW & RJW) independently screened 50% of the articles and double screened a random sample of the second half to ensure reviewer agreement. One other reviewer (KMB) independently screened 27% of the articles to ensure all articles meeting the inclusion criteria were identified; these articles were double screened by one of the initial reviewers (JSW) to ensure reviewer agreement. Any differences were addressed by discussion with the larger author team. Examples of reasons for excluding articles labeled as “not academic setting” included studies conducted in community practice, industry, or comparisons between academic and community settings. Examples of reasons for excluding articles labeled as “not junior faculty” included studies collecting information on mentorship of residents, medical students, interns, undergraduates, senior faculty, or post-docs, or comparisons between junior faculty and students/interns/residents. Examples of reasons for excluding articles labeled as “not research focused” included mentorship on teaching, clinical skills, clinical supervision, procedures, residency directors, or continuing medical education.
Fig. 1. Flow diagram for eligible article selection.
Following title and abstract screening, full-text articles were further assessed to ensure measurable outcomes were collected and reported. Two independent reviewers (JSW and RJW) used the same process of random sample of double review to ensure reviewer agreement of the full-text articles. Examples of reasons for excluding articles labeled as “other outcomes” that did not measure career success included editorials, perspectives, articles describing experience with a specific mentor, commentaries, presidential address summaries, personal experience, description of mentoring without an evaluation, measurement of satisfaction with finding a mentor, or measurement of whether individuals had a mentor. For quantitative studies, papers that described the importance of mentorship or the state of mentorship at an institution but did not provide an evaluation of the effectiveness of that mentorship were excluded. An additional hand search (JSW) using the same inclusion criteria yielded two additional articles that were included in this review.
Data were then abstracted from each article by using a standardized data collection form that included the following headings: author, year, study goal/objective, study population, study setting, strategy/intervention/approach deployed, and main findings/best practices. Data collected from each eligible article are presented in Tables 1 and 2. Quality of the manuscripts was not assessed due to the wide variety of study designs and outcomes collected in each study. Similarly, no quantitative analysis of results was conducted due to the variety of outcome measurements.
Table 2. Summary of articles included in review of mentorship for research-focused junior faculty
Note: Based on Medline search of PubMed database conducted on August 3, 2022.
Results
Study Selection
The structure of search and search terms for PubMed are shown in Table 1. Based on a search of PubMed, 7,911 articles on mentoring were identified, and 316,513 articles on Academic Medicine were identified (Fig. 1). Combining the two sets of search terms resulted in 1,842 articles for title and abstract review. Following title and abstract screening, 1,464 articles were excluded, and 378 articles moved on to full-text review for eligibility (Fig. 1). Most articles excluded at this phase were due to not being focused on junior faculty or on research. Full-text examination further excluded 350 articles, resulting in 25 articles. An additional hand search revealed two articles, resulting in a total of 27 articles included in this scoping review. Most articles excluded at this phase were due to a lack of measurable outcomes, or outcomes that did not align with this review (e.g., articles addressing satisfaction with mentor). Articles that included only qualitative methods or described the general characteristics of a department without a focus on a specific mentoring program or set of resources to support junior faculty development were also excluded at this point.
Study Characteristics
Table 2 provides a summary of the 27 articles eligible for inclusion in this review [Reference Blood, Ullrich and Hirshfeld-Becker2,Reference Boutjdir, Aromolaran and de Las Fuentes22–Reference Welch, Sawtelle and Cheng47]. All included studies focused on mentoring and supporting research-focused junior faculty in achieving optimal outcomes such as career trajectory, career satisfaction, quality of life, and scholarly productivity namely, publications and grants. Of the 27 included studies, 7 studies focused on junior faculty who were women or from racial/ethnic backgrounds underrepresented in medicine [Reference Blood, Ullrich and Hirshfeld-Becker2,Reference Boutjdir, Aromolaran and de Las Fuentes22,Reference Varkey, Jatoi and Williams30,Reference Brown, Dangerfield, Meanley and Hickson32,Reference Daley, Broyles, Rivera and Reznik36,Reference Mayer, Blair, Ko, Patel and Files39,Reference Viets, Baca, Verney, Venner, Parker and Wallerstein44].
The studies were heterogeneous in terms of the study goal and objective, study population, study setting, and strategy or approach used for mentoring and supporting junior faculty. Sample sizes ranged from 8 to 1,708. Six studies focused on career trajectory as an outcome [Reference Blood, Ullrich and Hirshfeld-Becker2,Reference Boutjdir, Aromolaran and de Las Fuentes22–Reference Prendergast, Heinert, Erickson, Thompson and Hoek26]; 5 focused on career satisfaction as an outcome [Reference Chen, Sandborg, Hudgins, Sanford and Bachrach27–Reference Walensky, Kim and Chang31]; 1 focused on quality of life as an outcome [Reference Blood, Ullrich and Hirshfeld-Becker2]; and 21 focused on scholarly productivity as an outcome [Reference Boutjdir, Aromolaran and de Las Fuentes22–Reference Prendergast, Heinert, Erickson, Thompson and Hoek26,Reference Brown, Dangerfield, Meanley and Hickson32–Reference Welch, Sawtelle and Cheng47]. Five studies focused on multiple outcomes [Reference Blood, Ullrich and Hirshfeld-Becker2,Reference Bredella, Alvarez, O’Shaughnessy, Lavigne, Brink and Thrall23–Reference Prendergast, Heinert, Erickson, Thompson and Hoek26]. Three studies focused specifically on women [Reference Blood, Ullrich and Hirshfeld-Becker2,Reference Varkey, Jatoi and Williams30,Reference Mayer, Blair, Ko, Patel and Files39], and four studies focused on junior faculty from racial/ethnic backgrounds underrepresented in medicine [Reference Boutjdir, Aromolaran and de Las Fuentes22,Reference Brown, Dangerfield, Meanley and Hickson32,Reference Daley, Broyles, Rivera and Reznik36,Reference Viets, Baca, Verney, Venner, Parker and Wallerstein44]. There were no articles that focused specifically on leadership or acquiring leadership positions as an outcome for research-focused junior faculty.
Table 3 highlights the primary findings of each study included in the review relative to the outcomes of interest. Mentoring programs captured promotion through ranks [Reference Boutjdir, Aromolaran and de Las Fuentes22–Reference Prendergast, Heinert, Erickson, Thompson and Hoek26], with three studies highlighting an increase in number of promotions following the mentoring program [Reference Bredella, Alvarez, O’Shaughnessy, Lavigne, Brink and Thrall23,Reference Efstathiou, Drumm and Paly24,Reference Prendergast, Heinert, Erickson, Thompson and Hoek26]. Mentoring programs also highlighted career satisfaction [Reference Blood, Ullrich and Hirshfeld-Becker2,Reference Walensky, Kim and Chang31], including improved self-efficacy [Reference Chen, Sandborg, Hudgins, Sanford and Bachrach27], and improvement in satisfaction following participation in mentoring programs [Reference Nagarur, O'Neill, Lawton and Greenwald28,Reference Varkey, Jatoi and Williams30]. Finally, significant academic productivity was highlighted as a result of mentorship programs, including increased number of externally funded grants and publication of peer-reviewed manuscripts [Reference Bredella, Alvarez, O’Shaughnessy, Lavigne, Brink and Thrall23,Reference Efstathiou, Drumm and Paly24,Reference Prendergast, Heinert, Erickson, Thompson and Hoek26,Reference Chou, Hammon and Akins35,Reference Landsberger, Scott, Hulvershorn, Chapleau, Diaz and McDougle38,Reference Mayer, Blair, Ko, Patel and Files39,Reference Rice, Jeffe and Boyington41,Reference Spence, Buddenbaum, Bice, Welch and Carroll43,Reference Viets, Baca, Verney, Venner, Parker and Wallerstein44,Reference Welch, Sawtelle and Cheng47].
Table 3. Summary of findings for articles included in review of mentorship for research-focused junior faculty
Effective Mentoring Strategies
Table 4 provides a summary of the mentorship format and mentoring program characteristics of each study. The vast majority of programs used mentor–mentee pairs [Reference Blood, Ullrich and Hirshfeld-Becker2,Reference Bredella, Alvarez, O’Shaughnessy, Lavigne, Brink and Thrall23–Reference Hackworth, Meinzen-Derr and DePalma25,Reference Chen, Sandborg, Hudgins, Sanford and Bachrach27–Reference Travis, Katz and Kane29,Reference Walensky, Kim and Chang31–Reference Brownson, Jacob and Carothers33,Reference Freel, Smith, Burns, Downer, Brown and Dewhirst37,Reference Rice, Jeffe and Boyington41–Reference Welch, Sawtelle and Cheng47], and three programs used primary mentors with committees [Reference Hackworth, Meinzen-Derr and DePalma25,Reference Spence, Buddenbaum, Bice, Welch and Carroll43,Reference Welch, Sawtelle and Cheng47]. Five programs used a cohort process where mentees moved through the program together [Reference Boutjdir, Aromolaran and de Las Fuentes22,Reference Brownson, Jacob and Carothers33,Reference Burns, Clayton, George, Mitchell and Gitlin34,Reference Daley, Broyles, Rivera and Reznik36,Reference Rice, Jeffe and Boyington41]. Six programs used peer groups [Reference Bredella, Alvarez, O’Shaughnessy, Lavigne, Brink and Thrall23,Reference Hackworth, Meinzen-Derr and DePalma25,Reference Chen, Sandborg, Hudgins, Sanford and Bachrach27,Reference Freel, Smith, Burns, Downer, Brown and Dewhirst37,Reference Waitzkin, Yager, Parker and Duran46,Reference Welch, Sawtelle and Cheng47], and four programs used facilitated peer mentorship [Reference Prendergast, Heinert, Erickson, Thompson and Hoek26,Reference Varkey, Jatoi and Williams30,Reference Landsberger, Scott, Hulvershorn, Chapleau, Diaz and McDougle38,Reference Mayer, Blair, Ko, Patel and Files39]. In addition to regular meetings between mentors and mentees, a number of characteristics and components of programs were highlighted, including didactic courses [Reference Boutjdir, Aromolaran and de Las Fuentes22,Reference Bredella, Alvarez, O’Shaughnessy, Lavigne, Brink and Thrall23,Reference Hackworth, Meinzen-Derr and DePalma25,Reference Brownson, Jacob and Carothers33,Reference Burns, Clayton, George, Mitchell and Gitlin34,Reference Freel, Smith, Burns, Downer, Brown and Dewhirst37,Reference Rice, Jeffe and Boyington41,Reference Viets, Baca, Verney, Venner, Parker and Wallerstein44,Reference Waitzkin, Yager, Parker and Duran46], career development discussion [Reference Boutjdir, Aromolaran and de Las Fuentes22,Reference Bredella, Alvarez, O’Shaughnessy, Lavigne, Brink and Thrall23,Reference Chen, Sandborg, Hudgins, Sanford and Bachrach27,Reference Travis, Katz and Kane29,Reference Burns, Clayton, George, Mitchell and Gitlin34,Reference Daley, Broyles, Rivera and Reznik36,Reference Freel, Smith, Burns, Downer, Brown and Dewhirst37,Reference Spence, Buddenbaum, Bice, Welch and Carroll43], grant development or review of grant applications [Reference Boutjdir, Aromolaran and de Las Fuentes22,Reference Chen, Sandborg, Hudgins, Sanford and Bachrach27,Reference Brown, Dangerfield, Meanley and Hickson32,Reference Chou, Hammon and Akins35,Reference Freel, Smith, Burns, Downer, Brown and Dewhirst37,Reference Spence, Buddenbaum, Bice, Welch and Carroll43], manuscript development [Reference Varkey, Jatoi and Williams30], institutional or national networking opportunities [Reference Boutjdir, Aromolaran and de Las Fuentes22,Reference Bredella, Alvarez, O’Shaughnessy, Lavigne, Brink and Thrall23,Reference Prendergast, Heinert, Erickson, Thompson and Hoek26], action plans [Reference Efstathiou, Drumm and Paly24,Reference Prendergast, Heinert, Erickson, Thompson and Hoek26,Reference Nagarur, O'Neill, Lawton and Greenwald28], and pilot funding or funded support [Reference Bredella, Alvarez, O’Shaughnessy, Lavigne, Brink and Thrall23,Reference Travis, Katz and Kane29,Reference Brown, Dangerfield, Meanley and Hickson32,Reference Chou, Hammon and Akins35,Reference Daley, Broyles, Rivera and Reznik36,Reference Mumma, Chang, Kea and Ranney40,Reference Viets, Baca, Verney, Venner, Parker and Wallerstein44,Reference Voytko, Barrett and Courtney-Smith45,Reference Welch, Sawtelle and Cheng47].
Table 4. Summary of mentoring program format and characteristics of programs mentoring research-focused junior faculty
Traditional mentoring approaches such as frequent mentor–mentee meetings, attendance at didactic workshops on career-related topics, training sessions on how to optimize mentorship, hands-on experiences to enhance research skills, feedback from committee members, mentee support groups, and individualized assistance with skill development (i.e., grant writing and review; manuscript development) were found effective particularly in terms of academic productivity [Reference Bredella, Alvarez, O’Shaughnessy, Lavigne, Brink and Thrall23,Reference Efstathiou, Drumm and Paly24,Reference Chen, Sandborg, Hudgins, Sanford and Bachrach27–Reference Walensky, Kim and Chang31,Reference Burns, Clayton, George, Mitchell and Gitlin34,Reference Daley, Broyles, Rivera and Reznik36,Reference Rice, Jeffe and Boyington41,Reference Spence, Buddenbaum, Bice, Welch and Carroll43,Reference Waitzkin, Yager, Parker and Duran46].
Peer mentoring was used to support professional and personal development skills, relatedness and inclusion, grant writing skills, engagement, promotion, and institutional commitment [Reference Bredella, Alvarez, O’Shaughnessy, Lavigne, Brink and Thrall23,Reference Prendergast, Heinert, Erickson, Thompson and Hoek26,Reference Chen, Sandborg, Hudgins, Sanford and Bachrach27,Reference Varkey, Jatoi and Williams30,Reference Landsberger, Scott, Hulvershorn, Chapleau, Diaz and McDougle38,Reference Mayer, Blair, Ko, Patel and Files39,Reference Voytko, Barrett and Courtney-Smith45]. Peer mentoring that was matched based on research and clinical skills was found to be effective with regards to increasing satisfaction with academic achievement [Reference Varkey, Jatoi and Williams30]. When facilitated by a senior mentor, advice was also provided regarding life-work balance, funding opportunities, regulatory issues, and ethical concerns in conducting research [Reference Prendergast, Heinert, Erickson, Thompson and Hoek26,Reference Burns, Clayton, George, Mitchell and Gitlin34,Reference Landsberger, Scott, Hulvershorn, Chapleau, Diaz and McDougle38]. Individuals participating in peer mentoring were more likely to have improved satisfaction scores, particularly in career planning and research and mentoring skills [Reference Nagarur, O'Neill, Lawton and Greenwald28,Reference Varkey, Jatoi and Williams30].
Using resource support as a mentoring strategy through provision of pilot funding or travel support resulted in increased grant applications, publications, and professional presentations [Reference Bredella, Alvarez, O’Shaughnessy, Lavigne, Brink and Thrall23,Reference Daley, Broyles, Rivera and Reznik36,Reference Mumma, Chang, Kea and Ranney40,Reference Viets, Baca, Verney, Venner, Parker and Wallerstein44]. Junior faculty were also offered additional resources in the forms of research funding, administrative and research coordination support, protected time, office space, and grant development support [Reference Mumma, Chang, Kea and Ranney40].
Though the majority of programs incorporated formal mentorship, some investigated the impact of informal mentorship [Reference Efstathiou, Drumm and Paly24,Reference Shollen, Bland, Center, Finstad and Taylor42,Reference Welch, Sawtelle and Cheng47]. Formal mentorship resulted in significantly more junior faculty members becoming principal investigators and coinvestigators of research projects (p < 0.05) [Reference Shollen, Bland, Center, Finstad and Taylor42]. In addition, higher rates of success for grant funding from the National Institutes of Health among mentees were associated with mentoring relationships in departments that assigned mentors compared to departments where mentors were not assigned (p = 0.02) [Reference Welch, Sawtelle and Cheng47]. Informal mentorship, on the other hand, was not associated with increased academic productivity either in grants or manuscripts [Reference Shollen, Bland, Center, Finstad and Taylor42]. In assessments to understand perspectives of mentoring relationships that were successful, junior faculty identified time spent with mentors, varying roles of mentors, and collegiality between the mentor and mentee as important [Reference Darbyshire, Gordon, Baker, Agius and McAleer21].
Discussion
Though a large literature base exists describing mentorship programs, commenting on the importance of mentorship, and capturing satisfaction with mentorship in general or mentorship programs specifically, this scoping review found there are limited quantitative evaluations of mentorship designed to support diverse groups of research-focused faculty on which to build evidence-based programs. This is an important finding given the large number of published manuscripts identified in the search covering the topic of mentorship in academic medicine. Articles identified in the initial search more often focused on clinical field specific mentorship as opposed to research-specific mentorship (i.e., clinical skills, clinical supervision, procedures, or continuing medical education). In addition, many articles identified in the search discussed mentorship success, but without quantitative evaluation (i.e., editorials, perspectives, commentaries, description of mentoring program without an evaluation, measurement of satisfaction with a program but not evaluation of the program impact). An important recommendation for future research is systematic collection of information to provide evaluations of mentoring program impact. Specifically, information is needed to understand the impact on career trajectory and career progression. Within the articles meeting inclusion criteria for this review, most studies captured research productivity and career satisfaction, with fewer focused on career trajectory and quality of life, and no studies with information collected on progression of mentees to leadership positions.
This scoping review adds to the current literature by offering insights on the state of quantitative evaluations of mentoring programs focused on promoting career success for research-focused junior faculty. Though formal evaluations were limited and difficult to compare, some consistent strategies emerged that are effective for promoting research productivity, career trajectory, and career satisfaction. First, a structured framework for addressing career development gaps was necessary. This framework could include regular meetings, didactic training sessions, or meetings with peers; the type of structure was not associated with outcomes as much as having regular processes in place for mentees. Second, gaps identified spanned research-specific skills such as writing and publishing articles, research-specific resources such as funding for pilot grants and research staff support, as well as career development skills, such as negotiation skills, strategic planning, and balancing work and life. Successful programs should include all aspects to ensure mentees are supported across domains identified as gaps. Third, evaluations were most informative, and programs could address needs most efficiently when they combined both objective measures (i.e. funding and publications) and subjective measures (i.e. networking experiences, confidence in skills, preparedness for research career). Finally, a few specific areas were found successful for ensuring diversity within programs. One, early communication of programs and encouragement of enrollment. Two, incorporating faculty development and leadership development topics within the program. Three, incorporating review and critique of grant applications. And, finally, providing financial support for pilot research projects or travel to national conferences for networking.
Peer mentoring is one strategy that was consistently identified as effective in increasing academic productivity for research-focused junior faculty [Reference Prendergast, Heinert, Erickson, Thompson and Hoek26,Reference Chen, Sandborg, Hudgins, Sanford and Bachrach27,Reference Varkey, Jatoi and Williams30,Reference Landsberger, Scott, Hulvershorn, Chapleau, Diaz and McDougle38,Reference Mayer, Blair, Ko, Patel and Files39]. Two primary types of peer mentorship were noted in the studies included in this review – the first composed entirely of peers (eg., other research-focused junior faculty), and the second best described as facilitated peer mentorship where a senior faculty guides discussions and making himself or herself available to multiple junior faculty mentees. The type of peer mentorship, focus of the program, and number of faculty per peer group varied across studies included in this review, suggesting that the construct of peer mentorship is more important than specific details of the program. Most programs used a facilitated peer mentorship model, which may be based on the need for insight from a more senior faculty member on honing research skills [Reference Prendergast, Heinert, Erickson, Thompson and Hoek26,Reference Varkey, Jatoi and Williams30,Reference Landsberger, Scott, Hulvershorn, Chapleau, Diaz and McDougle38,Reference Mayer, Blair, Ko, Patel and Files39]. Based on the findings of this review, programs using peer mentorship should be thoughtful in their design to ensure time expectations for both mentors and mentees are considered. In addition, programs should ensure that group creation and senior mentor matching to a peer group is based on agreed-upon categorization, and goals of the peer mentorship structure are clear. An interesting finding from Shollen and colleagues that informal mentors were correlated with greater junior faculty satisfaction, while formal mentors were correlated with greater academic productivity highlights the importance of formal structures despite the difficulty in matching mentors and mentees [Reference Shollen, Bland, Center, Finstad and Taylor42]. Taken together, these findings suggest that a formal facilitated peer mentorship structure with initial matching into a group based on research interests, followed by regular self-evaluation by mentees allowing for changes in peer mentor groups, may be an effective long-term strategy for effective mentorship. Future research on peer mentorship programs with details on structure developed, processes followed, and career impact on mentees is warranted to guide these programs.
A secondary goal of this review was to identify mentoring strategies that promote diversity by gender and race/ethnicity. Studies in this review found no difference between men and women in terms of having a mentor, mentor effectiveness, or length of the mentor relationship [Reference Travis, Katz and Kane29,Reference Voytko, Barrett and Courtney-Smith45]. Prior work noted that women faculty reported mentor availability as the most important characteristic for success [Reference Blood, Ullrich and Hirshfeld-Becker2]. They also recommended that the best strategies for their success include mentorship at the relevant career rank and use of structured frameworks to address gaps in establishing and achieving career goals; developing negotiation skills; writing and publishing articles; planning strategically; finding collaborators; and balancing work and family life [Reference Blood, Ullrich and Hirshfeld-Becker2]. In a study for underrepresented minority (URM) junior faculty to create a cohort of investigators engaged in health disparities research, junior faculty reported that early identification of and communication with other URM faculty was a strategy for success [Reference Daley, Broyles, Rivera and Reznik36]. Additional best practice recommendations included enrollment in leadership and faculty development programs and support for pilot research projects (i.e., reviewing, critiquing, funding) [Reference Daley, Broyles, Rivera and Reznik36]. To continue our efforts towards improving workforce diversity among women and/or URM junior faculty members, qualitative and quantitative research dedicated to understanding their needs and identifying best practices and mentoring strategies by gender and race/ethnicity remain an imperative of significant priority. Research collaboratives and partnerships with trusted organizations and minority-serving institutions such as Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) should be considered when determining best practices for improving workforce diversity by gender and race/ethnicity for emerging research junior faculty members.
Evidence shows that the emphasis placed on recruiting and retaining women and URM junior faculty in science and health professions has been promising, but unfortunately has shown only modest results [Reference Beech, Bruce, Thorpe, Heitman, Griffith and Norris48]. Women and URM junior faculty members are still often overlooked and experience adversities such as structural racism, discrimination, and systemic oppression that inhibit their abilities to get funded, achieve promotion and tenure, and remain in tenure-track positions [Reference Beech, Bruce, Thorpe, Heitman, Griffith and Norris48]. This can be compounded when there is limited institutional support, a lack of mentorship, or poor and suboptimal mentoring [Reference Beech, Bruce, Thorpe, Heitman, Griffith and Norris48]. Given this lag in the advancement of women and URM junior faculty in research, it is of urgency that we identify the barriers experienced by these subpopulation groups and intentionally initiate strategies and best practices targeted to address the barriers and facilitate their success. In addition, resources and research-intensive training are required to mitigate these barriers and improve the success of women and URM junior faculty in research [Reference Beech, Bruce, Thorpe, Heitman, Griffith and Norris48]. Otherwise, evidence suggests faculty diversity will not improve without additional measures and optimal strategies being in place [Reference Beech, Bruce, Thorpe, Heitman, Griffith and Norris48].
While many articles aimed to ensure equal representation of men and women in mentorship programs or focus mentoring programs on women junior faculty, fewer programs targeted mentees from racial/ethnic backgrounds that are underrepresented in medicine. This suggests a need to promote recruitment of diverse faculty into ongoing mentorship programs. Mentoring strategies used in programs that targeted diversity can be applied in all programs, such as ensuring that diverse mentors are available, matching mentors and mentees on agreed-upon characteristics and goals, targeting recruitment of minority junior faculty, and combining traditional one-on-one and peer mentoring strategies to create an environment of support. An interesting finding was that while many programs were focused on specific clinical fields, programs that targeted diverse scholars were more likely to engage interdisciplinary mentees with a focus on facilitating research careers across clinical specialties. Current programs should consider increasing the multidisciplinary nature of both mentors and mentees as efforts to increase diversity are implemented.
Based on the current state of research on mentoring strategies to promote career success for diverse scholars, efforts are needed at three levels. First, at the mentee level, programs should focus on purposeful recruitment of diverse mentees and provide mentorship on research competencies, career path guidance, service activity selection, work/life balance, building professional relationships, and acquiring leadership positions. Use of a combined one-on-one and peer mentorship, or a facilitated peer mentorship program will additionally offer a sense of community and shared learning within peer groups, which has been shown to be important for diverse scholars. Second, more research is needed investigating strategies for mentors, including purposeful recruitment of diverse mentors, providing training on expectation setting, conflict resolution, and communication styles to develop the mentor relationship, and use of a mentorship team or external mentors to support the mentor–mentee pair. Finally, strategies are needed at the institutional level to create a sense of belonging and provide access to resources necessary to support research productivity. Resources to support mentors, either offering protected time or dedicated pilot funds to assist mentees, have also been recommended as a way for institutions to show support for mentorship. Efforts to purposely address implicit bias and change systems that limit the long-term success of diverse scholars are necessary not only within the mentor–mentee experience, but also at the departmental and institutional level.
Despite using a systematic process, limitations to this review exist that are worth noting. First, evaluations of mentoring programs not published in the peer-reviewed literature were not captured in this summary. The search purposely used the most widely accepted medical database, Medline, and required peer review to focus on articles that would be most likely to be used as examples for institutions currently developing or revising mentorship programs. Therefore, while other evaluations may exist, those included in this review represent the published literature. Second, most studies noted limitations of small sample size and groups established by self-selection. Additionally, only six studies directly addressed mentoring of diverse junior faculty. While this may impact generalizability of specific programs to other institutions, the summary of characteristics of successful programs should be generalizable given the compilation of multiple programs with similar structures. Finally, this review was purposely focused on mentoring programs conducted within academic medical centers in the USA and therefore may not be generalizable to other settings.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this scoping review of mentorship programs for research-focused junior faculty highlights the importance of increasing quantitative evaluations of the impact on career success for future design of evidence-based mentoring efforts. Based on studies included in this review, traditional one-on-one mentorship, structured peer mentorship facilitated by a senior mentor, and peer groups in combination with one-on-one mentorship are effective strategies to facilitate research productivity. Few studies focused on programs designed to increase diversity suggesting existing mentorship programs should increase efforts to purposefully recruit diverse mentors and mentees and expand research topics to allow interdisciplinary research engagement. Finally, to achieve long-term impact of these programs, efforts are needed at the mentee, mentor, and institutional level to provide mentorship to junior faculty on research competencies and career trajectory, create a sense of belonging, and connect junior faculty with institutional resources to support career success.
Acknowledgements
Effort for this study was partially supported by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive Kidney Disease (R21DK131356, PI: Ozieh; R21DK123720, PI: Williams; K01DK131319, PI: Campbell; K24DK093699, R01DK118038, R01DK120861, PI: Egede), the National Institute for Minority Health and Health Disparities (R01MD013826, PI: Egede/Walker), and the American Diabetes Association (1-19-JDF-075, PI: Walker).
Disclosures
The authors report no potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article.
Open access
