OBJECTIVE: This report describes a model for the development, process, and tracking methods of a Peer-mentored Research Development Meeting (PRDM), an interdisciplinary peer mentoring program. The program was initiated in 2004 by a group of postdoctoral scholars and junior faculty from the Schools of the Health Sciences at the University of Pittsburgh. METHOD: From February 2004 through February 2006, PRDM's first five members tracked and documented their research activity (e.g., manuscripts, grants) every 4 months. The defining features of PRDM are adherence to a structured frequency and format for meetings, systematic tracking and evaluation of research development activities, and maintenance of ongoing relationships with senior mentors. RESULTS: During the 24-month data collection period, members were involved in 91 research development projects including grant applications, journal article manuscripts, book chapters, and conference abstracts. Members' productivity increased during the 24-month period, as did the efficiency and focus of the completed projects. CONCLUSION: Members increased the efficiency and focus of their research development activities during the study period. Structured peer-mentoring groups have the potential to enhance research productivity among junior investigators in research intensive environments.
OBJECTIVE: This report describes a model for the development, process, and tracking methods of a Peer-mentored Research Development Meeting (PRDM), an interdisciplinary peer mentoring program. The program was initiated in 2004 by a group of postdoctoral scholars and junior faculty from the Schools of the Health Sciences at the University of Pittsburgh. METHOD: From February 2004 through February 2006, PRDM's first five members tracked and documented their research activity (e.g., manuscripts, grants) every 4 months. The defining features of PRDM are adherence to a structured frequency and format for meetings, systematic tracking and evaluation of research development activities, and maintenance of ongoing relationships with senior mentors. RESULTS: During the 24-month data collection period, members were involved in 91 research development projects including grant applications, journal article manuscripts, book chapters, and conference abstracts. Members' productivity increased during the 24-month period, as did the efficiency and focus of the completed projects. CONCLUSION: Members increased the efficiency and focus of their research development activities during the study period. Structured peer-mentoring groups have the potential to enhance research productivity among junior investigators in research intensive environments.
Authors: Barbara A Schindler; Dennis H Novack; Diane G Cohen; Joel Yager; Dora Wang; Nicholas J Shaheen; Phyllis Guze; LuAnn Wilkerson; Douglas A Drossman Journal: Acad Med Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Vicki A Jackson; Anita Palepu; Laura Szalacha; Cheryl Caswell; Phyllis L Carr; Thomas Inui Journal: Acad Med Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Max A Halvorson; John W Finney; Xiaoyu Bi; Natalya C Maisel; Ko P Hayashi; Julie C Weitlauf; Ruth C Cronkite Journal: Clin Transl Sci Date: 2015-12-10 Impact factor: 4.689
Authors: Jason W Lancaster; Susan M Stein; Linda Garrelts MacLean; Jenny Van Amburgh; Adam M Persky Journal: Am J Pharm Educ Date: 2014-06-17 Impact factor: 2.047
Authors: Abraham A Brody; Linda Edelman; Elena O Siegel; Victoria Foster; Donald E Bailey; Ashley Leak Bryant; Stewart M Bond Journal: Nurs Outlook Date: 2016-04-04 Impact factor: 3.250
Authors: Tisha M Felder; Heather M Brandt; Cheryl A Armstead; Philip P Cavicchia; Kathryn L Braun; Swann A Adams; Daniela B Friedman; Sora Tanjasiri; Susan E Steck; Emily R Smith; Virginie G Daguisé; James R Hébert Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 2.037