BACKGROUND: Mentorship is perceived to play a significant role in the career development and productivity of academic clinicians, but little is known about the characteristics of mentorship. This knowledge would be useful for those developing mentorship programs. OBJECTIVE: To complete a systematic review of the qualitative literature to explore and summarize the development, perceptions and experiences of the mentoring relationship in academic medicine. DATE SOURCES: Medline, PsycINFO, ERIC, Scopus and Current Contents databases from the earliest available date to December 2008. REVIEW METHODS: We included studies that used qualitative research methodology to explore the meaning and characteristics of mentoring in academic medicine. Two investigators independently assessed articles for relevance and study quality, and extracted data using standardized forms. No restrictions were placed on the language of articles. RESULTS: A total of 8,487 citations were identified, 114 full text articles were assessed, and 9 articles were selected for review. All studies were conducted in North America, and most focused on the initiation and cultivation phases of the mentoring relationship. Mentoring was described as a complex relationship based on mutual interests, both professional and personal. Mentees should take an active role in the formation and development of mentoring relationships. Good mentors should be sincere in their dealings with mentees, be able to listen actively and understand mentees' needs, and have a well-established position within the academic community. Some of the mentoring functions aim at the mentees' academic growth and others at personal growth. Barriers to mentoring and dysfunctional mentoring can be related to personal factors, relational difficulties and structural/institutional barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Successful mentoring requires commitment and interpersonal skills of the mentor and mentee, but also a facilitating environment at academic medicine's institutions.
BACKGROUND: Mentorship is perceived to play a significant role in the career development and productivity of academic clinicians, but little is known about the characteristics of mentorship. This knowledge would be useful for those developing mentorship programs. OBJECTIVE: To complete a systematic review of the qualitative literature to explore and summarize the development, perceptions and experiences of the mentoring relationship in academic medicine. DATE SOURCES: Medline, PsycINFO, ERIC, Scopus and Current Contents databases from the earliest available date to December 2008. REVIEW METHODS: We included studies that used qualitative research methodology to explore the meaning and characteristics of mentoring in academic medicine. Two investigators independently assessed articles for relevance and study quality, and extracted data using standardized forms. No restrictions were placed on the language of articles. RESULTS: A total of 8,487 citations were identified, 114 full text articles were assessed, and 9 articles were selected for review. All studies were conducted in North America, and most focused on the initiation and cultivation phases of the mentoring relationship. Mentoring was described as a complex relationship based on mutual interests, both professional and personal. Mentees should take an active role in the formation and development of mentoring relationships. Good mentors should be sincere in their dealings with mentees, be able to listen actively and understand mentees' needs, and have a well-established position within the academic community. Some of the mentoring functions aim at the mentees' academic growth and others at personal growth. Barriers to mentoring and dysfunctional mentoring can be related to personal factors, relational difficulties and structural/institutional barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Successful mentoring requires commitment and interpersonal skills of the mentor and mentee, but also a facilitating environment at academic medicine's institutions.
Authors: Joseph S Rabatin; Mack Lipkin; Alan S Rubin; Allison Schachter; Michael Nathan; Adina Kalet Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2004-05 Impact factor: 5.128
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: Elizabeth Ripley; Monika Markowitz; Ann Nichols-Casebolt; Larry Williams; Francis Macrina Journal: Clin Transl Sci Date: 2012-08-07 Impact factor: 4.689