OBJECTIVES: While mentoring has been associated with research productivity, the specific characteristics of successful mentoring have not been well studied. Thus, we performed a case-control study to identify characteristics of successful mentoring programs. METHODS: Institutions were divided based on number of plenary research presentations at an annual society meeting over 6years. Case institutions (Group A) had more presentations vs. controls (Group B). A survey of professors and research fellows assessed characteristics of their mentoring program. Chi-square and logistic regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: Of 159 surveyed, response rates were 46% for professors and 51% for fellows. Compared to Group B, Group A was more likely to have: an additional year of protected fellowship research training (62% vs. 24%; p=0.003), an established program to connect a mentor and mentee with similar research interests (52% vs. 27%; p=0.049), methods to provide feedback to mentors (62% vs. 29%; p=0.01), require mentee research progress reports (45% vs. 21%; p=0.047), and report ease of identifying a mentor (90% vs. 69%; p=0.046). On multivariate analyses, the additional year of research training (OR=7.53, 95% CI: 2.10-27.09; p=0.002) and ease at identifying a research mentor (OR=7.45, 95% CI: 1.44-38.6; p=0.017) remained as independent factors associated with higher research productivity. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that programs can enhance research productivity with the incorporation of accountability features including formalized reports of progress and mentorship feedback in fellowship training. Facilitating the identification of a mentor and providing an additional year of research may be independent factors associated with research productivity. Copyright Â
OBJECTIVES: While mentoring has been associated with research productivity, the specific characteristics of successful mentoring have not been well studied. Thus, we performed a case-control study to identify characteristics of successful mentoring programs. METHODS: Institutions were divided based on number of plenary research presentations at an annual society meeting over 6years. Case institutions (Group A) had more presentations vs. controls (Group B). A survey of professors and research fellows assessed characteristics of their mentoring program. Chi-square and logistic regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: Of 159 surveyed, response rates were 46% for professors and 51% for fellows. Compared to Group B, Group A was more likely to have: an additional year of protected fellowship research training (62% vs. 24%; p=0.003), an established program to connect a mentor and mentee with similar research interests (52% vs. 27%; p=0.049), methods to provide feedback to mentors (62% vs. 29%; p=0.01), require mentee research progress reports (45% vs. 21%; p=0.047), and report ease of identifying a mentor (90% vs. 69%; p=0.046). On multivariate analyses, the additional year of research training (OR=7.53, 95% CI: 2.10-27.09; p=0.002) and ease at identifying a research mentor (OR=7.45, 95% CI: 1.44-38.6; p=0.017) remained as independent factors associated with higher research productivity. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that programs can enhance research productivity with the incorporation of accountability features including formalized reports of progress and mentorship feedback in fellowship training. Facilitating the identification of a mentor and providing an additional year of research may be independent factors associated with research productivity. Copyright Â
Authors: Fidel Rubagumya; Sarah K Nyagabona; Khadija H Msami; Achille Manirakiza; Ahuka N Longombe; Theoneste Maniragaba; Hilary Chan; Alan Paciorek; Li Zhang; Emmanuel Balandya; Leyna H Germana; Elia J Mmbaga; Nazima Dharsee; Katherine Van Loon Journal: Oncologist Date: 2019-03-22
Authors: Monica Gandhi; Alicia Fernandez; David M Stoff; Swathi Narahari; Michael Blank; Jonathan Fuchs; Clyde H Evans; James S Kahn; Mallory O Johnson Journal: AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses Date: 2014-05-12 Impact factor: 2.205
Authors: Emma B Holliday; Reshma Jagsi; Charles R Thomas; Lynn D Wilson; Clifton D Fuller Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2013-11-07 Impact factor: 7.038
Authors: Tiffany L Holland; Keewan Kim; Carrie J Nobles; Ya-Ling Lu; Indulaxmi Seeni; Sunni L Mumford; Stephen E Gilman; Lindsay D Levine; Victoria C Andriessen; Enrique F Schisterman Journal: Epidemiology Date: 2019-11 Impact factor: 4.822
Authors: Emma B Holliday; Reshma Jagsi; Lynn D Wilson; Mehee Choi; Charles R Thomas; Clifton D Fuller Journal: Acad Med Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: Samuel O Clarke; Jaime Jordan; Lalena M Yarris; Emilie Fowlkes; Jaqueline Kurth; Daniel Runde; Wendy C Coates Journal: AEM Educ Train Date: 2017-11-14