BACKGROUND: In academic medicine, women physicians lag behind their male counterparts in advancement and promotion to leadership positions. Lack of mentoring, among other factors, has been reported to contribute to this disparity. Peer mentoring has been reported as a successful alternative to the dyadic mentoring model for women interested in improving their academic productivity. We describe a facilitated peer mentoring program in our institution's department of medicine. METHODS: Nineteen women enrolled in the program were divided into 5 groups. Each group had an assigned facilitator. Members of the respective groups met together with their facilitators at regular intervals during the 12 months of the project. A pre- and post-program evaluation consisting of a 25-item self-assessment of academic skills, self-efficacy, and academic career satisfaction was administered to each participant. RESULTS: At the end of 12 months, a total of 9 manuscripts were submitted to peer-reviewed journals, 6 of which are in press or have been published, and another 2 of which have been invited to be revised and resubmitted. At the end of the program, participants reported an increase in their satisfaction with academic achievement (mean score increase, 2.32 to 3.63; P = 0.0001), improvement in skills necessary to effectively search the medical literature (mean score increase, 3.32 to 4.05; P = 0.0009), an improvement in their ability to write a comprehensive review article (mean score increase, 2.89 to 3.63; P = 0.0017), and an improvement in their ability to critically evaluate the medical literature (mean score increased from 3.11 to 3.89; P = 0.0008). CONCLUSIONS: This facilitated peer mentoring program demonstrated a positive impact on the academic skills and manuscript writing for junior women faculty. This 1-year program required minimal institutional resources, and suggests a need for further study of this and other mentoring programs for women faculty.
BACKGROUND: In academic medicine, women physicians lag behind their male counterparts in advancement and promotion to leadership positions. Lack of mentoring, among other factors, has been reported to contribute to this disparity. Peer mentoring has been reported as a successful alternative to the dyadic mentoring model for women interested in improving their academic productivity. We describe a facilitated peer mentoring program in our institution's department of medicine. METHODS: Nineteen women enrolled in the program were divided into 5 groups. Each group had an assigned facilitator. Members of the respective groups met together with their facilitators at regular intervals during the 12 months of the project. A pre- and post-program evaluation consisting of a 25-item self-assessment of academic skills, self-efficacy, and academic career satisfaction was administered to each participant. RESULTS: At the end of 12 months, a total of 9 manuscripts were submitted to peer-reviewed journals, 6 of which are in press or have been published, and another 2 of which have been invited to be revised and resubmitted. At the end of the program, participants reported an increase in their satisfaction with academic achievement (mean score increase, 2.32 to 3.63; P = 0.0001), improvement in skills necessary to effectively search the medical literature (mean score increase, 3.32 to 4.05; P = 0.0009), an improvement in their ability to write a comprehensive review article (mean score increase, 2.89 to 3.63; P = 0.0017), and an improvement in their ability to critically evaluate the medical literature (mean score increased from 3.11 to 3.89; P = 0.0008). CONCLUSIONS: This facilitated peer mentoring program demonstrated a positive impact on the academic skills and manuscript writing for junior women faculty. This 1-year program required minimal institutional resources, and suggests a need for further study of this and other mentoring programs for women faculty.
Authors: L P Fried; C A Francomano; S M MacDonald; E M Wagner; E J Stokes; K M Carbone; W B Bias; M M Newman; J D Stobo Journal: JAMA Date: 1996-09-18 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Janet Bickel; Diane Wara; Barbara F Atkinson; Lawrence S Cohen; Michael Dunn; Sharon Hostler; Timothy R B Johnson; Page Morahan; Arthur H Rubenstein; George F Sheldon; Emma Stokes Journal: Acad Med Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: P L Carr; A S Ash; R H Friedman; A Scaramucci; R C Barnett; L Szalacha; A Palepu; M A Moskowitz Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 1998-10-01 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Amy H Farkas; Eliana Bonifacino; Rose Turner; Sarah A Tilstra; Jennifer A Corbelli Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-07 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Ruth M Masterson Creber; Matthew R Baldwin; Patrick J Brown; Maya K Rao; Parag Goyal; Scott Hummel; John A Dodson; Stephen Helmke; Mathew S Maurer Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2019-01-29 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Geoffrey M Fleming; Jill H Simmons; Meng Xu; Sabina B Gesell; Rebekah F Brown; William B Cutrer; Joseph Gigante; William O Cooper Journal: Acad Med Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 6.893