PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of a formal mentoring program on time to academic promotion and differences in gender-based outcomes. METHODS: Comparisons of time to promotion (i) before and after implementation of a formal mentoring program and (ii) between mentored and non-mentored faculty matched for covariates. Using paired-samples t-testing and mixed repeated measures ANCOVA, we explored the effect of mentor assignment and influence of gender on time to promotion. RESULTS: Promotional data from 1988 to 2010 for 382 faculty members appointed before 2003 were compared with 229 faculty members appointed in 2003 or later. Faculty appointed in 2003 or later were promoted 1.2 years (mean) sooner versus those appointed before 2003 (3.7 [SD = 1.7] vs. 2.5 [SD = 2], p < 0.0001). Regardless of year of appointment, mentor assignment appears to be significantly associated with a reduction in time to promotion versus non-mentored (3.4 [SD = 2.4] vs. 4.4 [SD = 2.6], p = 0.011). Gender effects were statistically insignificant. Post hoc analyses of time to promotion suggested that observed differences are not attributable to temporal effects, but rather assignment to a mentor. CONCLUSIONS: Mentoring was a powerful predictor of promotion, regardless of the year of appointment and likely benefited both genders equally. University resource allocation in support of mentoring appears to accelerate faculty advancement.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of a formal mentoring program on time to academic promotion and differences in gender-based outcomes. METHODS: Comparisons of time to promotion (i) before and after implementation of a formal mentoring program and (ii) between mentored and non-mentored faculty matched for covariates. Using paired-samples t-testing and mixed repeated measures ANCOVA, we explored the effect of mentor assignment and influence of gender on time to promotion. RESULTS: Promotional data from 1988 to 2010 for 382 faculty members appointed before 2003 were compared with 229 faculty members appointed in 2003 or later. Faculty appointed in 2003 or later were promoted 1.2 years (mean) sooner versus those appointed before 2003 (3.7 [SD = 1.7] vs. 2.5 [SD = 2], p < 0.0001). Regardless of year of appointment, mentor assignment appears to be significantly associated with a reduction in time to promotion versus non-mentored (3.4 [SD = 2.4] vs. 4.4 [SD = 2.6], p = 0.011). Gender effects were statistically insignificant. Post hoc analyses of time to promotion suggested that observed differences are not attributable to temporal effects, but rather assignment to a mentor. CONCLUSIONS: Mentoring was a powerful predictor of promotion, regardless of the year of appointment and likely benefited both genders equally. University resource allocation in support of mentoring appears to accelerate faculty advancement.
Authors: Nancy C Raymond; Jean F Wyman; Satlaj Dighe; Eileen M Harwood; Mikow Hang Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2018-03-27 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Christy D Di Frances; Ellen Childs; Jessica L Fetterman; Andrea C Villanti; Cassandra A Stanton; Abigail R Russo; Glenn A Hirsch; Amy C Solis; Emelia J Benjamin Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2020-05-26 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Diana Lin; Daniel R Gomez; Yue Helen Zhang; Renee Gennarelli; Jason A Efstathiou; Chris A Barker; Daphna Y Gelblum; Monika K Shah; Laura Liberman; Ariel E Hirsch; Oren Cahlon; Erin F Gillespie Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2022-05-26 Impact factor: 8.013
Authors: Georgeanna F W B Robinson; Lisa S Schwartz; Linda A DiMeglio; Jasjit S Ahluwalia; Janice L Gabrilove Journal: Acad Med Date: 2016-04 Impact factor: 6.893
Authors: John A Marsiglio; David M Rosenberg; Michael K Rooney; Chelain R Goodman; Erin F Gillespie; Ariel E Hirsch; Emma B Holliday; Randall J Kimple; Charles R Thomas; Daniel W Golden Journal: Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys Date: 2021-01-04 Impact factor: 8.013
Authors: Jason A Efstathiou; Michael R Drumm; Jonathan P Paly; Donna M Lawton; Regina M O'Neill; Andrzej Niemierko; Lisa R Leffert; Jay S Loeffler; Helen A Shih Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-11-29 Impact factor: 3.240