Melissa M Cellini1, Janet R Serwint2, Donna M D'Alessandro3, Elaine E Schulte4, Cynthia Osman5. 1. Bronx Lebanon Hospital Center, Bronx, NY. Electronic address: melissa.cellini@gmail.com. 2. Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Md. 3. The University of Iowa, Iowa City. 4. Cleveland Clinic Children's Hospital, Cleveland, Ohio. 5. Bellevue Hospital Center/New York University, New York, NY.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Speed mentoring provides brief mentoring and networking opportunities. We evaluated 1) a national speed mentoring program's ability to encourage in-person networking and advice-sharing, and 2) 2 potential outcomes: helping mentees achieve 3-month goals, and fostering mentoring relationships after the program. METHODS: An outcome approach logic model guided our program evaluation. Sixty mentees and 60 mentors participated. Each mentee met with 6 mentors for 10 minutes per pairing. At the program, mentees created goals. At 3 months, mentors sent mentees a reminder e-mail. At 4 months, participants received a Web-based survey. RESULTS: Forty-two (70%) mentees and 46 (77%) mentors completed the survey. Participants reported the program allowed them to share/receive advice, to network, to provide/gain different perspectives, and to learn from each other. Mentors as well as mentees identified shared interests, mentor-mentee chemistry, mentee initiative, and mentor approachability as key qualities contributing to ongoing relationships. Many mentor-mentee dyads had additional contact (approximately 60%) after the program and approximately one-third thought they were likely to continue the relationship. Goal-setting encouraged subsequent mentor-mentee contact and motivated mentees to work toward attaining their 3-month goals. The mentors aided mentees goal attainment by providing advice, offering support, and holding mentees accountable. CONCLUSIONS: A national speed mentoring program was an effective and efficient way to establish national connections, obtain different perspectives, and receive advice. Goal-setting helped mentees in achieving 3-month goals and fostering mentoring relationships outside of the program. These elements continue to be a part of this program and might be valuable for similar programs.
OBJECTIVE: Speed mentoring provides brief mentoring and networking opportunities. We evaluated 1) a national speed mentoring program's ability to encourage in-person networking and advice-sharing, and 2) 2 potential outcomes: helping mentees achieve 3-month goals, and fostering mentoring relationships after the program. METHODS: An outcome approach logic model guided our program evaluation. Sixty mentees and 60 mentors participated. Each mentee met with 6 mentors for 10 minutes per pairing. At the program, mentees created goals. At 3 months, mentors sent mentees a reminder e-mail. At 4 months, participants received a Web-based survey. RESULTS: Forty-two (70%) mentees and 46 (77%) mentors completed the survey. Participants reported the program allowed them to share/receive advice, to network, to provide/gain different perspectives, and to learn from each other. Mentors as well as mentees identified shared interests, mentor-mentee chemistry, mentee initiative, and mentor approachability as key qualities contributing to ongoing relationships. Many mentor-mentee dyads had additional contact (approximately 60%) after the program and approximately one-third thought they were likely to continue the relationship. Goal-setting encouraged subsequent mentor-mentee contact and motivated mentees to work toward attaining their 3-month goals. The mentors aided mentees goal attainment by providing advice, offering support, and holding mentees accountable. CONCLUSIONS: A national speed mentoring program was an effective and efficient way to establish national connections, obtain different perspectives, and receive advice. Goal-setting helped mentees in achieving 3-month goals and fostering mentoring relationships outside of the program. These elements continue to be a part of this program and might be valuable for similar programs.
Authors: Heba A Mohtady; Karen D Könings; Mohamed M Al-Eraky; Arno M M Muijtjens; Jeroen J G van Merriënboer Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2019-09-23 Impact factor: 2.463
Authors: Judy McKimm; Subha Ramani; Rashmi A Kusurkar; Alice Fornari; Vishna Devi Nadarajah; Harish Thampy; Helena P Filipe; Elizabeth K Kachur; Richard Hays Journal: Perspect Med Educ Date: 2020-10-13