Natalya C Maisel1, Max A Halvorson, John W Finney, Xiaoyu Bi, Ko P Hayashi, Daniel M Blonigen, Julie C Weitlauf, Christine Timko, Ruth C Cronkite. 1. N.C. Maisel is a social science research professional, Institute for Research in the Social Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, California, and research health science specialist, Center for Innovation to Implementation, VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Menlo Park, California.M.A. Halvorson is a graduate student, Department of Psychology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, and research health science specialist, Center for Innovation to Implementation, VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Menlo Park, California.J.W. Finney is research health science specialist (WOC), Center for Innovation to Implementation, VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Menlo Park, California, and consulting professor, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.X. Bi is analytics and research manager, American Academy of Ophthalmology, San Francisco, California.K.P. Hayashi is a biostatistician, Impax Laboratories, Hayward, California.D.M. Blonigen is research health science specialist, Center for Innovation to Implementation, VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Menlo Park, California, and adjunct professor, Palo Alto University, Palo Alto, California.J.C. Weitlauf is director, Women's Mental Health and Aging Core, VISN 21 Mental Illness, Research, Education and Clinical Center, and center investigator, Center for Innovation to Implementation, VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, California, as well as clinical professor (affiliated) of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.C. Timko is senior research career scientist, VA Health Services Research and Development, Center for Innovation to Implementation, VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Menlo Park, California, and consulting professor, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.R.C. Cronkite is research health science specialist, Center for Innovation to Implementation, VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Menlo Park, California, as well as consulting professor, Department of Sociology, and affiliate, Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Limited empirical attention to date has focused on best practices in advanced research mentoring in the health services research domain. The authors investigated whether institutional incentives for mentoring (e.g., consideration of mentoring in promotion criteria) were associated with mentors' perceptions of mentoring benefits and costs and with time spent mentoring. METHOD: The authors conducted an online survey in 2014 of a national sample of mentors of U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Services Research and Development Service (HSR&D) mentored career development award recipients who received an award during 2000-2012. Regression analyses were used to examine institutional incentives as predictors of perceptions of benefits and costs of mentoring and time spent mentoring. RESULTS: Of the 145 mentors invited, 119 (82%) responded and 110 (76%) provided complete data for the study items. Overall, mentors who reported more institutional incentives also reported greater perceived benefits of mentoring (P = .03); however, more incentives were not significantly associated with perceived costs of mentoring. Mentors who reported more institutional incentives also reported spending a greater percentage of time mentoring (P = .02). University incentives were associated with perceived benefits of mentoring (P = .02), whereas VA incentives were associated with time spent mentoring (P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: Institutional policies that promote and support mentorship of junior investigators, specifically by recognizing and rewarding the efforts of mentors, are integral to fostering mentorship programs that contribute to the development of early-career health services researchers into independent investigators.
PURPOSE: Limited empirical attention to date has focused on best practices in advanced research mentoring in the health services research domain. The authors investigated whether institutional incentives for mentoring (e.g., consideration of mentoring in promotion criteria) were associated with mentors' perceptions of mentoring benefits and costs and with time spent mentoring. METHOD: The authors conducted an online survey in 2014 of a national sample of mentors of U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Services Research and Development Service (HSR&D) mentored career development award recipients who received an award during 2000-2012. Regression analyses were used to examine institutional incentives as predictors of perceptions of benefits and costs of mentoring and time spent mentoring. RESULTS: Of the 145 mentors invited, 119 (82%) responded and 110 (76%) provided complete data for the study items. Overall, mentors who reported more institutional incentives also reported greater perceived benefits of mentoring (P = .03); however, more incentives were not significantly associated with perceived costs of mentoring. Mentors who reported more institutional incentives also reported spending a greater percentage of time mentoring (P = .02). University incentives were associated with perceived benefits of mentoring (P = .02), whereas VA incentives were associated with time spent mentoring (P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: Institutional policies that promote and support mentorship of junior investigators, specifically by recognizing and rewarding the efforts of mentors, are integral to fostering mentorship programs that contribute to the development of early-career health services researchers into independent investigators.
Authors: Alexis Ogdie; Jeffrey A Sparks; Sheila T Angeles-Han; Kathleen Bush; Flavia V Castelino; Amit Golding; Yihui Jiang; J Michelle Kahlenberg; Alfred H J Kim; Yvonne C Lee; Kirthi Machireddy; Michael J Ombrello; Ami A Shah; Zachary S Wallace; Peter A Nigrovic; Una E Makris Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2018-02-06 Impact factor: 4.794