Nafisha Lalani1, Kent A Griffith2, Rochelle D Jones2, Daniel E Spratt3, Jennifer Croke1, Reshma Jagsi4. 1. Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 2. Center for Bioethics and Social Science in Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 4. Center for Bioethics and Social Science in Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Department of Radiation Oncology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Electronic address: rjagsi@med.umich.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Given concerns about attrition and career outcomes of academic radiation oncologists, we sought to gather empirical evidence regarding mentorship experiences. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We surveyed academic radiation oncologists in the United States and Canada who were within 5 years of board certification, using a pretested questionnaire that included 14 questions evaluating the following aspects of mentorship: relationship development, peer mentorship, satisfaction with mentorship, sponsorship, relationship nature, informal interactions, mentoring roles, presence of a primary mentor, and primary mentor characteristics. We described responses and evaluated associations with gender in separate multivariable regression models that adjusted for years in practice, nature of research, possession of higher degrees, and race. RESULTS: Of 347 faculty surveyed, 221 responded (64% response rate); 66% of respondents were men. Over half of respondents indicated difficulty in identifying role models (56%, n = 124); just under half reported ease in developing mentoring relationships (49%, n = 108). Peer-mentor use was commonly reported (62%, n = 138). Most respondents (66%, n = 145) spent ≤1 hour per month meeting with mentors. Only 51% (n = 112) reported having a primary mentor. Just under half of all respondents reported being very or somewhat satisfied with their mentorship experiences (49%, n = 108). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest a need for academic radiation oncology departments to facilitate mentorship of all junior faculty through deliberate, structured programs, with training of mentors and mentees alike. It is heartening that substantial rates of sponsorship and peer-mentorship use were reported, which may serve as the grounding for further initiatives.
PURPOSE: Given concerns about attrition and career outcomes of academic radiation oncologists, we sought to gather empirical evidence regarding mentorship experiences. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We surveyed academic radiation oncologists in the United States and Canada who were within 5 years of board certification, using a pretested questionnaire that included 14 questions evaluating the following aspects of mentorship: relationship development, peer mentorship, satisfaction with mentorship, sponsorship, relationship nature, informal interactions, mentoring roles, presence of a primary mentor, and primary mentor characteristics. We described responses and evaluated associations with gender in separate multivariable regression models that adjusted for years in practice, nature of research, possession of higher degrees, and race. RESULTS: Of 347 faculty surveyed, 221 responded (64% response rate); 66% of respondents were men. Over half of respondents indicated difficulty in identifying role models (56%, n = 124); just under half reported ease in developing mentoring relationships (49%, n = 108). Peer-mentor use was commonly reported (62%, n = 138). Most respondents (66%, n = 145) spent ≤1 hour per month meeting with mentors. Only 51% (n = 112) reported having a primary mentor. Just under half of all respondents reported being very or somewhat satisfied with their mentorship experiences (49%, n = 108). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest a need for academic radiation oncology departments to facilitate mentorship of all junior faculty through deliberate, structured programs, with training of mentors and mentees alike. It is heartening that substantial rates of sponsorship and peer-mentorship use were reported, which may serve as the grounding for further initiatives.
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: 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: Leah Taussky; Sabrina Harmouch; Guila Delouya; Carole Lambert; Jean-Paul Bahary; Louise Lambert; Laura Masucci; Normand Blais; An Tang; Daniel Liberman; Kevin C Zorn; Daniel Taussky Journal: Adv Radiat Oncol Date: 2019-10-16
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
Authors: Tetyana L Vasylyeva; María E Díaz-González de Ferris; David S Hains; Jacqueline Ho; Lyndsay A Harshman; Kimberly J Reidy; Tammy M Brady; Daryl M Okamura; Dmitry V Samsonov; Scott E Wenderfer; Erum A Hartung Journal: Front Pediatr Date: 2019-04-24 Impact factor: 3.418