Amy H Farkas1,2, Eliana Bonifacino3, Rose Turner4, Sarah A Tilstra3, Jennifer A Corbelli3. 1. Division of General Internal Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA. ahfarkas@mcw.edu. 2. Milwaukee VA Medical Center, Milwaukee, WI, USA. ahfarkas@mcw.edu. 3. Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 4. Falk Library of the Health Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Women remain underrepresented in academic medicine, particularly in leadership positions. This lack of women in leadership has been shown to have negative implications for both patient care and educational outcomes. Similarly, the literature demonstrates that female physicians are less likely to have mentors, despite the proven benefits of mentorship for career advancement. The objective of this review is to identify and describe models of mentorship for women in academic medicine. METHODS: We searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Education Resources Information Center, and Cochrane Databases of Systematic Reviews following PRISMA guidelines in June 2017. We included original English language studies that described a mentorship program in the USA that involved academic medical doctorates and that were created for women or provided results stratified by gender. RESULTS: Our search returned 3625 results; 3309 references remained after removal of duplicates. Twenty articles met inclusion criteria. The majority of the programs were designed for junior faculty and used the dyad model of mentoring (i.e., one mentor/one mentee). Frequently cited objectives of these programs were to improve scholarship, promotion, and retention of female faculty. Program evaluations were primarily survey-based, with participant-reported satisfaction being the most frequent measured outcome. Most results showed very high satisfaction. Gender concordance between mentor and mentee did not impact satisfaction. Eight articles reported objective outcomes, including publications, retention, and promotion, and each of these demonstrated an improvement after program implementation. DISCUSSION: Our review suggests that mentorship programs designed for women, regardless of the model, are met with high satisfaction and can help promote and retain women in academic medicine. No clear best practices for mentorship emerged in the literature. Institutions, therefore, can individualize their mentorship programs and models to available resources and goals. These results demonstrate the importance of more widespread implementation of mentorship programs to more effectively facilitate professional development and success of women in academic medicine.
BACKGROUND:Women remain underrepresented in academic medicine, particularly in leadership positions. This lack of women in leadership has been shown to have negative implications for both patient care and educational outcomes. Similarly, the literature demonstrates that female physicians are less likely to have mentors, despite the proven benefits of mentorship for career advancement. The objective of this review is to identify and describe models of mentorship for women in academic medicine. METHODS: We searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Education Resources Information Center, and Cochrane Databases of Systematic Reviews following PRISMA guidelines in June 2017. We included original English language studies that described a mentorship program in the USA that involved academic medical doctorates and that were created for women or provided results stratified by gender. RESULTS: Our search returned 3625 results; 3309 references remained after removal of duplicates. Twenty articles met inclusion criteria. The majority of the programs were designed for junior faculty and used the dyad model of mentoring (i.e., one mentor/one mentee). Frequently cited objectives of these programs were to improve scholarship, promotion, and retention of female faculty. Program evaluations were primarily survey-based, with participant-reported satisfaction being the most frequent measured outcome. Most results showed very high satisfaction. Gender concordance between mentor and mentee did not impact satisfaction. Eight articles reported objective outcomes, including publications, retention, and promotion, and each of these demonstrated an improvement after program implementation. DISCUSSION: Our review suggests that mentorship programs designed for women, regardless of the model, are met with high satisfaction and can help promote and retain women in academic medicine. No clear best practices for mentorship emerged in the literature. Institutions, therefore, can individualize their mentorship programs and models to available resources and goals. These results demonstrate the importance of more widespread implementation of mentorship programs to more effectively facilitate professional development and success of women in academic medicine.
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: Michelle R Wise; Heather Shapiro; Janet Bodley; Richard Pittini; Darren McKay; Andrew Willan; Mary E Hannah Journal: J Obstet Gynaecol Can Date: 2004-02
Authors: Tinuola B Ajayi; Christy D Remein; Ellen Childs; Emelia J Benjamin; Randall S Stafford; Angela Fagerlin; Mina K Chung Journal: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol Date: 2020-10-08
Authors: David Green; Gauri Agarwal; Daniel M Lichtstein; Chase B Knickerbocker; Michael Maguire; Gabriel E Shaya Journal: Med Sci Educ Date: 2022-01-27
Authors: Kelly C Vranas; David Ouyang; Amber L Lin; Christopher G Slatore; Donald R Sullivan; Meeta Prasad Kerlin; Kathleen D Liu; Rebecca M Baron; Carolyn S Calfee; Lorraine B Ware; Scott D Halpern; Michael A Matthay; Margaret S Herridge; Sangeeta Mehta; Angela J Rogers Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2020-04-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Angelica W DesPain; Colleen K Gutman; Andrea T Cruz; Paul L Aronson; James M Chamberlain; Todd P Chang; Todd A Florin; Ron L Kaplan; Lise E Nigrovic; Christopher M Pruitt; Amy D Thompson; Victor M Gonzalez; Rakesh D Mistry Journal: AEM Educ Train Date: 2021-03-09
Authors: Mia T Minen; Emily F Law; Andrea Harriott; Elizabeth K Seng; Jennifer Hranilovich; Christina L Szperka; Rebecca Erwin Wells Journal: Neurology Date: 2020-07-09 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Kelsey S Dickson; Joseph E Glass; Miya L Barnett; Andrea K Graham; Byron J Powell; Nicole A Stadnick Journal: J Clin Transl Sci Date: 2021-04-08