The chronicle of mentoring & coaching最新文献

Faculty attrition at academic health centers (AHCs) is significant at about 11% nationally, with one in five physicians intending to leave, and replacement costs averaging $500,000 per physician. Attrition among AHC faculty leaders is inadequately studied. This study compares reasons to leave between exiting faculty leaders and faculty non-leaders at the University of New Mexico School of Medicine (UNM SOM). The SOM deans interview all exiting faculty using a structured exit survey. 329 faculty non-leaders and 58 faculty leaders left UNM SOM between July 2017 and June 2022. Distributions of each variable were analyzed for statistically significant differences between the two groups using Fisher's 2-sided exact test. Text comments by leaders were analyzed qualitatively for content using a team-based, iterative process. As compared to non-leaders, exiting faculty leaders were more likely to be professors (51.7% vs 16.7%, p<0.001), and hold tenure (32.8% vs. 12.2%, p=0.001). Faculty leaders were more likely than non-leaders to cite high-level leadership as a reason to leave (41.4% vs. 24.3% p=0.01) and better leadership as a critical issue in development and retention (51.7% vs. 36.8% p=0.04). Qualitative analyses of textual leader comments showed a similar distribution of themes as the quantitative variables when examining open text related to the survey questions related to reasons to leave and the most critical issues. In addition, when asked what would need to change for them to return, qualitative data showed open-ended responses by exiting faculty leaders were twice as frequent to include leadership comments than those by non-leaders (34.2% vs. 16.2%). Exiting faculty leaders disproportionately cite high-level leadership as a reason to leave. The mediatory factors for this association are not known. Investigations to determine the causes for the study findings, and data-driven intervention strategies to retain faculty leaders at SOMs are needed.

Scholars have long recognized gender variation in social relationship dynamics. However, how gender shapes developmental networking relationships for career advancement, particularly among university faculty members, is understudied. This area of research is important since women comprise an increasing proportion of faculty and yet report receiving less mentoring and lower career satisfaction, productivity, and advancement than their male counterparts. This cross-sectional study assessed gender differences in self-reported dimensions of faculty participants' developmental networks by collecting information on relationships with developers, who are people who have taken concerted action and offered professional and personal guidance to help participants advance in their careers over the past year. The investigators used egocentric network data from an electronically administered Mentoring Network Questionnaire collected from 159 faculty involved in a mentoring intervention during the pandemic. Faculty were from multiple Southwest and Mountain West institutions. Statistical analyses were performed using the Chi-squared test, Wilcoxon rank-sum test, and unadjusted multilevel regression. Female faculty chose developers of lower gender diversity than male faculty (p=0.01). Compared to male faculty, female faculty reported receiving more psychosocial support from individual developers (p=0.03). Female faculty members' developers were more often characterized as friends and less often described as sponsors and allies than male faculty, based on relative levels of career and psychosocial support that individual developers provided (p<0.001). No gender differences were found in other network characteristics. Female faculty build developmental networks that have different factors compared to male faculty. Greater levels of psychosocial support and fewer allies and sponsors for female faculty may have long-term implications for differential career advancement for women vs. men in academic careers. Strategies to enhance networking should address gender differences and include a structured framework for assessing network gaps.

For faculty members, job satisfaction, compensation, and career advancement hinge on achieving 'critical' career milestones (e.g., external funding, tenure). Faculty face unique barriers to achieving career milestones (Bagley et al., 2018), and therefore must employ tailored strategies to overcome challenges. The current project extends research on barriers to career milestones (Soller et al., 2022) to examine strategies faculty employ to overcome barriers in the pursuit of critical career milestones. Thirty-seven faculty members participated across eight US academic institutions, including 22 under-represented minorities in science (URM-S; women or racial/ ethnic minorities). Respondents identified critical career milestones they achieved or will pursue within the next 24 months and then discussed strategies used and suggestions for achieving milestones during semi-structured qualitative interviews. The research team conducted a thematic, qualitative, descriptive analysis of qualitative data using NVivo software in a systematic, interactive, team-based process. Four key strategies emerged for navigating barriers in the pursuit of critical career milestones: 1) Careful engagement of mentors and allies; 2) Collaborate and network; 3) Set boundaries and prioritize; and 4) Reflect on values and use personal strengths. Administrators should aim to remove structural barriers, particularly those that reduce equity (Davis et al., 2022). Identifying strategies that faculty employ to overcome challenges can enhance mentoring by helping mentors understand how mentees overcome unique challenges, particularly those that are not easily addressed through structural interventions.

Although the advantages of developmental networks are well-known, most faculty do not know how to participate in such networks actively. Additionally, institutions face challenges in teaching faculty the best practices of networking. This deficiency constitutes a critical gap in the literature, which may slow career advancement for faculty, particularly from underrepresented groups. The study's purpose was to examine the effectiveness of a curriculum-based faculty training in developmental networks, utilizing the Extension for Community Health Outcomes (ECHO) platform. In this pre-post study, 33 faculty members participated in the intervention utilizing eight modules involving four competencies. Each module followed a standard format, including a short didactic, two facilitated case study discussions based on real-life scenarios, and self-reading of selected literature. Outcomes included (i) change in knowledge scores obtained from two questions per module and (ii) self-efficacy scores measured on a scale of 0-100. Paired student's t-test and mixed model regression analyses were used. A significant increase in knowledge score was documented using mixed model regression for 4 of the eight modules (mean change score 0.4-0.8, p≤0.03 for all analyses). The proportion of faculty participants reporting correct knowledge items for all modules increased from 49.8% (pre) to 64.3% (post), which was statistically significant (p<0.001). Significant increases in paired self-efficacy scores were reported for each of the eight modules (mean change score 17-37, p<0.05 for all analyses). This study highlights the importance of curriculum-based training in networking. Participants showed a significant increase in pre-post networking self-efficacy and knowledge scores. Our ECHO-based curriculum, facilitator training, and manual enable easy implementation in other institutions, ensuring scalability and adaptability. Our analysis provides the evidence basis for examining the impact of a developmental network intervention in enhancing individual career networks.

As part of developmental networks, sponsors help provide recognition and visibility opportunities to their faculty protégés. Recognition awards given to the School of Medicine (SOM) faculty are an important mechanism for acknowledging what is valued in academic medicine. Beyond their impact on individual careers, awards help define the culture and climate of an organization. The literature suggests inequities in recognition awards for women and racial/ethnic underrepresented minority faculty. The study's purpose was to examine the characteristics of the awardees relative to the SOM faculty in a minority-serving institution in a minority-majority state. In this observational cross-sectional study, 47 SOM faculty were recognized between 2000-2023 as Regents' Lecturers (9), Regents' Professors (20), Community Engagement Awardees (5), and Gold-headed Cane Awardees (13). SOM sought nominations which a search committee competitively reviewed. Award recipients were characterized by their department, rank, academic track, degree, country of origin, sex, and race/ethnicity, and were compared to all SOM faculty. Male faculty were more likely than women faculty to receive an award (p=0.04). Faculty with tenure, Ph.D. degree, or Professor rank were more likely to receive an award than their counterparts (p<0.001, all analyses). Faculty in basic and diagnostic specialties were more likely to receive an award than medical or surgical specialties (p<0.001). Although rates of awards for racial/ethnic URM faculty were about half that of non-URM faculty, this difference did not reach statistical significance (p=0.14). In addition to demonstrating sex-related inequity in awards, recognized faculty are traditionally associated with the scholarship of discovery compared to other models of scholarship or clinical activity. Sponsors should promote women, physicians, and clinician educators for recognition awards to advance their academic careers. SOM leaders need to examine award criteria and processes to ensure recognition of the diversity of talents and achievements that are critical to the future of academic medicine.

An objective assessment of a mentor's behavioral skills is needed to assess the effectiveness of mentor training interventions in academic settings. The Mentor Behavioral Interaction (MBI) Rubric is a newly developed, content-valid, observational measure of a mentor's behavioral skill during single-episode interactions with a mentee. The purpose of this study was to assess the inter-rater reliability (IRR) of the MBI Rubric when used to assess video-recorded mentor-mentee interactions. Three of a pool of four faculty raters with expertise in mentor training synchronously rated 26 videos of mentor-mentee interactions using structured guidelines. The MBI Rubric includes six items (Part 1), each with ratings on a 3- or 4-point scale, and ten yes/no items (Part 2) that characterize the content of the interaction. After initial individual ratings were completed, the three raters met, reviewed disagreements, and reached decisions about final item scores by either consensus or majority vote. Mean total Part 1 scores ranged between 1.42-2.69. IRRs ranged from good (Part 1 IRR=0.67) to excellent (Part 2 IRR=0.83). No training effects were observed, with no decrease (i.e., showing less variability) in inter-rater standard deviations over time. Rater effects in initial individual scoring were observed, with a significant difference between one vs. the other three raters on Part 1 individual scores, with no effects for Part 2 scores. Raters tended to score lower on initial individual scores than the final score for both Part 1 and 2. The MBI Rubric is the first observational measure to assess single episodes of video-recorded mentor-mentee interactions and has demonstrated content validity, and now inter-rater reliability. It may be used in parallel with other instruments to measure the efficacy of mentor training. Limitations include possible ceiling effects, and resource-intensive administration in terms of rater expertise and time. Future work will assess the responsiveness of the Rubric to change in mentor skill and construct validity.

Faculty retention at academic health centers is a concern with about one-fifth of physicians reporting intentions to leave. We studied factors affecting faculty at risk for attrition, defined as women, racial/ethnic underrepresented minorities (URM), and clinical faculty. Identification of factors predicting retention of at-risk faculty may help mentors and minority-serving institutions devise novel targeted retention strategies. Our study site was a minority-serving institution in a majority-minority state in the US Southwest where at-risk faculty constitute the majority group. Faculty characteristics and departure dates were extracted from an institutional database maintained by the University of New Mexico (UNM) School of Medicine (SOM) for 2,427 participants employed from July 2009 through June 2022. Annual attrition rates and relative risk (RR) of attrition were estimated by discrete-time hazard rate models assuming a Poisson distribution. The overall annual attrition rate was 11.5%, which projects to 50% attrition in 6.0 years. Time to 50% attrition was 4.6 years for assistant professors, 8.9 years for associate professors 7.2 years for full professors. Faculty with a PhD degree had lower attrition (7.2%, RR=0.69, 95% CI 0.60, 0.79) compared to faculty with an MD degree (10.5%) in adjusted analyses. Clinician educators had a higher attrition rate (8.9%) compared to tenure track (6.4%, RR_{tenure track}=0.72, 95% CI 0.61, 0.85). Black faculty had a higher risk of attrition compared to White faculty (RR=1.56, 95% CI 1.09, 2.25), and non-Hispanic White faculty had a lower risk of attrition (RR=0.83, 95% CI 0.71, 0.98). Annual attrition rates increased over the study period with most of the increase before about 2016. We did not detect significant differences in attrition due to sex or URM status.

The Developmental Network Questionnaire (DNQ) is used in business to self-assess relationships with developers, or people who support one's career. The Mentoring Network Questionnaire (MNQ) is an online modification of the DNQ and includes two scales that rate developer's contributions to career or psychosocial help. The psychometrics of these scales for different populations are unreported. This study analyzed the construct validity and reliability of the two scales measuring support provided by developers of university faculty. Mentors and mentees (G=156) from multiple Southwestern and Mountain West universities rated 741 developers on the MNQ's five-item career- and psychosocial-support scales. Participants responded on a seven-point scale ranging from "never, not at all" to "to the maximum extent possible." Multilevel confirmatory factor analysis (MCFA) using Mplus and the multi-level reliability coefficient omega assessed construct validity and internal consistency reliability, respectively. Results supported the validity of two latent constructs of career- and psychosocial support, each measured by the established five-item scale: Comparative fit index (CFI)=.93, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI)=.91, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)=.06, standardized root mean square residual (SRMR): W=.09, B=.10. The measurement model was improved when the "removes barriers" item was removed from the career-support scale (CFI=.96, TLI=.95, RMSEA=.05, SRMR: W=.06 B=.09. Factor loadings at both the within- and between-levels were strong and statistically significant. Reliability omegas ranged from .85 to .92. Career and psychosocial support provided to university faculty by developers in their networks may be validly and reliably measured at both the within- and between-levels by a modified four-item career support scale and the original five-item psychosocial support scale from the DNQ and the modified MNQ. Limitations include reduced statistical power due to small sample size and lack of testing at the university level. Future work will assess the responsiveness of these scales to measuring change over time in the amount of support provided.

Many mentor training interventions in higher education focus on improving interactions between mentors and mentees. Existing measures of interactions are based on reported perceptions of the mentor or mentee. However, there are currently no objective assessments of the mentor's behavioral skill. The purpose of this study was to develop a Mentor Behavioral Interaction (MBI) Rubric as a measure of a mentor's behavioral skill during single-episode interactions with a mentee. Subsequently, the content validity was assessed. The six items (Part 1), evaluated by five mentoring experts as quantifiable behaviors in any mentor-mentee interaction, were based on the Mentoring Competency Assessment (Fleming et al., 2013). The experts developed scoring criteria (highest, middle, and lowest performance) for each item, and created another eleven items (Part 2) to characterize the content (yes/no) of the interaction. Seven content experts rated the items and scoring criteria using a scale ranging from very (4) to not relevant (1) (Lynn, 1986). Five of the six Part 1 items and scoring criteria, and nine of the eleven Part 2 items had item content validity indices (I-CVI) ≥ 0.86. The Part 1 "motivates" item and scoring, and the Part 2 "personal/professional preferences" item were revised based on expert recommendations. One Part 2 item was deleted. Average scale content validity indices (S-CVI/Ave) were ≥ 0.90. The MBI Rubric is the first measure developed to assess single episodes of videoed mentor-mentee interactions. The Rubric may be used with other measures to assess the effectiveness of mentor training. Limitations include: evaluation of the mentor's behavior without accounting for the mentee's behavior; inability to infer cognitive processes; and focus on the quality of one interaction, rather than the effectiveness of the relationship over time. Future work will assess inter-rater reliability, sensitivity to change, and construct validity for the Rubric.

Prior research shows that most Schools of Medicine faculty consider mentorship the most crucial factor in faculty development and retention. Many faculty are establishing developmental networks in lieu of hierarchical dyadic mentoring relationships. Clinicians are less likely than other newly hired faculty groups to seek mentorship despite having assigned mentors. The study's purpose was to determine the attitudes of newly hired faculty at the University of New Mexico School of Medicine (UNM SOM) regarding mentorship and developmental networks. Within their first year of hire, all newly hired faculty at UNM SOM are required to participate in a two-day orientation to the institution event called 'Quikstart.' During seven such events, new faculty [N=131] were surveyed anonymously on six single-response questions about their attitudes regarding mentorship and developmental networks, administered via online polls between September 2018 and July 2022. In this descriptive study, summary characteristics were analyzed. Newly hired faculty mentees reported that creating a developmental network was hampered by difficulties finding multiple mentors (55.3%), receiving conflicting advice from multiple mentors (22.4%), and gathering many mentors at the same location at the same time (11.8% ). Lack of clarity regarding faculty mentee needs (55.5%), mentors' unavailability (17.6%), and failure to find mentors (14.3%) were the most often mentioned difficulties during the initiation stage of mentorship (Hitchcock et al., 1995). Although the literature advocates moving from hierarchical dyadic mentoring relationships to developmental networks, this transition for Medicine faculty mentees will likely be hindered by a shortage of adequately trained mentors. Institutions need to identify and train mentors, incentivize and support mentorship, and encourage the creation and maintenance of self-selected development networks, possibly under the leadership of a transitional mentor.