TY - JOUR
T1 - Mentorship in academic general internal medicine
T2 - Results of a survey of mentors
AU - Luckhaupt, Sara E.
AU - Chin, Marshall H.
AU - Mangione, Carol M.
AU - Phillips, Russell S.
AU - Bell, Douglas
AU - Leonard, Anthony C.
AU - Tsevat, Joel
N1 - Funding Information:
Sex, N (%) Male Rank, N (%) Assistant professor Associate professor Professor Faculty type, N (%) Clinician-investigator Clinician-educator Other (Administrator only) Funding for mentorship, N (%)* Grant Institutional/departmental Teaching/administrative
Funding Information:
ship. Most of those grants were federal, sponsored by the NIH (K, R, or center mechanism), Health Resources and Services Administration, or Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Service. Three (3%) respondents had funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Only 19 (17%) respondents received institutional support or teaching and administrative support for mentorship.
PY - 2005/11
Y1 - 2005/11
N2 - BACKGROUND: Effective mentorship is crucial to career development. Strategies to improve the availability of mentors include mentoring multiple mentees at once, compensating mentors, comentoring, and long-distance mentoring. OBJECTIVE: To describe current trends in mentorship in general Internal Medicine (GIM). METHODS: We conducted a national cross-sectional web-based survey of GIM mentors, GIM fellowship directors, and GIM National Institutes of Health K24 grant awardees to capture their experiences with mentoring, including compensation for mentorship, multiple mentees, comentorship, and long-distance mentorship. We compared experiences by mentorship funding status, faculty type, academic rank, and sex. RESULTS: We collected data from 111 mentors (77% male, 54% full professors, and 68% clinician-investigators). Fifty-two (47%) received funding for mentorship. Mentors supervised a median (25th percentile, 75th percentile) of 5 (3,8) mentees each, and would be willing to supervise a maximum of 6 (4, 10) mentees at once. Compared with mentors without funding, mentors with funding had more current mentees (mean of 8.3 vs 5.1, respectively; P<.001). Full professors had more current mentees than associate or assistant professors (8.0 vs 5.9 vs 2.4, respectively; P=.005). Ninety-four (85%) mentors had experience comentoring, and two-thirds of mentors had experience mentoring from a distance. Although most mentors found long-distance mentoring to be less demanding, most also said it is less effective for the mentee and is personally less fulfilling. CONCLUSIONS: Mentors in GIM appear to be close to their mentorship capacity, and the majority lack funding for mentorship. Comentoring and long-distance mentoring are common.
AB - BACKGROUND: Effective mentorship is crucial to career development. Strategies to improve the availability of mentors include mentoring multiple mentees at once, compensating mentors, comentoring, and long-distance mentoring. OBJECTIVE: To describe current trends in mentorship in general Internal Medicine (GIM). METHODS: We conducted a national cross-sectional web-based survey of GIM mentors, GIM fellowship directors, and GIM National Institutes of Health K24 grant awardees to capture their experiences with mentoring, including compensation for mentorship, multiple mentees, comentorship, and long-distance mentorship. We compared experiences by mentorship funding status, faculty type, academic rank, and sex. RESULTS: We collected data from 111 mentors (77% male, 54% full professors, and 68% clinician-investigators). Fifty-two (47%) received funding for mentorship. Mentors supervised a median (25th percentile, 75th percentile) of 5 (3,8) mentees each, and would be willing to supervise a maximum of 6 (4, 10) mentees at once. Compared with mentors without funding, mentors with funding had more current mentees (mean of 8.3 vs 5.1, respectively; P<.001). Full professors had more current mentees than associate or assistant professors (8.0 vs 5.9 vs 2.4, respectively; P=.005). Ninety-four (85%) mentors had experience comentoring, and two-thirds of mentors had experience mentoring from a distance. Although most mentors found long-distance mentoring to be less demanding, most also said it is less effective for the mentee and is personally less fulfilling. CONCLUSIONS: Mentors in GIM appear to be close to their mentorship capacity, and the majority lack funding for mentorship. Comentoring and long-distance mentoring are common.
KW - Education
KW - Faculty
KW - Internal medicine
KW - Medical
KW - Mentors
KW - Professional
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=28444467428&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=28444467428&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.215.x
DO - 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.215.x
M3 - Review article
C2 - 16307626
AN - SCOPUS:28444467428
SN - 0884-8734
VL - 20
SP - 1014
EP - 1018
JO - Journal of General Internal Medicine
JF - Journal of General Internal Medicine
IS - 11
ER -