A Scoping Review of Health Care Faculty Mentorship Programs in Academia: Implications for Program Design, Implementation, and Outcome Evaluation.

J Contin Educ Health Prof

Dr. Crites: Campus Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs and Development, Professor of Medicine, AU/UGA Medical Partnership: Augusta University and University of Georgia Medical Partnership, UGA Health Science Campus, Athens, GA. Dr. Ward: Associate Provost for Faculty, Professor of Medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR. Ms. Archuleta: Clinical Instructor, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO. Ms. Fornari: Associate Dean for Educational Skills Development, Professor of Science Education, Family Medicine and Occupational Health, Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, 500 Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY. Ms. Hill : College of Medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR. Ms. Westervelt: Director, Office of Faculty Affairs and Leadership Development, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC. Dr. Raymond: Associate Dean of Faculty Affairs and Development, Professor of Psychiatry, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 4125A Health Sciences Learning Center, Madison, WI.

Published: January 2023

Introduction: Formal mentoring programs have direct benefits for academic health care institutions, but it is unclear whether program designs use recommended components and whether outcomes are being captured and evaluated appropriately. The goal of this scoping review is to address these questions.

Methods: We completed a literature review using a comprehensive search in SCOPUS and PubMed (1998-2019), a direct solicitation for unpublished programs, and hand-searched key references, while targeting mentor programs in the United States, Puerto Rico, and Canada. After three rounds of screening, team members independently reviewed and extracted assigned articles for 40 design data items into a comprehensive database.

Results: Fifty-eight distinct mentoring programs were represented in the data set. The team members clarified specific mentor roles to assist the analysis. The analysis identified mentoring program characteristics that were properly implemented, including identifying program goals, specifying the target learners, and performing a needs assessment. The analysis also identified areas for improvement, including consistent use of models/frameworks for program design, implementation of mentor preparation, consistent reporting of objective outcomes and career satisfaction outcomes, engagement of program evaluation methods, increasing frequency of reports as programs as they mature, addressing the needs of specific faculty groups (eg, women and minority faculty), and providing analyses of program cost-effectiveness in relation to resource allocation (return on investment).

Conclusion: The review found that several mentor program design, implementation, outcome, and evaluation components are poorly aligned with recommendations, and content for URM and women faculty members is underrepresented. The review should provide academic leadership information to improve these discrepancies.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/CEH.0000000000000459DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

program design
12
design implementation
12
scoping review
8
health care
8
program
8
implementation outcome
8
outcome evaluation
8
mentoring programs
8
team members
8
analysis identified
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!