Mentoring programs for physicians in academic medicine: A systematic review

Deanne T. Kashiwagi, Prathibha Varkey, David Allan Cook

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

121 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

PURPOSE: Mentoring is vital to professional development in the field of medicine, influencing career choice and faculty retention; thus, the authors reviewed mentoring programs for physicians and aimed to identify key components that contribute to these programs' success. METHOD: The authors searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus databases for articles from January 2000 through May 2011 that described mentoring programs for practicing physicians. The authors reviewed 16 articles, describing 18 programs, extracting program objectives, components, and outcomes. They synthesized findings to determine key elements of successful programs. RESULTS: All of the programs described in the articles focused on academic physicians. The authors identified seven mentoring models: dyad, peer, facilitated peer, speed, functional, group, and distance. The dyad model was most common. The authors identified seven potential components of a formal mentoring program: mentor preparation, planning committees, mentor-mentee contracts, mentor-mentee pairing, mentoring activities, formal curricula, and program funding. Of these, the formation of mentor-mentee pairs received the most attention in published reports. Mentees favored choosing their own mentors; mentors and mentees alike valued protected time. One barrier to program development was limited resources. Written agreements were important to set limits and encourage accountability to the mentoring relationship. Program evaluation was primarily subjective, using locally developed surveys. No programs reported long-term results. CONCLUSIONS: The authors identified key program elements that could contribute to successful physician mentoring. Future research might further clarify the use of these elements and employ standardized evaluation methods to determine the long-term effects of mentoring.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1029-1037
Number of pages9
JournalAcademic Medicine
Volume88
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2013

Fingerprint

mentoring
Mentors
physician
Medicine
medicine
Physicians
dyad
Career Choice
Mentoring
Program Development
Social Responsibility
Program Evaluation
Contracts
MEDLINE
Curriculum
Databases
evaluation
funding
career

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)
  • Education

Cite this

Mentoring programs for physicians in academic medicine : A systematic review. / Kashiwagi, Deanne T.; Varkey, Prathibha; Cook, David Allan.

In: Academic Medicine, Vol. 88, No. 7, 07.2013, p. 1029-1037.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Kashiwagi, Deanne T. ; Varkey, Prathibha ; Cook, David Allan. / Mentoring programs for physicians in academic medicine : A systematic review. In: Academic Medicine. 2013 ; Vol. 88, No. 7. pp. 1029-1037.
@article{43a762e23b354132b0329d64cfcb9dcb,
title = "Mentoring programs for physicians in academic medicine: A systematic review",
abstract = "PURPOSE: Mentoring is vital to professional development in the field of medicine, influencing career choice and faculty retention; thus, the authors reviewed mentoring programs for physicians and aimed to identify key components that contribute to these programs' success. METHOD: The authors searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus databases for articles from January 2000 through May 2011 that described mentoring programs for practicing physicians. The authors reviewed 16 articles, describing 18 programs, extracting program objectives, components, and outcomes. They synthesized findings to determine key elements of successful programs. RESULTS: All of the programs described in the articles focused on academic physicians. The authors identified seven mentoring models: dyad, peer, facilitated peer, speed, functional, group, and distance. The dyad model was most common. The authors identified seven potential components of a formal mentoring program: mentor preparation, planning committees, mentor-mentee contracts, mentor-mentee pairing, mentoring activities, formal curricula, and program funding. Of these, the formation of mentor-mentee pairs received the most attention in published reports. Mentees favored choosing their own mentors; mentors and mentees alike valued protected time. One barrier to program development was limited resources. Written agreements were important to set limits and encourage accountability to the mentoring relationship. Program evaluation was primarily subjective, using locally developed surveys. No programs reported long-term results. CONCLUSIONS: The authors identified key program elements that could contribute to successful physician mentoring. Future research might further clarify the use of these elements and employ standardized evaluation methods to determine the long-term effects of mentoring.",
author = "Kashiwagi, {Deanne T.} and Prathibha Varkey and Cook, {David Allan}",
year = "2013",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1097/ACM.0b013e318294f368",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "88",
pages = "1029--1037",
journal = "Academic Medicine",
issn = "1040-2446",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Mentoring programs for physicians in academic medicine

T2 - A systematic review

AU - Kashiwagi, Deanne T.

AU - Varkey, Prathibha

AU - Cook, David Allan

PY - 2013/7

Y1 - 2013/7

N2 - PURPOSE: Mentoring is vital to professional development in the field of medicine, influencing career choice and faculty retention; thus, the authors reviewed mentoring programs for physicians and aimed to identify key components that contribute to these programs' success. METHOD: The authors searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus databases for articles from January 2000 through May 2011 that described mentoring programs for practicing physicians. The authors reviewed 16 articles, describing 18 programs, extracting program objectives, components, and outcomes. They synthesized findings to determine key elements of successful programs. RESULTS: All of the programs described in the articles focused on academic physicians. The authors identified seven mentoring models: dyad, peer, facilitated peer, speed, functional, group, and distance. The dyad model was most common. The authors identified seven potential components of a formal mentoring program: mentor preparation, planning committees, mentor-mentee contracts, mentor-mentee pairing, mentoring activities, formal curricula, and program funding. Of these, the formation of mentor-mentee pairs received the most attention in published reports. Mentees favored choosing their own mentors; mentors and mentees alike valued protected time. One barrier to program development was limited resources. Written agreements were important to set limits and encourage accountability to the mentoring relationship. Program evaluation was primarily subjective, using locally developed surveys. No programs reported long-term results. CONCLUSIONS: The authors identified key program elements that could contribute to successful physician mentoring. Future research might further clarify the use of these elements and employ standardized evaluation methods to determine the long-term effects of mentoring.

AB - PURPOSE: Mentoring is vital to professional development in the field of medicine, influencing career choice and faculty retention; thus, the authors reviewed mentoring programs for physicians and aimed to identify key components that contribute to these programs' success. METHOD: The authors searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus databases for articles from January 2000 through May 2011 that described mentoring programs for practicing physicians. The authors reviewed 16 articles, describing 18 programs, extracting program objectives, components, and outcomes. They synthesized findings to determine key elements of successful programs. RESULTS: All of the programs described in the articles focused on academic physicians. The authors identified seven mentoring models: dyad, peer, facilitated peer, speed, functional, group, and distance. The dyad model was most common. The authors identified seven potential components of a formal mentoring program: mentor preparation, planning committees, mentor-mentee contracts, mentor-mentee pairing, mentoring activities, formal curricula, and program funding. Of these, the formation of mentor-mentee pairs received the most attention in published reports. Mentees favored choosing their own mentors; mentors and mentees alike valued protected time. One barrier to program development was limited resources. Written agreements were important to set limits and encourage accountability to the mentoring relationship. Program evaluation was primarily subjective, using locally developed surveys. No programs reported long-term results. CONCLUSIONS: The authors identified key program elements that could contribute to successful physician mentoring. Future research might further clarify the use of these elements and employ standardized evaluation methods to determine the long-term effects of mentoring.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84879979948&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84879979948&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/ACM.0b013e318294f368

DO - 10.1097/ACM.0b013e318294f368

M3 - Article

C2 - 23702518

AN - SCOPUS:84879979948

VL - 88

SP - 1029

EP - 1037

JO - Academic Medicine

JF - Academic Medicine

SN - 1040-2446

IS - 7

ER -