Abstract
Purpose
To analyze survey information regarding mentorship practices and cross-correlate the results with objective metrics of academic productivity among academic radiation oncologists at U.S. ACGME-accredited residency training programs.
Methods and Materials
An IRB-approved survey for the Radiation Oncology Academic Development and Mentorship Assessment Project (ROADMAP) was sent to 1031 radiation oncologists employed at an ACGME-accredited residency training program and administered using Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap). Data collected included demographics, presence of mentorship as well as the nature of specific mentoring activities. Productivity metrics, including number of publications, number of citations, h-index, and date of first publication were collected for each survey respondent from a commercially available online database (Web of Science, Thompson Reuters- v5.9), and m-index was calculated.
Results
158 academic RO completed the survey, 96 of whom reported having an academic/scientific mentor. Faculty with a mentor had higher numbers of publications, citations, h- and m-indices. Differences in gender and race/ethnicity were not associated with significant differences in mentorship rates, but those with a mentor were more likely to have a Ph.D. and were more likely to have more time protected for research. Bivariate fit regression modeling showed a positive correlation between a mentor’s h-index and their mentee’s h-index (R2=0.16; p<0.001). Linear regression also showed significant correlates of higher h-index, in addition to having a mentor (p=0.001), included a longer career duration (p<0.001), and having fewer patients on treatment (p=0.02).
Conclusions
Mentorship is widely believed to be important to career development and academic productivity. These results emphasize the importance of identifying and striving to overcome potential barriers to effective mentorship.
Keywords: radiation oncology, education, mentorship, publication, productivity
Introduction
The oft repeated adage of it taking a village to raise a child can also be appropriately applied to the career development of an aspiring academician. A successful career in academic medicine, though firmly rooted in personal drive, dedication and hard work, also requires input and advice from those more seasoned and experienced. Mentorship is often cited as a key component of successful academic career development, and has been studied in several disciplines of medicine (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12). Though several nuanced definitions of a mentor exist, a mentor is most often described as an experienced and trusted advisor. The main difference between a teacher and a mentor is the depth of relationship as well as the degree of trust between mentor and mentee. Wisdom, as well as knowledge, is often imparted.
The majority of the existing literature on mentorship in academic medicine consists of qualitative studies and structured interviews (3). One small qualitative study reported that 98% of interviewed faculty identified lack mentoring as either the first or second most important factor hindering career progress. Respondents in this study cited clout, knowledge and interest as important factors for an effective mentoring relationship, and reported same gender or same race matches were not necessary (4). In addition to mentor-specific factors, institutional factors also play a role in fostering effective mentoring relationships. A survey of 55 institutions receiving a U.S. National Institute of Health’s Clinical and Translational Science Award assessed what formal mentoring programs and activities were in place at these institutions. Established criteria to qualify as a mentor, policies on mentor responsibilities, written agreements between mentor and mentee, incentives as well as processes by which mentors are evaluated were all commonly cited (13). Although qualitative survey and interview-based studies provide interesting fodder for discussion, quantitative data has also been sought to provide more objective evidence as to the role of mentorship on the careers and productivity of academic physicians (5)(14).
With much competition for departmental and institutional funds, objective data are needed to support time and resources spent on programs fostering mentorship. Additionally, there is paucity of data specifically regarding mentorship within radiation oncology. It is the purpose of this study to both describe the prevalence and nature of mentoring relationships among academic radiation oncologists as well as to report objective measures of productivity including number of publications, number of citations, h-index, m-index and NIH funding of those faculty who reported having a mentor compared with those who reported not having a mentor.
Methods
Inclusion Criteria
Institutional review board approval was obtained, and an email inviting participation in the Radiation Oncology Academic Mentorship Assessment Project (ROADMAP) was sent in May of 2012 to 1031 current radiation oncology faculty with clinical affiliations with U.S. ACGME-accredited residency training programs. Current faculty were identified by first compiling a comprehensive list of 82 domestic radiation oncology residency-training institutions using the Association of Residents in Radiation Oncology (ARRO) Directory. Publically available departmental websites were accessed between February 14, 2012 and February 28, 2012 to obtain a list of 1031 current faculty as listed by the individual institutions. All clinical faculty with M.D., D.O. or M.D./D.O.-Ph.D credentials were included.
The Survey Instrument
For those faculty choosing to participate, a link contained in the email directed them to an online survey administered using the Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap). After reading the consent statement, participants answered questions regarding demographic information, clinical workload, protected research time, as well as whether or not they have or have ever had a mentor. For the purpose of this survey, a mentor is defined as "A more experienced, senior, or knowledgeable individual with whom you have/had a long-term relationship that fosters scientific/academic development". Further information was then obtained regarding the mentoring relationship. The full survey instrument used is available in the supplemental materials available at www.redjournal.org as Figure e1.
Data Collection
Survey data were exported to a spreadsheet from the REDCap program. Subsequently, for each survey respondent, a custom search was performed using a commercially available online database (Web of Science, Thompson Reuters- v5.9). Distinct author record sets were then evaluated to ensure all records attributable to the author were included in the analysis. Outputs included number of publications, number of citations and h-index. H-(Hirsch) index is a surrogate for publication quality and is calculated by the number of publications cited at least that many times (15). For example, a person with 5 papers each cited 5 or more times would have an h-index of 5. A person with 5 papers each only cited once would have an h-index of 1. Additionally, date of first publication was recorded and utilized as an approximate surrogate for inception of academic career. A single data collector [EBH] performed the searches in a pre-determined interval between January 26, 2013 and January 27, 2013 to minimize temporal bias in data collection. M-index was calculated by dividing h-index by the career duration. Finally, a custom search was performed in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORTER) website to assess the receipt of NIH funding.
Data Analysis
Descriptive analyses were performed to calculate the median, range, mean and confidence interval for number of publications, citations, h- and m-indices for those respondents with and without a mentor. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to determine which variables were best associated with h-index. Included candidate covariates were academic rank, gender, Ph.D. status, career duration, number of patients on treatment. Bivariate fit regression modeling was performed to evaluate for a relationship between the respondent’s h-index and the h-index of their indicated primary mentor. Post hoc statistical analysis was performed for between group comparisons. All statistical analyses were performed using the SAS-based statistical software package JMP (Version 7; SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC).
Results
Invitations to participate in the ROADMAP survey were sent via email to a total of 1031 radiation oncology faculty, of which 35 returned as invalid email addresses. 183 responded to the survey, yielding a 18.4% response rate. 158 responses were complete and could be included for analysis.
Respondent Characteristics
Respondents were affiliated with 64 of 82 ACGME-accredited radiation oncology residency training programs. The top participating institutions were Harvard (n=12, 7.6%) and Mayo (n=7, 4.4%). Respondents were comprised on 115 (72.8%) men and 43 (27.2%) women. 70.9% of respondents identified themselves as White/Caucasian. 19% of respondents reported having a Ph.D. 13.3%, 15.8%, 20.9%, 46.8% and 3.2% of respondents were chairpersons, professors, associate professors, assistant professors and instructors, respectively. The median career duration was 12 years and ranged from 2–44 years. Additional respondent demographic information can be found in Table 1.
Table 1.
Demographics of Respondents
| Gender | 72.8% Men (n=115) 27.2% Women (n=43) |
| Race/Ethnicity | 70.9% White/Caucasian (n=112) 22.8% Asian/Pacific Islander (36) 1.9% African American/Black (n=3) 1.3% Hispanic/Latino (n=2) 1.3% Multiracial (n=2) 1.9% Other (n=3) |
| Academic Degree | 66.5% M.D./D.O (n=105) 19.0% M.D./D.O. & Ph.D. 11.5% M.D./D.O. & Other degree |
| Rank | 13.3% Chair (n=21) 15.8% Professor (n=25) 20.9% Associate Professor (n=33) 46.8% Assistant Professor (n=74) 3.2% Instructor (n=5) |
| Career Duration (year of residency graduation subtracted from 2013) | Median (Range): 12 (2–44) years. |
| Administrative responsibilities | 13.9% Residency program director (n=22) 5.1% Medical student clerkship director (n=8) 19.0% Clinical director (n=30) 24.1% Other (n=38) 38.0% No additional administrative responsibilities (n=60) |
| Clinical workload | 19.6% Primarily a clinician (n=31) 49.4% More a clinician than scientist/researcher (n=78) 22.2% Equivalently a clinician and scientist/researcher (n=35) 6.3% More a scientist/researcher than a clinician (n=10) 2.5% Primarily a scientist/researcher (n=4) |
| Patients on treatment | Median (range): 16 (0–20) patients |
| Half-days of clinic | Median (range): 6 (0–10) days |
| Protected research time | 78.5% had protected research time (n=124) 21.5% had no protected research time (n=34) Half-days of protected research time: Median (range): 2 (0–10) |
| How well is research time protected? (for those with protected time) | 14.5% Very well (n=18) 37.9% Reasonably well (n=47) 37.9% Poorly (n=47) 8.1%% Not at all (n=10) 1.6% No answer (n=2) |
Mentorship Among Respondents
96 respondents (60.8%) reported having had an academic/scientific mentor. 53 and 23 respondents (55.2% and 24%) found it easy or very easy to find a mentor, respectively. The majority of respondents started the mentoring relationship either during residency/fellowship or during years 1–5 as faculty (43.8% and 40.6%, respectively). The median duration of the mentoring relationship was 9 years (range 2–50 years). Tables 2a and 2b outline specific characteristics of the mentoring relationship and how frequently they were reported among respondents.
Table 2.
| a: Characteristics of the mentoring relationship | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| How much has your mentor… | A lot (n, %) |
Quite a bit (n, %) |
A little bit (n, %) |
Not at all (n, %) |
| Served as a role model? | 32 (33.3%) | 36 (37.5%) | 27 (28.1%) | 1 (1.1%) |
| Promoted your career through networking? | 38 (39.6%) | 36 (37.5%) | 16 (16.7%) | 6 (6.2%) |
| Advised about preparation for advancement? | 29 (30.2%) | 17 (17.7%) | 39 (40.6%) | 11 (11.5%) |
| Advised about getting your work published? | 27 (28.1%) | 31 (32.3%) | 32 (33.3%) | 6 (6.2%) |
| Advised about obtaining funding or other resources? | 16 (16.7%) | 25 (26%) | 43 (44.8%) | 12 (12.5%) |
| Modeled professional and ethical behavior? | 33 (34.4%) | 37 (38.5%) | 20 (20.8) | 6 (6.2%) |
| Advised you about balancing work and family? | 12 (12.5%) | 13 (13.5%) | 42 (43.8%) | 29 (30.2%) |
| Committed to mentoring you? | 24 (25%) | 46 (47.9%) | 23 (24%) | 3 (3.1%) |
| Contributed to the research in your field? | 43 (44.8%) | 32 (33.3%) | 17 (17.7%) | 4 (4.2%) |
| Been available and accessible? | 31 (32.3%) | 42 (43.8%) | 20 (20.8%) | 3 (3.1%) |
| Connected to others of importance in your field? | 51 (53.1%) | 20 (20.8%) | 19 (19.8%) | 6 (6.2%) |
| b: Characteristics of the Mentoring Relationship | |
|---|---|
| Has your mentor been involved in the following: | Yes n, (%) |
| Discussing career path including applying for jobs and/or promotions | 11 (11.5%) |
| Discussing and brainstorming ideas for potential research projects | 18 (18.8%) |
| Advising on potential sources of funding for research/grant applications | 7 (7.3%) |
| Collaboration on research projects where your mentor is a listed author | 14 (14.6%) |
| Collaboration on research projects where your mentor is NOT a listed author | 4 (4.2%) |
| Review of grant applications or manuscripts as coPI/coauthor | 11 (11.5%) |
| Review of grant applications or manuscripts when NOT coPI/coauthor | 3 (3.1%) |
| Recommendation for committees, panels, speaking or scientific sessions | 13 (13.5%) |
| Source of employment recommendation letter(s) | 8 (8.3%) |
| Provider of research or training grant monies (e.g. serving as PI on T- or K-series that you received monies from) | 3 (3.1%) |
| Joint-PI on grant application | 3 (3.1%) |
| Joint PI on a cooperative group clinical trial | 1 (1.04%) |
Academic Productivity Metrics Among Respondents
The mean h-index, number of publications, number of citations and m-index of all respondents were 15.3 (95% CI 12.8–17.5), 84.9 (95% CI 69.1–100.7), 1720 (95% CI 1452–1988), and 0.78 (95% CI 0.69–0.86), respectively. The median h-index, number of publications, number of citations and m-index for all respondents were 8 (range 0–75), 41 (range 0–498), 351.5 (range 0–22484) and 0.6875 (range 0–2.5), respectively. Respondents with a mentor had significantly higher mean h- and m-indices (17.6 (95% CI 14.4–20.7) vs 11.2 (95% CI 7.3–15.2); p=0.038 and 0.92 vs 0.62; p=0.001, respectively). Median h-index was also higher among respondents with a mentor (12 (range 0–75) vs 6 (range 0–61)). Numbers of publications and citations tended to be higher among those with a mentor. Median numbers of publications and citations for those with a mentor were 67.5 and 666 versus 22.5 and 183 for those without a mentor. 28.1% (n=27) of respondents with a mentor received NIH funding versus 16% (n=10) of respondents without a mentor. 44.7% (n=43) of those with mentors had another degree in addition to M.D./D.O. versus 16.1% (n=10) of those without a mentor (p<0.001). Respondents with a mentor also reported increased time allocation towards research (p<0.001). Table 3 has the details of productivity metrics of the cohort by mentorship status. Bivariate fit regression modeling showed a positive correlation between a mentor’s h-index and their mentee’s h-index (R2=0.16; p<0.001). Linear regression also showed significant correlates of higher h-index with having a mentor (p=0.001), a longer career duration (p<0.001), and having fewer patients on treatment (p=0.02).
Table 3.
Differences in Productivity, Degree and Time Allocation by Mentorship Status
| With mentor N = 96 |
Without mentor N = 62 |
P | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of publications Mean (95% CI) Median (Range) |
102.2 (82.1–122.2) 67.5 (0–498) |
58.2 (33.2–83.1) 22.5 (0–357) |
0.042 |
| Number of citations Mean (95% CI) Median (Range) |
2105 (1438–2773) 666 (0–22484) |
1122 (292–1953) 183 (0–1489) |
0.070 |
| h-index Mean (95% CI) Median (Range) |
17.6 (14.4–20.7) 12 (0–75) |
11.2 (7.3–15.2) 6 (0–61) |
0.038 |
| m-index | 0.92 (0.80–1.03) 0.52 (0–2.5) |
0.63 (0.51–0.77) 0.52 (0–2.47) |
0.001 |
| NIH Funded? (n, %) | 27 (28.1%) | 10 (16%) | 0.042 |
| Degree, (n, %) M.D./D.O. M.D./D.O., Ph.D M.D./D.O., other degree |
53 (55.2%) 27 (28.1%) 16 (16.6%) |
52 (83.9%) 3 (4.8%) 7 (11.3%) |
<0.001 |
| Time allocation (n, %) Primarily research More research, some clinic Equivalent research & clinic More clinic, some research Primarily clinic |
3 (3.1%) 9 (9.3%) 28 (29.1%) 49 (51%) 7 (7.3%) |
1 (1.6%) 1 (1.6%) 7 (11.3%) 29 (49%) 24 (38%) |
<0.001 |
Discussion
The results of the ROADMAP study show that radiation oncology faculty who reported having a mentor had higher objective measures of academic productivity in a small, competitive field with a strong research focus. Publication productivity metrics such as h-index, have been shown to correlate with academic advancement in radiation oncology (16)(17). The importance placed on research and publication by many departments and institutions when considering faculty for appointment, promotion or resource allocation may drive young faculty to seek any potential advantage or resource to improve their productivity. This is reflected by the substantial percentage of radiation oncology faculty respondents who reported having a mentor (60.8%); published series from other specialties report that number is often as low as 20% (18). The high prevalence of mentorship in radiation oncology appears to begin early, as most medical students are not routinely exposed to the field. A recent study reported 76.6% of Canadian radiation oncology residents were influenced to pursue a career in radiation oncology because of an early experience with a mentor (19).
As many academic physicians report difficulty with finding a motivated mentor and developing a fruitful mentoring relationship, there has been interest across several fields in developing formal programs to pair mentors and mentees. Some have published data showing increases in both participant satisfaction and self-reported productivity with participation in such a program (5). A case-control study showed gynecologic oncology faculty and fellows from more productive institutions were not only more likely to have a research mentor, but also were more likely to have a formal program in place at their institution that connects mentors and mentees (2). One study performed at the University of California San Diego evaluated a formal mentorship program as one of the four National Centers of Leadership in Academic Medicine (20). This was highly structured program where a junior faculty was assigned to a senior faculty mentor. Interestingly, this program also included compensation for both junior and senior participants to equal 5% of their base salary. Mentees reported increased confidence in their academic roles. The reported cost of the program was $10,000 per junior faculty member over four years, though it was still felt to be cost-effective given the improved faculty retention rates and decreased funds spent of new faculty recruitment. This is one of the few studies showing tangible benefits of a mentorship program to the institution as well as the individual mentees. The Canadian Institute of Health Researchers recently funded a training program specifically for interdisciplinary radiation oncology researchers (21). Mentors for this program were chosen based on a successful track record in receiving peer-reviewed funding, publications and prior mentoring activities. P’ng et al published results from a survey sent to trainees, mentors and lecturers to assess effective components of the program. Structured brainstorming sessions were felt to be the most useful, but this study did not include any objective data to assess efficacy of this program.
Despite the prevailing attitude that mentorship is instrumental to a successful academic career that is supported by qualitative data from many single institution or single specialty studies, definitive evidence as to any objective, measurable benefit is lacking (18). A systematic review reported that the overall level of evidence for mentorship is weak with the majority of studies comprised of surveys and other qualitative assessments. One reason for a lack of measurable benefit noted in the systematic review of mentoring studies is the heterogeneity that exists between fields. There may be a larger tangible benefit of mentorship in a smaller, more specialized field, such as radiation oncology, in which so much of academic career advancement depends on publication productivity.
When asked about a hypothetical program to match faculty desiring an academic/scientific mentor with experienced faculty willing to mentor, 145 (92%) of respondents agreed that such a program would be helpful, 24 (15%) would participate as a mentee, 45 (28%) would participate as a mentor and 59 (37%) would participate as both. The most common sentiment expressed by ROADMAP respondents was that a mentor must have a desire and willingness to commit to the role. Experience, effective communication skills, and networking were other commonly cited traits of an ideal mentor. One respondent stated eloquently that being a good mentor means “putting the career needs of the mentee first, ensuring that the mentee is fully involved in all aspects of the work, promoting the mentee at the national level, teaching research and administrative skills, helping the mentee identify their own passions”. This is in keeping with published survey results from other specialties (3)(4).
When collecting ROADMAP survey results, there were some potential sources of error inherent to the database used to collect those objective productivity metrics. The h-index as reported by Web of Science (Thompson Reuters- v5.9) only reflects citations to source items indexed within Web of Science. Additionally, abstracts presented at conferences are included as well as published manuscripts. Although considerable efforts were made to include all published works by an author and exclude those written by those with a similar name by also evaluating the title, journal and institution, it is possible that an individual’s h-index might be artificially inflated if works by another other with a similar name were included. Conversely, an individual’s h-index and other metrics might have been recorded as artificially low if they had published under similar names (ie, including or excluding a middle initial) or has changed their name (as in the case of marriage or divorce). Finally, the groups were analyzed based on the self-reported presence of absence of a mentor and were not corrected for the extent of mentor involvement.
Although the response rate was low, which certainly introduces the possibility of selection bias, respondents to the survey reasonably approximated the intended study population as a whole. The survey was sent to 1031 academic radiation oncologists, 742 (72%) of whom were men and 289 (28%) of whom were women. The gender breakdown was nearly identical in survey respondents which included 72.8% men and 27.2% women. The breakdown of the entire intended cohort by rank included 232 (22.5%) professors/chairpersons, 160 (15.5%) associate professors, 391 (37.9%) assistant professors and 248 (24.1%) instructors/other. This is similar to the breakdown of survey respondents which included 13.3% chairpersons, 15.8% professors, 20.9% associate professors, 46.8% assistant professors and 3.2% instructors/other. There was a slight bias observed that radiation oncologists of higher rank (ie, professor or chair) were more likely to complete the survey. Additionally, 30 (19%) of respondents reported holding an additional administrative responsibility related to teaching and mentorship such as residency program director or medical student clerkship director. This indicates those who are inherently more invested or interested in education and training may have been more likely to complete this survey. The mean h-index, number of publications and number of citations for the entire intended cohort were 10.8 (95% CI 10.1–11.5), 46.6 (95% CI 42.4–50.8), and 1225 (95% CI 1086–1364), respectively. The mean h-index, number of publications, number of citations and m-index of all respondents were 15.3 (95% CI 12.8–17.5), 84.9 (95% CI 69.1–100.7), 1720 (95% CI 1452–1988), and 0.78 (95% CI 0.69–0.86), respectively. This shows a slightly skewed population, where more academically productive individuals were more likely to respond. 17% of the entire cohort had received NIH funding, which is slightly lower but similar to the 23.4% of respondents who had received NIH funding. However, ROADMAP’s strengths include the novel collection of the prevalence and specific characteristics of mentorship between radiation oncology faculty and their mentors. This information was collected in a systematic way by a voluntary survey. Additionally, this study correlated objective measures of academic productivity with self-reported mentorship information.
As with any observational study, caution must be applied when considering whether correlation implies causation. It is, of course, possible that the associations we observed between academic productivity and having a mentor were confounded by the likelihood that a highly motivated individual might be more likely to both seek out mentorship and be more productive than others. Still, we find it unlikely that such motivated individuals would seek out mentorship were it devoid of actual positive impact.
Conclusions
The results of the ROADMAP survey confirm in a quantifiable way what many have long suspected. Academic physicians and scientists who have mentors involved in their careers tend to be more productive. Radiation oncology faculty at domestic academic departments with mentors had higher numbers of publications and citations as well as higher h- and m-indices. They were also more likely to have received NIH funding. Interestingly, more academically productive mentors tended to be associated with more academically productive mentees, with a positive correlation between mentor and mentee h-index. The next steps are to use the information from this project to stimulate discussion of the importance of mentorship at academic training institutions and potentially move forward in creating a national mentorship development program for academic radiation oncologists who have difficulty identifying mentors at their institutions.
Supplementary Material
Footnotes
Conflict of interest: None
These data were presented in part at the 55th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) in Atlanta, GA, September 22–25, 2013.
References
- 1.Ramondetta LM, Bodurka DC, Tortolero-Luna G, et al. Mentorship and productivity among gynecologic oncology fellows. J. Cancer Educ. Off. J. Am. Assoc. Cancer Educ. 2003;18:15–19. doi: 10.1207/s15430154jce1801_9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Cohen JG, Sherman AE, Kiet TK, et al. Characteristics of success in mentoring and research productivity - a case-control study of academic centers. Gynecol. Oncol. 2012;125:8–13. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.01.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Straus SE, Johnson MO, Marquez C, et al. Characteristics of successful and failed mentoring relationships: a qualitative study across two academic health centers. Acad. Med. J. Assoc. Am. Med. Coll. 2013;88:82–89. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31827647a0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Jackson VA, Palepu A, Szalacha L, et al. “Having the right chemistry”: a qualitative study of mentoring in academic medicine. Acad. Med. J. Assoc. Am. Med. Coll. 2003;78:328–334. doi: 10.1097/00001888-200303000-00020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Levy AS, Pyke-Grimm KA, Lee DA, et al. Mentoring in Pediatric Oncology: A Report from the Children’s Oncology Group Young Investigator Committee. J. Pediatr. Hematol. Oncol. 2013;35:456–461. doi: 10.1097/MPH.0b013e31829eec33. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.DeCastro R, Sambuco D, Ubel PA, et al. Batting 300 is good: perspectives of faculty researchers and their mentors on rejection, resilience, and persistence in academic medical careers. Acad. Med. J. Assoc. Am. Med. Coll. 2013;88:497–504. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e318285f3c0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.DeCastro R, Sambuco D, Ubel PA, et al. Mentor networks in academic medicine: moving beyond a dyadic conception of mentoring for junior faculty researchers. Acad. Med. J. Assoc. Am. Med. Coll. 2013;88:488–496. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e318285d302. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Luckhaupt SE, Chin MH, Mangione CM, et al. Mentorship in academic general internal medicine. Results of a survey of mentors. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2005;20:1014–1018. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.215.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Illes J, Glover GH, Wexler L, et al. A model for faculty mentoring in academic radiology. Acad. Radiol. 2000;7:717–724. doi: 10.1016/s1076-6332(00)80529-2. discussion 725–726. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Wingard DL, Garman KA, Reznik V. Facilitating faculty success: outcomes and cost benefit of the UCSD National Center of Leadership in Academic Medicine. Acad. Med. J. Assoc. Am. Med. Coll. 2004;79:S9–S11. doi: 10.1097/00001888-200410001-00003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Ploeg J, de Witt L, Hutchison B, et al. Evaluation of a research mentorship program in community care. Eval. Program Plann. 2008;31:22–33. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2007.10.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Palepu A, Friedman RH, Barnett RC, et al. Junior faculty members’ mentoring relationships and their professional development in U.S. medical schools. Acad. Med. J. Assoc. Am. Med. Coll. 1998;73:318–323. doi: 10.1097/00001888-199803000-00021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Tillman RE, Jang S, Abedin Z, et al. Policies, activities, and structures supporting research mentoring: a national survey of academic health centers with clinical and translational science awards. Acad. Med. J. Assoc. Am. Med. Coll. 2013;88:90–96. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182772b94. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Ries A, Wingard D, Gamst A, et al. Measuring faculty retention and success in academic medicine. Acad. Med. J. Assoc. Am. Med. Coll. 2012;87:1046–1051. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31825d0d31. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Hirsch JE. An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2005;102:16569–16572. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0507655102. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Choi M, Fuller CD, Thomas CR., Jr Estimation of citation-based scholarly activity among radiation oncology faculty at domestic residency-training institutions: 1996–2007. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2009;74:172–178. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2008.07.030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Rana S, Holliday EB, Jagsi R, et al. Scholastic Activity Among Radiation Oncology Residents at US Academic Institutions: a Benchmark Analysis. J. Cancer Educ. Off. J. Am. Assoc. Cancer Educ. 2013 doi: 10.1007/s13187-013-0500-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Sambunjak D, Straus SE, Marušić A. Mentoring in academic medicine: A systematic review. JAMA. 2006;296:1103–1115. doi: 10.1001/jama.296.9.1103. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Debenham B, Banerjee R, Fairchild A, et al. 2009 Canadian radiation oncology resident survey. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2012;82:1326–1331. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2011.04.030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Wingard DL, Garman KA, Reznik V. Facilitating faculty success: outcomes and cost benefit of the UCSD National Center of Leadership in Academic Medicine. Acad. Med. J. Assoc. Am. Med. Coll. 2004;79:S9–S11. doi: 10.1097/00001888-200410001-00003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.P’ng C, Ito E, How C, et al. Excellence in Radiation Research for the 21st Century (EIRR21): description of an innovative research training program. Int. J. Radiat. Oncol. Biol. Phys. 2012;83:e563–e570. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2012.02.035. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.