Abstract
Research projects in translational science are increasingly complex and require interdisciplinary collaborations. In the context of training translational researchers, this suggests that multiple mentors may be needed in different content areas. This study explored mentoring structure as it relates to perceived mentoring effectiveness and other characteristics of master's‐level trainees in clinical‐translational research training programs. A cross‐sectional online survey of recent graduates of clinical research master's program was conducted. Of 73 surveys distributed, 56.2% (n = 41) complete responses were analyzed. Trainees were overwhelmingly positive about participation in their master's programs and the impact it had on their professional development. Overall the majority (≥75%) of trainees perceived they had effective mentoring in terms of developing skills needed for conducting clinical‐translational research. Fewer trainees perceived effective mentoring in career development and work‐life balance. In all 15 areas of mentoring effectiveness assessed, higher rates of perceived mentor effectiveness was seen among trainees with ≥2 mentors compared to those with solo mentoring (SM). In addition, trainees with ≥2 mentors perceived having effective mentoring in more mentoring aspects (median: 14.0; IQR: 12.0–15.0) than trainees with SM (median: 10.5; IQR: 8.0–14.5). Results from this survey suggest having ≥2 mentors may be beneficial in fulfilling trainee expectations for mentoring in clinical‐translational training.
Keywords: clinical research, translational research, mentoring
Introduction
Mentoring clinical and translational researchers is a critical component of their success. The breadth and complexity of clinical‐translational research and its associated methodologies has implications for trainee mentoring. DeCastro et al. recently reported that K23 recipients challenged the traditional primary mentor “dyadic” trainee model, referred to in this article as solo mentoring (SM), in favor of networks of mentors with a wider array of expertise.1 A mentoring committee (MC) or mentoring team (MT) can support a trainee at various times in their career with a range of expertise. The literature on clinical and translational mentoring has largely focused on recipients of career development awards and other early investigators.2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Less is known about trainees who are enrolled in NIH–supported Clinical Research Training Programs conferring master's degrees in clinical research. These programs (i.e., the K30 Clinical Research Curriculum Award program and the Clinical and Translational Science Award program) aim to provide clinician scientists with the critical skills needed to conduct clinical research and include a didactic curriculum and a mentor guided research experience.7, 8 Training is provided predominantly for physicians and is aimed at developing researchers who understand the complex issues associated with clinical, and increasingly translational, research and who are able to successfully compete for research funding.
Among the professional organizations engaged in promoting high quality clinical‐translational research training, three key stakeholders (Association for Clinical Research Training [ACRT], Association for Patient Oriented Research, and the Society for Clinical and Translational Science) merged into a single new organization in 2013, the Association for Clinical and Translational Science (ACTS), whose mission is to promote research, education, advocacy, and mentoring to improve human health. In keeping with these goals, and by building on work that began under the ACRT Evaluation Committee,9 we conducted a study of selected training experiences with a focus on trainee's perceptions of mentoring due to the significance assigned to mentoring in the training process and emergence of evolving models of mentoring.
The study consisted of a cross‐sectional survey which elicited information about professional background, satisfaction with participation in a clinical research master's program, characteristics of mentoring arrangements and mentoring effectiveness perceived by trainees who completed master's degrees in K30 Clinical Research Curriculum Award or Clinical and Translational Science Award supported programs. We report here the different types of mentoring structures, characteristics of their mentoring arrangements and mentoring effectiveness as perceived by the trainees.
Methods
Survey development
We developed this cross‐sectional survey based on similar surveys in the literature.10, 11, 12 After refining the survey based on the results of a pilot study, it was administered in 2012–2013 as an online questionnaire using RedCap13, 14, 15 to master's degree students, hereafter referred to as trainees, during the last few weeks of their final semester or shortly after graduating from their program, at one of five participating institutions: Albert Einstein College of Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health, Duke University School of Medicine, University of Texas Medical Branch, and University of Puerto Rico Medical Sciences Campus. Each participating site obtained IRB approval.
The surveys were anonymous as some survey questions, particularly those regarding the perceived effectiveness of one's mentor(s), could be uncomfortable to answer honestly and thereby bias the results. We developed and maintained two databases, one for identifiers and one for survey responses, linked by an ID number, to protect trainee identity. As part of the consent process we provided information regarding procedures for protecting individual identities to the trainees.
Response rate
A total of 73 trainees were sent survey requests; of these 53 (72.6%) responded. One of these 53 respondents did not consent to the study and 11 partially completed the survey with insufficient data. The analysis was based on the 41 complete surveys (56.2%).
Trainee characteristics
In addition to basic demographic information, respondents provided information on time spent during their masters training in research, education, clinical, and other types of activities. Satisfaction with the participation in the master's program and choosing a clinical‐translational research career was assessed by asking trainees to indicate their agreement or disagreement on a series of three questions. Trainees also rated their quality of life on a scale of 1–100 (1 being the worst and 100 being the best imaginable) upon completion of the master's program.
Mentoring structure
We asked trainees to indicate whether they had one mentor (i.e., SM) or multiple mentors. Those who responded that they had more than one mentor were then asked about the structure of their mentor group. They could choose a MT, defined as primarily meeting with each mentor on their team individually, or a MC, defined as primarily meeting with the all mentors as a group. Those who reported SM were asked to provide information about this one primary mentor only. Those who reported a MT were asked to provide information on up to three individual mentors and to rank these individuals in approximate order of how often they sought the advice of each (primary, secondary, and tertiary mentors). Those who responded that they had a MC reported on the MC as a whole. For the purpose of these analyses we combined responses for trainees who reported having a MT or MC (≥2 mentors) and compared them to those trainees who reported SM.
Mentoring characteristics
Trainees selected among nine options (Table 2) for what motivated them to be mentored by each individual mentor and were able to check all that applied. Additionally, communication methods for each primary, secondary, and tertiary mentor were collected for trainees who reported SM or MT, but not those who reported a MC. Each trainee reported on how many times per month they utilized various modalities to communicate with their mentor(s). Responses were categorized into: less than once per week, once per week and more than once per week.
Table 2.
Trainees motivation to work with mentor(s) by mentoring structure
| What motivated you to be mentored by your mentor? (check all that apply) | Solo mentoring (SM), N = 12 | ≥ 2 Mentors, N = 29 |
|---|---|---|
| N (%) | N (%) | |
| I needed access to his/her expertise | 8 (66.7) | 29 (100.0) |
| I needed access to equipment or resources I did not have | 6 (50.0) | 15 (51.7) |
| I wanted to encourage cross‐fertilization across disciplines | 1 (8.3) | 6 (20.7) |
| I wanted improved access to research funds | 5 (41.7) | 9 (31.0) |
| I wanted increased prestige or visibility | 4 (33.3) | 10 (34.5) |
| I needed to learn about a specific technique/method | 3 (25.0) | 14 (48.3) |
| I had a large and complex problem that required pooling knowledge | 1 (8.3) | 7 (24.1) |
| I wanted to enhance my research productivity | 7 (58.3) | 23 (79.3) |
| I thought it would be fun to work with him/her | 6 (50.0) | 14 (48.3) |
Perceived mentoring effectiveness
Trainees were asked a series of questions regarding how effective each of their mentors, or MC as a whole, was in various aspects of mentoring including developing clinical research skills and providing career guidance. Responses were collected on a 5‐point Likert scale (very effective, effective, neither effective or ineffective, ineffective, very ineffective) and were collapsed into two categories for analyses: effective (effective or very ineffective) and not effective (neither effective or ineffective, ineffective, or very ineffective). Not applicable was an additional option to all questions as not all mentors may have been intended or expected to serve in all aspects of mentoring. Trainees with a MC answered these questions with respect to the committee as a whole. Those trainees with a MT answered each question separately for their primary, secondary and tertiary mentors (as applicable) and the trainee was determined to have effective mentoring if any one of their mentors were effective in that role.
Statistical analysis
Descriptive statistics were obtained using STATA version 13.1 (College Station, TX, USA) and are provided as number and percentage (n; %) for categorical variables and median and interquartile range (median [IQR]) for continuous variables. Formal statistical comparisons were not conducted as this is a small descriptive study.
Results
Trainee characteristics
Descriptive statistics for the 41 trainees in the analytic sample are provided in Table 1, overall, and by type of mentoring structure. About one‐third (n = 12, 29.3%) of respondents reported SM and two‐thirds (n = 29, 70.7%) reported more ≥2 mentors (MT: n = 24, 58.5% and MC: n = 5 12.2%). All 24 trainees who reported a MT provided information on primary and secondary mentors; only three trainees reported information on a tertiary mentor.
Table 1.
Trainee characteristics overall and by mentoring structure
| N(%)* | All respondents, N = 41 (100.0) | Solo mentoring (SM), N = 12 (29.3) | ≥ 2 Mentors, N = 29 (70.7) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Race/ethnicity | |||
| Non‐Hispanic white | 20 (48.8) | 6 (50.0) | 14 (48.3) |
| Hispanic | 10 (24.4) | 3 (25.0) | 7 (24.1) |
| Asian/Pacific Islander | 9 (22.0) | 2 (16.7) | 7 (24.1) |
| Other | 2 (4.9) | 1 (8.3) | 1 (3.5) |
| Academic ranks while in master's program | |||
| Medical student | 2 (5.0) | 1 (9.1) | 1 (3.5) |
| Resident | 3 (7.5) | 3 (27.3) | 0 (0.0) |
| Fellow | 16 (40.0) | 2 (18.2) | 14 (48.3) |
| Faculty† | 19 (46.3) | 5 (41.7) | 14 (48.3) |
| Administrative positions while in program | |||
| No | 33 (82.5) | 8 (72.7) | 25 (86.2) |
| Yes | 7 (17.5) | 3 (27.3) | 4 (13.8) |
| Any clinical responsibilities while in program | |||
| No | 10 (24.4) | 5 (41.7) | 5 (17.2) |
| Yes | 31 (75.6) | 7 (58.3) | 24 (82.8) |
| Clinic hours/week‡ | 10 (8‐16) | 8 (4‐10) | 12 (8‐18) |
| On‐call nights/month‡ | 2 (0–4) | 1.5 (0.5–3.0) | 2 (0–4.9) |
| Service months/year‡ | 2 (1–4) | 1.5 (1.0–3.0) | 2 (0–4) |
| Hours per week spent in:‡ | |||
| Master's training program | 15 (10–20) | 12.5 (10–20) | 15 (10–20) |
| Research | 20 (15–30) | 27.5 (10–36) | 20 (15–25) |
| Teaching/education | 5 (1–5) | 1 (0–5) | 5 (3–5) |
| Clinical/patient care | 10 (5–20) | 6 (0–10) | 15 (8–25) |
| If I had to do it all over again I would still participate in this master's program | |||
| Agree | 39 (95.1) | 11 (91.7) | 28 (96.6) |
| Disagree | 2 (4.9) | 1 (8.3) | 1 (3.5) |
| My involvement in the training program has had a positive effect on my professional life | |||
| Agree | 38 (92.7) | 11 (91.7) | 27 (93.1) |
| Disagree | 2 (4.9) | 1 (8.3) | 1 (3.5) |
| Uncertain | 1 (2.4) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (3.5) |
| If I had to do it all over again I would again choose a clinical/translational research career | |||
| Agree | 36 (87.8) | 9 (75.0) | 27 (93.1) |
| Disagree | 2 (4.9) | 2 (16.7) | 0 (0.0) |
| Uncertain | 3 (7.3) | 1 (8.3) | 2 (6.9) |
| Quality of life at the time of survey | |||
| (1 = worst to 100 = best)‡ | 80.0 (60.0–89.0) | 63.0 (45.0–89.5) | 80.0 (72.0–88.0) |
*All data reported as number and percentage unless otherwise noted.
†Faculty includes instructor, assistant, associate, and full professor.
‡Median and interquartile range.
Race‐ethnicity of the sample varied with slightly less than half reporting non‐Hispanic white (n = 20, 48.8%), a quarter Hispanic (n = 10, 24.4%) and one‐fifth Asian/Pacific Islander (n = 9, 22.0%). While enrolled in the master's program, almost half of the trainees were faculty (instructor, assistant, associate, or full professors; n = 19 [46.3%]). Just about all of the trainees on faculty had completed a residency (18/19; 94.7%) prior to the master's program and half had also completed a fellowship (10/19; 52.6%). The other half of trainees who were not faculty while enrolled in the master's program were concurrently enrolled in a fellowship program (n = 16; 40%), a residency program (n = 3; 7.5%) or medical school (n = 2; 5.0%). Similar rates of trainees reported SM regardless of whether they were still in medical training (28.6%: 6/21) or if they were on faculty (26.3%; 5/19).
Although the majority of trainees held (n = 28) or obtained (n = 2) an MD degree while in the master's program the sample included three pharmacists (PharmD), one psychologist (PsyD), one dentist (DDS), and two PhDs. Consistent with the large proportion with clinical degrees, almost three‐quarters of the trainees (n = 31; 75.6%) reported having clinical responsibilities while concurrently participating in the master's program with a median of 10 hours of clinic per week (IQR: 8–16); 2 (IQR: 0–4) on‐call nights per month and 2 (IQR: 1–4) service months per year. As expected, a large part of the trainee's time during the master's program was spent in the training program (median [IQR]: 15 hours/week [10–20]) and in research (median [IQR]: 20 hours/week [15–30]) and this was fairly consistent across the mentoring structure types.
An overwhelming majority of the trainee's agreed that if they had to do it all over again, they would still participate in the master's program again (n = 39; 95.1%) and they felt that the involvement in the training program had a positive effect on their professional development (n = 38; 92.7%). Similarly high rates of agreement were reported for choosing a career in clinical‐translational research if they had to do it all over again (n = 36, 87.8%). The median quality of life at the time of the survey was 80.0 (IQR: 60.0–89.0) on a scale of 1–100, with 100 being the best. Those with two or more mentors reported higher quality of life (80.0; IQR: 72.0–88.0) compared to those with one mentor (63.0; IQR: 45.0–89.5).
Mentoring characteristics
Table 2 reports the trainees’ motivation for working with their mentors. A majority indicated that a motivation for working with their mentors was access to their expertise (SM: 8/12; 66.7%, ≥2 mentors: 29/29; 100.0%), access to equipment or resources (SM: 6/12; 50.0%, ≥2 mentors: 15/29; 51.7%), and wanting to enhance their research productivity (SM: 7/12; 58.3%, ≥2 mentors: 23/29; 79.3%). Additionally, approximately half of all respondents were motivated by the personal characteristics of the mentor, specifically they thought it would be fun to work with them (SM: 6/12; 50.0%, ≥2 mentors: 14/29; 48.3%).
As reported in Table 3, scheduled face‐to‐face meetings, impromptu face‐to‐face meetings, and e‐mail occurred at least once a week for the majority of trainees, regardless of their mentoring structure. Conversely, telephone calls, text messaging, and social networking sites were not common means of communication between trainees and their mentors.
Table 3.
Modes of communication of trainees with their mentor(s) by mentoring structure
| Solo mentoring (SM), N = 12 | ≥2 Mentors, * N = 24 | |
|---|---|---|
| N(%) | N(%) | |
| Scheduled face‐to‐face meetings | ||
| <Once per week | 5 (41.7) | 12 (50.0) |
| Once per week | 6 (50.0) | 9 (37.5) |
| >Once per week | 1 (8.3) | 3 (12.5) |
| Impromptu face‐to‐face meetings | ||
| <Once per week | 5 (45.5) | 8 (33.3) |
| Once per week | 2 (18.2) | 7 (29.2) |
| >Once per week | 4 (36.4) | 9 (37.5) |
| E‐mail | ||
| <Once per week | 3 (27.3) | 3 (12.5) |
| Once per week | 0 (0.0) | 4 (16.7) |
| >Once per week | 8 (72.7) | 17 (70.8) |
| Telephone | ||
| <Once per week | 9 (81.8) | 15 (62.5) |
| Once per week | 0 (0.0) | 4 (16.7) |
| >Once per week | 2 (18.2) | 5 (20.8) |
| Text messaging | ||
| <Once per week | 6 (54.6) | 21 (87.5) |
| Once per week | 2 (18.2) | 2 (8.3) |
| >Once per week | 3 (27.3) | 1 (4.2) |
| Social networking sites | ||
| <Once per week | 11 (100) | 24 (100) |
| Once per week | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
| >Once per week | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
*Communication questions were not asked from the five individuals who indicated that they were mentored by a committee.
As seen in Table 4, regardless of the mentoring structure, the majority of trainees (≥75%) perceived their mentor as effective with areas related to helping them develop skills needed for careers in clinical‐translational research, such as writing peer reviewed publications, developing posters/oral presentations for meetings, designing and conducting of research, and writing and revising grants. Likewise, trainees perceived that they had effective mentoring in traditional roles one would expect in a mentor: providing content expertise, constructive and useful critiques, motivation to improve work product, suggesting appropriate resources, challenging to extend abilities, assigning task that push them to develop new skills and serving as a professional role model. Conversely, fewer trainees (<75%) perceived having effective mentoring in areas regarding work‐life balance and career guidance. Perceived mentor effectiveness did not differ by whether the clinical research trainees where still in medical training or were on faculty (data not shown).
Table 4.
Trainees perceived effectiveness of mentor(s) by mentoring structure
| How effective was your mentor(s)/mentoring committee* | All trainees, N = 41 | Solo mentoring (SM), N = 12 | ≥ 2 Mentors, N = 29 |
|---|---|---|---|
| N(%) | N(%) | N(%) | |
| In helping you write peer reviewed publications? | |||
| Not effective | 1 (2.4) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (3.5) |
| Effective | 37 (90.2) | 10 (83.3) | 27 (93.1) |
| Not applicable | 3 (7.3) | 2 (16.7) | 1 (3.5) |
| In helping you develop posters or oral presentations for professional meetings? | |||
| Not effective | 4 (9.8) | 3 (25.0) | 1 (3.5) |
| Effective | 34 (82.9) | 7 (58.3) | 27 (93.1) |
| Not applicable | 3 (7.3) | 2 (16.7) | 1 (3.5) |
| In helping you design and/or conduct research? | |||
| Not effective | 3 (7.3) | 2 (16.7) | 1 (3.5) |
| Effective | 38 (92.7) | 10 (83.3) | 28 (96.6) |
| Not applicable | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
| In helping you write or revise grants? | |||
| Not effective | 2 (5.0) | 0 (0.0) | 2 (6.9) |
| Effective | 30 (75.0) | 5 (45.5) | 25 (86.2) |
| Not applicable | 8 (20.0) | 6 (54.6) | 2 (6.9) |
| Providing content expertise in your area of need? | |||
| Not effective | 2 (5.0) | 1 (9.1) | 1 (3.5) |
| Effective | 38 (95.0) | 10 (90.9) | 28 (96.5) |
| Not applicable | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
| Providing constructive and useful critiques of your work? | |||
| Not effective | 1 (2.6) | 1 (9.1) | 0 (0.0) |
| Effective | 38 (97.4) | 10 (90.9) | 28 (100.0) |
| Not applicable | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
| Motivating you to improve your work product? | |||
| Not effective | 4 (10.0) | 2 (18.2) | 2 (6.9) |
| Effective | 36 (90.0) | 9 (81.8) | 27 (93.1) |
| Not applicable | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
| Suggesting appropriate resources (e.g., experts, electronic contacts, source materials)? | |||
| Not effective | 3 (7.5) | 2 (18.2) | 1 (3.5) |
| Effective | 37 (92.5) | 9 (81.8) | 28 (96.6) |
| Not applicable | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
| Challenging you to extend your abilities (e.g., risk taking, try a new professional activity, draft a section of an article, etc.)? | |||
| Not effective | 7 (17.1) | 3 (25.0) | 4 (13.8) |
| Effective | 33 (80.5) | 8 (66.7) | 25 (86.2) |
| Not applicable | 1 (2.4) | 1 (8.3) | 0 (0.0) |
| Assigning you tasks that push you into developing new skills? | |||
| Not effective | 5 (12.2) | 2 (16.7) | 3 (10.3) |
| Effective | 35 (85.4) | 9 (75.0) | 26 (89.7) |
| Not applicable | 1 (2.4) | 1 (8.3) | 0 (0.0) |
| Serving as a professional role model for you? | |||
| Not effective | 2 (4.9) | 1 (8.3) | 1 (3.5) |
| Effective | 39 (95.1) | 11 (91.7) | 28 (96.6) |
| Not applicable | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) |
| In counseling you about job change/promotion? | |||
| Not effective | 9 (22.5) | 2 (18.2) | 7 (24.1) |
| Effective | 26 (65.0) | 7 (63.6) | 19 (65.5) |
| Not applicable | 5 (12.5) | 2 (18.2) | 3 (10.3) |
| In counseling you in balancing your professional and personal life? | |||
| Not effective | 13 (31.7) | 5 (41.7) | 8 (27.6) |
| Effective | 23 (56.1) | 5 (41.7) | 18 (62.1) |
| Not applicable | 5 (12.2) | 2 (16.7) | 3 (10.3) |
| Counseling you about balancing professional responsibilities (e.g., research, service, clinical, teaching, etc.)? | |||
| Not effective | 11 (26.8) | 6 (50.0) | 5 (17.2) |
| Effective | 27 (65.9) | 5 (41.7) | 22 (75.9) |
| Not applicable | 3 (7.3) | 1 (8.3) | 2 (6.9) |
| Suggesting specific strategies for achieving your career aspirations? | |||
| Not effective | 10 (24.4) | 4 (33.3) | 6 (20.7) |
| Effective | 29 (70.7) | 7 (58.3) | 22 (75.9) |
| Not applicable | 2 (4.9) | 1 (8.3) | 1 (3.5) |
| Total number of questions perceived as effective | |||
| Median (interquartile range) | 13.0 (10.0–15.0) | 10.5 (8.0–14.5) | 14.0 (12.0–15.0) |
*“Effective” combines responses of effective and very effective; “not effective” combines responses of neither effective or ineffective, ineffective, and very ineffective.
For each of the 15 effectiveness questions a greater percentage of those with ≥2 mentors perceived effective mentoring compared to those trainees with SM (Table 4). Additionally, trainees with two or more mentors perceived more areas with effective mentoring (median: 14.0; IQR: 12.0–15.0) compared to those with SM (median: 10.5; IQR: 8.0–14.5).
Discussion
This survey suggests that trainees of clinical‐translational research master's programs surveyed are satisfied with their participation and the effect the program has had on their professional life. Additionally it suggests these trainees, in general, perceive that they received effective mentoring and, in particular, had at least one mentor that was effective in helping them developing skills needed for a career in clinical and translational research.
Despite the general perception of effective mentoring among the trainees, in all areas of mentoring queried, those trainees with more than one mentor had higher rates of perceived effectiveness and more aspects of mentoring were perceived as effective compared to those with SM. This is not surprising as clinical‐translational training tends to involve research projects that are increasingly complex and require interdisciplinary collaborations,3 and having more individuals to cover the breadth of expertise trainees may need guidance in allows for more effective mentoring. Having multiple mentors, presumably with different strengths, appears to have led to more effective mentoring as perceived by trainees.
Interestingly, the areas of mentoring that were perceived as effective by the fewest number of trainees were those that related to career development and balancing both professional and work‐life issues. This suggests that trainees may need guidance identifying additional mentors with the skills to guide work‐life balance.
While the breadth of experiences prior to entering the clinical research training programs was quite variable, ranging from medical students to faculty, the type of mentoring and perceived effectiveness of mentoring was similar across the spectrum. This may not be unexpected as despite senior status of some physician‐scientists, embarking on a new career path in clinical research would likely lead them to have expectations from their mentor(s) on how to juggle their new research commitments, how to sustain a satisfactory work‐life balance and guidance in their new career path, just as physicians in more junior stages of medical training may have.
Also of note is that there were no African American trainees among the survey respondents and while about one quarter of the survey respondents were Hispanic, the vast majority of these are expected to be from University of Puerto Rico, one of the five participating sites. Recent research shows that, despite efforts to increase diversity in the medical profession, progress towards that goal has been slow,16, 17 despite both the Institute of Medicine and the Sullivan Commission having called for an increase in the number of underrepresented minorities in academic medicine.18, 19 Whether the lack of minorities seen among the survey respondents is representative of the underrepresentation of minorities in clinical‐translational research or an artifact of the racial distribution of the participating institutions is unclear. However, as effectiveness of mentoring is variable depending on cultural or ethnical differences/norms,20, 21, 22 more research is needed.
While there may be clear advantages to having a MT or committee over a single mentor it is not without potential disadvantages. One of the common themes among focus groups in early career researchers is access of trainees to the mentors and trainees who have multiple mentors may have difficulties with respect to coordination of schedules amongst their mentors.3 Among our survey respondents, e‐mail communication was common with at least 70% reporting more than once per week contact with at least one of their mentors. Similarly, 50% or more had face‐to‐face meetings with their mentor at least once per week. This did not appear to differ whether the trainee had one or more than one mentor; however it was not asked whether the trainee felt this level of communication was adequate.
It needs to be acknowledged that just over half of those sent the survey responded (53%) and perhaps those who were not as satisfied with their experience with the master's program or with their mentoring may not have taken the time to complete the survey or were wary that their responses would be linked back to them. This is despite efforts to communicate that all survey responses would be anonymous. The survey responses and/or response rate could also be skewed based on when the trainee was asked to complete the survey; those who were in their final weeks of the final semester may have been more concerned with a possible breach of confidentiality compared to those who had graduated already.
Future areas of research should focus on replicating this survey at other institutions to be able to explore differences in perceived mentoring amongst different racial and ethnic groups and to explore barriers to effective mentoring on areas such as work‐life balance. Additionally, since this survey was not designed to assess mentor perspective, it would be interesting to collect information from both mentors and trainees to compare perceptions as modalities to effectiveness. Finally, an important area of future exploration would be in the dynamics of the mentoring network (i.e., MT vs. MC) as the structure of the mentoring network may have important implications in terms of trainee expectations and level of comfort that trainees have with respect to having their concerns addressed.
While there appears to be overall satisfaction among the trainees surveyed in clinical‐translational master's programs, with both the training program itself and with their perceived mentor effectiveness, having more than one mentors may be beneficial in fulfilling trainee expectations for mentoring in clinical‐translational training. This is an important and timely topic in that clinical‐translational research is a burgeoning field and providing early trainees with the best possible tool set, which may be a mentoring network23, 24 may be beneficial in fulfilling trainee expectations for mentoring and in preparing them for a career in this field.
Acknowledgments
The research described was supported by NIH/National Center for Advancing Translational Science (NCATS) Einstein‐Montefiore CTSA grant number UL1TR001073; Duke University CTSA grant number UL1TR001117; University of Illinois at Chicago CTSA grant number UL1TR000050; Institute for Translational Sciences at the University of Texas Medical Branch CTSA UL1TR000071; NIH/National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD) University of Puerto Rico‐Medical Science Campus grant number R25MD007607 and NIH/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) K24HL096141 (EWS).
References
- 1. DeCastro R, Sambuco D, Ubel PA, Stewart A, Jagsi R. Mentor networks in academic medicine: moving beyond a dyadic conception of mentoring for junior faculty researchers. Acad Med. 2013; 88(4): 488–496. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Abedin Z, Rebello TJ, Richards BF, Pincus HA. Mentor training within academic health centers with Clinical and Translational Science Awards. Clin Transl Sci. 2013; 6(5): 376–380. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Keller TE, Collier PJ, Blakeslee JE, Logan K, McCracken K, Morris C. Early career mentoring for translational researchers: mentee perspectives on challenges and issues. Teach Learn Med. 2014; 26(3): 211–216. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Pfund C, House SC, Asquith P, Fleming MF, Buhr KA, Burnham EL, Eichenberger Gilmore JM, Huskins WC, McGee R, Schurr K, et al. Training mentors of clinical and translational research scholars: a randomized controlled trial. Acad Med. 2014; 89(5): 774–782. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Sajdyk TJ, Sors TG, Hunt JD, Murray ME, Deford ME, Shekhar A, Denne SC. Project development teams: a novel mechanism for accelerating translational research. Acad Med. 2015; 90(1): 40–46. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Fleming M, Burnham EL, Huskins WC. Mentoring translational science investigators. JAMA. 2012; 308(19): 1981–1982. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Strom BL, Kelly TO, Norman SA, Farrar JT, Kimmel SE, Lautenbach E, Feldman HI. The Master of Science in clinical epidemiology degree program of the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania: a model for clinical research training. Acad Med. 2012; 87(1): 74–80. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Teo AR. The development of clinical research training: past history and current trends in the United States. Acad Med. 2009; 84(4): 433–438. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Rubio DM, Schoenbaum EE, Lee LS, Schteingart DE, Marantz PR, Anderson KE, Platt LD, Baez A, Esposito K. Defining translational research: implications for training. Acad Med. 2010; 85(3): 470–475. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Frey BBL, JH , Lee SW, Tollesfon N. Measuring collaboration among grant partners. Am J Eval. 2006; 27(3): 383–392. [Google Scholar]
- 11. de Boer AG, van Lanschot JJ, Stalmeier PF, van Sandick JW, Hulscher JB, de Haes JC, Sprangers MA. Is a single‐item visual analogue scale as valid, reliable and responsive as multi‐item scales in measuring quality of life? Qual Life Res. 2004; 13(2): 311–320. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Lee LS, Pusek SN, McCormack WT, Helitzer DL, Martina CA, Dozier AM, Ahluwalia JS, Schwartz LS, McManus LM, Reynolds BD, et al. Clinical and translational scientist career success: metrics for evaluation. Clin Transl Sci. 2012; 5(5): 400–407. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Colfer A, Brodecki D, Hutchins L, Stellar JJ, Davis KF. Technology supporting research and quality improvement: a success story. J Pediatr Nurs. 2011; 26(6): 595–596. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Franklin JD, Guidry A, Brinkley JF. A partnership approach for electronic data capture in small‐scale clinical trials. J Biomed Inform. 2011; 44(Suppl 1): S103–S108. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata‐driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009; 42(2): 377–381. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Yu PT, Parsa PV, Hassanein O, Rogers SO, Chang DC. Minorities struggle to advance in academic medicine: a 12‐y review of diversity at the highest levels of America's teaching institutions. J Surg Res. 2013; 182(2): 212–218. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Merchant JL, Omary MB. Underrepresentation of underrepresented minorities in academic medicine: the need to enhance the pipeline and the pipe. Gastroenterology 2010; 138(1): 19–26, e11–e13. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Institute of Medicine . Unequal treatment: confronting racial and ethnic disparities in health care. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2003. [PubMed]
- 19. Sulllivan LW. Missing persons: minorities in the health professions. A Report of the Sullivan Commission on Diversity in the Healthcare Workforce, Washington DC, 2004.
- 20. Mahoney MR, Wilson E, Odom KL, Flowers L, Adler SR. Minority faculty voices on diversity in academic medicine: perspectives from one school. Acad Med. 2008; 83(8): 781–786. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Maton KI, Wimms HE, Grant SK, Wittig MA, Rogers MR, Vasquez MJ. Experiences and perspectives of African American, Latina/o, Asian American, and European American psychology graduate students: A national study. Cult Divers Ethnic Minor Psychol. 2011; 17(1): 68–78. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Sanchez JP, Peters L, Lee‐Rey E, Strelnick H, Garrison G, Zhang K, Spencer D, Ortega G, Yehia B, Berlin A, et al. Racial and ethnic minority medical students’ perceptions of and interest in careers in academic medicine. Acad Med. 2013; 88(9): 1299–1307. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Higgins MAKK. Reconsceptualizing mentoring at work: a developmental network perspective. Acad Manage Rev. 2001; 26(2): 264–298. [Google Scholar]
- 24. Seely EW, Kram KE, Emans SJ. Developmental networks in translational science. Transl Res. 2015; 165(4): 531–536. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]