TABLE 2.

Associations between protégé gender, race, and ethnicity and perceived amount and quality of time spent with mentor^a

	Total amount of time is adequatec		Quality of time is good/excellentc
Comparisonb	OR (95% CI)	p value	OR (95% CI)	p value
Black/Hispanic protégés compared with white protégés	2.22 (0.84–5.89)	0.11	1.37 (0.51–3.67)	0.54
Mentors of Black/Hispanic protégés compared with mentors of white protégés	0.33 (0.13–0.82)	0.02	0.49 (0.15–1.59)	0.24
White protégés compared with Asian protégés	0.74 (0.28–1.98)	0.55	0.35 (0.06–1.99)	0.24
Mentors of white protégés compared with mentors of Asian protégés	2.25 (0.70–7.21)	0.17	2.44 (0.73–8.13)	0.15
Black/Hispanic protégés compared with Asian protégés	1.65 (0.50–5.39)	0.41	0.48 (0.08–2.87)	0.42
Mentors of Black/Hispanic protégés compared with mentors of Asian protégés	0.74 (0.21–2.60)	0.64	1.20 (0.35–4.10)	0.77
Female protégés compared with male protégés	1.00 (0.39–2.60)	0.99	0.43 (0.11–1.62)	0.21
Mentors of female protégés compared with mentors of male protégés	0.90 (0.35–2.33)	0.83	0.63 (0.14–2.79)	0.54

^aThe odds ratios, confidence intervals, and p values were obtained from a logistic regression model that included terms for intervention group, respondent (mentor, protégé), and the response to the item at baseline. The model was fitted using generalized estimating equations to account for the association between the mentor and protégé responses in the same dyad; the technique of alternating logistic regressions was used, with the associations between outcomes within the same dyad being modeled using a constant log odds ratio.

^bWhite protégés include only non-Hispanic white protégés.

^cOR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval.