Junior Mentors Research Articles

Curriculum Innovations: Creation of a Longitudinal, Neurology-Centered Pipeline Program to Motivate and Support Students From Racial/Ethnically Marginalized Groups

Introduction Premedical students who identify from historically marginalized racial and ethnic backgrounds are more likely to lose interest in medicine than their White counterparts. Loss of interest has been attributed to a lack of exposure to the field and little mentorship. Objectives The PreDoc Program was designed as a longitudinal experience to promote exposure to and interest in academic medicine, particularly through the lens of neurology for premedical students who identify from historically marginalized racial and ethnic backgrounds. Methods and Curriculum The program included the following core components: (1) senior (faculty) mentor to facilitate direct contact with a physician, networking, and professional development coaching; (2) junior (medical student) mentor to provide near peer support and increased knowledge of the medical school application process; (3) large group meetings aimed at teaching professional development and working through clinical problem-based learning; (4) shadowing experiences aimed at increasing knowledge of patient care delivery and other academic roles; and (5) a clinically oriented project. After initial grant support to create the program, it has been maintained successfully with minimal funding through the Department of Neurology. Results and Assessment The program recruited 29 student participants who completed at least 1 year of the program, 18 senior mentors, and 23 junior mentors over 4 academic years. The overall quality of the program was rated at 4.7 of 5 (median 5, range 2), with an upward trend seen over time. Over its first 2 years, the program facilitated the following estimated activities: 45 in-person senior mentor meetings, 27 in-person junior mentor meetings, 42 shadowing experiences, 60 large group meetings, and 360 email communications. Student-reported strengths included ease of shadowing, usefulness of problem-based learning cases, mentor relationships, and encouragement received. Areas for improvement included increasing the strength of junior mentor relationships and increased opportunities for socialization outside of the formal meetings. Discussion and Lessons Learned It is feasible to create a successful, longitudinal, clinically focused undergraduate pipeline program for students who identify with historically minoritized racial and ethnic backgrounds with minimal funding centered in a Department of Neurology to help promote diversity within the field.

Reverse-mentorship of the core concepts in philosophy and mental health: a medical education case report

AimsThe aim of this medical education case report was to outline the development and outcomes of a reverse-mentorship project that enabled cross-generational collaborative learning. The project took the shape of a philosophy of psychiatry journal club facilitated by a psychiatry core trainee in west London, UK.BackgroundReverse-mentorship reverses traditional roles of mentor and mentee. It is an increasingly fashionable concept in medical education. The junior mentors the senior clinician. The implicit learning outcomes include provision of a two-way learning process, development of mentoring skills for the more junior clinician and collaboration that builds social capital within the workplace. Reverse-mentorship is effective when the junior mentor is recognised for their expertise in a particular area. In this instance, the junior mentor has a special interest in the philosophy of psychiatry.MethodJunior mentor and senior mentees formed a monthly journal club. The club tracked arguments from anti- and biological psychiatry on the meaning of mental illness. The debate offered insight into a semantic analysis of mental illness and a deeper conceptual understanding of medicine. The learning material derived from the core concepts of philosophy and mental health (Fulford et al.). The role of the mentor was to facilitate group discussion around arguments from relevant papers. A survey, adapted from a recent reverse-mentorship review article, measured the quality of educational experience for mentor and mentees.ResultOverall, mentees (senior clinicians) agreed that the mentor (junior clinician) displayed attributes and behaviours for effective mentoring across most domains, including enthusiasm, effective communication, respect for mentee expertise and active listening to the needs of the mentee. The mentor was particularly impressed with the mentees’ openness to learn new concepts and respect shown. General reflections on the experience of reverse-mentorship were positive overall. A thematic review highlighted particular aspects, including: a good way to learn a new skill and great opportunity to develop professional skills of mentoring.ConclusionThe importance of mentoring in medical education is well established. Reverse-mentorship is a new concept that looks to harness the unique qualities of millennials, including their aptitudes for empowerment, innovation and collaboration. This medical education case report shows that an enthusiastic junior clinician can successfully pilot an educational-mentoring scheme aimed at senior clinicians. To make more explicit the intuitive benefits of reverse-mentorship, longitudinal reviews are needed. However, this case report contributes important insights into this burgeoning field of medical education.

Implementation, Outputs, and Cost of a National Operational Research Training in Rwanda.

Background:Training and mentorship in research skills are essential to developing a critical mass of researchers in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). However, reporting on the details of such training programs, especially regarding the cost of the training, is limited.Objectives:This paper describes a year-long operational research training and mentorship course in Rwanda, implemented between 2013 and 2017.Approach:We describe motivations for the design of the Intermediate Operational Research Training Course (IORT) across four iterations. We also report outputs, evaluate trainee experiences, and estimate training and mentorship costs.Findings:Of the 132 applicants to the course, 55 (41.7%) were selected, and 53 (96.4%) completed the training. The ratio of female-to-male trainees in the course increased from 1:8 in 2013 to 1:3 in 2017. Trainees developed and co-first-authored 28 research manuscripts, 96.4% (n = 27) of which are published in peer-reviewed journals. For the 15 trainees who completed the post-course evaluation, 93.3% and 86.7% reported improvement in their research and analytical skills, respectively. The median cost per trainee to complete the course was US$908 (Range: US$739–US$1,253) and per research project was US$2,708 (US$1,748–US$6,741). The median annual training delivery and mentorship cost was US$47,170 (US$30,563–US$63,849) for a course with a Rwanda-based senior mentor, junior mentor, and training coordinator. The total essential cost for a year-long IORT course with 16 trainees co-leading eight research projects and mentored by two senior and four junior mentors was US$101,254 (US$73,486–US$157,569).Conclusion:We attribute the high course completion rates, publication rates, and skills acquisition to the learning-by-doing approach and intensive hands-on mentorship provided in the course. IORT was costly and funded through institutional resources and international partnerships. We encourage funders to prioritize comprehensive research capacity-building initiatives that provide intensive mentorship as these are likely to improve the pool of skilled researchers in LMICs.

Facilitating a Mentoring Programme for Doctoral Students: Insights from Evidence-Based Practice

Aim/Purpose: One approach to helping doctoral students deal with the many challenges they face is the provision of a structured mentoring programme to complement the more traditional doctoral curriculum and supervisor relationship. This paper reports a mentoring programme containing such activities as individual consultations and peer-mentoring workshops, introduced at one of the non-public universities in Poland and discusses the development of a model of support. In developing the model, two evaluation studies were conducted seeking to discover how participants perceived the mentoring programme, what needs the mentoring programme addressed, and what benefits it provided for doctoral students. Background: With reference to a new paradigm proposed by Kram and Higgins, mentoring emerges in the context of many developmental networks, where the more junior mentors and peer-mentors together discover new roles involved in doctoral education. Methodology: Case study methodology is utilized to gather perceptions of a doctoral mentoring programme. The conceptual framework for a two-part programme is presented and the results of two evaluation studies conducted on-line using a mix-method approach are reported. In total, 42 doctoral students participated in the studies, representing social sciences and the humanities disciplines. Contribution: This paper discusses a novel doctoral mentoring programme which finds its basis in evidence-based practice. This research goes beyond previous studies by undertaking an analysis of doctoral students’ needs, then considering relationships between those needs and structuring a programme to meet them. Findings: Findings showed three main areas of need for doctoral students: the need for social interaction at university; the need for structure in the doctoral journey, and the need for psychological support. Participants distinguished two perspectives that influenced the assessment of programme activities: (a) the meaningfulness of the mentoring programme to the individual; (b) the mentor’s attitude including the general atmosphere of collegiality during meetings. Results presented are supported by a proposed intervention model. Recommendations for Practitioners: The model presented may inspire other universities to implement similar approaches for supporting their own doctoral students. Researcher enablers are also offered as strategies relating to workshop topics, meeting schedules, and programme organization. The main recommendation for practitioners is to be sensitive to the psychosocial needs of students. Recommendation for Researchers: Researchers interested in doctoral students’ needs and ways of supporting them can utilize the proposed model for strategically planning such support. It is recommended that further research into the area of mentoring doctoral students makes use of the mixed-method approach. Such an approach takes cognizance of phenomenological exigencies as they pertain to individual meaning-making. Impact on Society: Supporting the effectiveness of doctoral students is significant as failure comes at great professional and personal cost to the doctoral student. There are also potential costs in terms of faculty disillusionment and impacts on university reputation. Economic benefits to the nation may also be forfeited when doctoral students fail to graduate. Future Research: It would be valuable to corroborate the model presented and extend it through the development of a mentoring support scale which identifies more linearly specific doctoral students’ needs. Longitudinal studies are also required to verify long-term effects of the programme.

2523

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The NIH states, “The training of the biomedical workforce has always been an integral part of the NIH mission… It takes just one good mentor to influence the career of a new investigator; it takes a robust culture of mentorship across the research community to strengthen, sustain and diversify the entire biomedical research enterprise.” The University of Minnesota’s CTSI-Education core strives to build and maintain a strong culture of mentoring by providing CTSI KL2 scholars an opportunity to mentor an undergraduate student participating in the Pathways to Research Program (PReP). Using this mentoring model, participants gain valuable benefits and CTSI’s culture of mentoring is strengthened. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Participating KL2 scholars are matched with a promising PReP scholar for a 12-week mentored research project. The PReP program selects top candidates through a highly competitive application process. Students work in their mentor’s lab full-time, funded by CTSI-Ed. They engage in additional activities together including a mentor/mentee, an interview activity and 2 social events. Junior faculty scholars are asked to participate as judges at CTSI’s Poster Session and are invited to present at PReP seminars. The program culminates with the announcement of the Junior Mentor of the Year, in which scholars nominate their mentors for the award. Junior faculty mentors receive support through a training course, Optimizing the Practice of Mentoring, mentor orientation and a roundtable discussion with the program director and other mentors. The program’s infrastructure is designed to foster mentee/mentor relationships through faculty and staff support. Junior faculty receive one-on-one coaching when faced with difficult mentoring situations and are recognized for their mentoring successes. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Junior faculty mentors highly rate the program on the following points; the experience was a good use of time, I am satisfied with my experience, I would recommend this program to faculty colleagues and students. Undergraduates and Professional students rated their mentoring relationship as 1 of 3 best outcomes of the program. In exit surveys, their highly rated program successes include having a network that helps move their career forward, and confidence to persist through training to become a successful researcher. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Creating a culture of mentoring is important to the strengthen, sustain and diversify the biomedical research workforce. This mentoring model contributes to the mission while vertically integrating CTSI-Ed’s KL2 and PReP programs. On an individual level, junior faculty improve communication and management skills, develop leadership qualities, increase their network, provide a sense of fulfilment and personal growth, and reinforce their own skills and knowledge of subject. They are also provided a top undergraduate student worker fully funded by the program.

The Voelcker Biomedical Research Academy: A Longitudinal and Multi‐tiered Model for Preparing the Next Generation of Biomedical Scientists

The Voelcker Biomedical Research Academy (VBRA) is a unique training program for high school students in the San Antonio area. VBRA allows talented high school freshmen (VBRA Scholars) to conduct a 3‐year long research project in biomedical sciences with faculty at the UT Health Science Center‐San Antonio. The VBRA experience incorporates personalized mentorship, guidance for preparation for college, leadership development, and awareness of career opportunities in science. VBRA applications have increased from 60 applicants in 2009 to 121 in 2015. A cohort of 20–22 selected Scholars is enrolled in the program each year. To date, 7 cohorts have been admitted to the Academy (145 students). These Scholars represent 44 different high schools, are ethnically diverse, (Hispanic, 46%; Caucasian, 32%; Asian, 13%; African American, 9%) and have demonstrated exceptional commitment to the Academy, as 97% of them have completed the program. All senior Scholars have graduated from high school scoring significantly higher on SAT exams than their high school peers. In addition, 100% of the Scholars are attending 4‐year universities and 88% of them are pursuing STEM related majors (88%). Eighty‐two VBRA Alumni serve as role models for current VBRA Scholars and interact daily with their younger counterparts. The Alumni offer presentations on the college experience (College Connection) and continue their own professional development by serving as teaching assistants and lecturers. VBRA Alumni can further grow their research experience, technical skills and scientific knowledge by becoming VBRA Summer Undergraduate Research Fellows (VBRA SURF); these Fellows work full time in a research laboratory during the summer months and participate in supplemental didactic activities. A key feature of the Academy is the contribution of ~ 40 medical students, graduate students and post‐doctoral fellows to the education and mentoring of VBRA Scholars and Alumni. These VBRA Junior Mentors are valuable members of the VBRA Admissions Committee, provide didactic activities and individualized training in specific laboratory techniques, and/or clinical perspectives relevant to translational research. In summary, the VBRA model represents a multi‐tiered approach to professional development in biomedical sciences through the integration of programs for high/professional school and college students with hands‐on research experiences, mentoring and networking opportunities. This model creates an innovative ecosystem that could be integrated or added to existing training programs to support the development of the next generation of biomedical scientists and professionals.Support or Funding InformationSupported in part by the Max and Minnie Tomerlin Voelcker Fund

Expanding Access Through Doctoral Education: Perspectives from Two Participants of the Sisters of the Academy Research Boot Camp

Expanding Access Through Doctoral Education:Perspectives from Two Participants of the Sisters of the Academy Research Boot Camp Dannielle Joy Davis (bio) and Joanne Sutherland (bio) When pondering the term boot camp, one often envisions the rigorous physical training soldiers endure prior to military service. Boot camps challenge individuals to exceed limits that may never have been tested and develop physical, mental, and emotional stamina to prepare for future arduous tasks. The Sisters of the Academy (SOTA) Research Boot Camp exemplifies such an environment, featuring strict training for the "academic battlegrounds" of doctoral attainment and the professoriate. It seeks to develop the intellectual muscles of women who have enlisted to pursue the doctorate and academic careers, stretch them beyond their zones of familiarity, and validate commitment to their research interests. Black women have made phenomenal strides in their quests for higher education, but have yet to reach demographic parity in the ivory tower (Evans, 2007). As such, the camp trains its participants for active duty in the academy, from the dissertation writing stage, toward tenure, and beyond. Significance of the Program In their work, Exposing the "Culture of Arrogance" in the Academy: A Blueprint for Increasing Faculty Satisfaction in Higher Education, Thompson and Louque (2005) found that the majority of Blacks in academia have experienced the sting of undermining from colleagues and administration (64% and 58%, respectively), marginalization at department meetings (57%), and professional jealousy (70%). Such hostile climates call for a heightened need of Black women to establish and maintain strong support systems (Gregory, 1999). However, chances of developing such connections on most American campuses are challenging due to the low numbers of the population in these settings. Black, non-Hispanic women comprise only 2.7% of all full-time faculty in the United States, compared to White women who are 31.6% of full-time faculty (U.S. Department of Education, 2005, cited in Holmes, Land, & Hinton-Hudson, 2008). The SOTA Boot Camp addresses occupational stressors and underrepresentation by providing mentorship, a key component in the retention and success of minorities in White spaces (Davis, 2008a & 2008b; Owens, 2004), as well as a structured environment to facilitate writing productivity. By fostering mentorship, the camp works to "replac[e] prevailing interpretations of how we [as Black women] are [End Page 606] supposed to view ourselves with oppositional perspectives that not only redefine notions of marginality but reclaim marginal locations as places of . . . intellectual, political, and ethical strength" (Collins, 1998, p. 5). Preparing for Active Duty: An Overview of the Program SOTA is an organization whose mission centers upon facilitating the success of Black women in higher education. The organization's goals include creating networks for Black women to promote success in teaching, scholarly inquiry, and community service and developing programs and relationships to enhance members' professional development. To address the underrepresentation of African and African American women in doctoral study and the professoriate, SOTA sponsors the Research Boot Camp, a week-long workshop geared towards enhancing the research skills, writing productivity, and professional networks of doctoral candidates and junior faculty members of the group. Senior scholars facilitate workshops designed to assist doctoral students in the conceptualization and design of their dissertations. Each student participant is linked with senior and junior scholar mentors to cultivate mentoring relationships. Participants in the 2007 Boot Camp consisted of both doctoral students and junior scholars. The camp catapulted us to the next level as it transcended every aspect our lives by countering myths related to the capabilities of racial minority women. Dispelling myths was demonstrated by the extraordinary senior scholars who availed themselves as mentors on our journeys toward academic careers in various disciplines. Each participant's assignment of a mentor enabled them to receive personalized attention and address the individual challenges we faced at various stages of doctoral proposal, dissertation, or manuscript completion. Each participant strengthened her resolve to accomplish goals during the camp experience, be it completing a dissertation proposal, book chapter, or journal article. This article provides the perspectives of two participants. One was a student who attended the boot camp and the other served as a junior mentor and faculty participant. Their brief stories are the focus of this article...

Research Fellowships: Rewards Can Be Substantial

Back to table of contents Previous article Next article Residents' ForumFull AccessResearch Fellowships: Rewards Can Be SubstantialJoshua Roffman, M.D.Joshua RoffmanSearch for more papers by this author, M.D.Published Online:2 Dec 2005https://doi.org/10.1176/pn.40.23.0015It is an extraordinary time to complete psychiatry training. Research touching every facet of psychiatry promises to revolutionize the delivery of psychiatric care, quite likely within the span of our careers. Research fellowship training gives young psychiatrists a rich opportunity to craft the future of our practice.Entering a psychiatry research fellowship can be a daunting transition. Careful planning and good mentorship can, however, help create a supportive and productive training environment for research fellows.Grantsmanship is an essential skill for academic psychiatrists, and fellowship training often provides the first practical experience in this area. In fact, some programs require research fellows to secure their own funding for at least part of their salary and research support.Many research fellows look to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and to private philanthropic organizations for grant support. Junior investigator awards from APA (information is available at<www.psych.org/edu/res_fellows/res_training/awards.cfm>), National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression (<www.narsad.org/research>), and Stanley Foundation (<www.stanleyresearch.org/programs>) provide generous support for research fellows.There are several NIH programs designed for postdoctoral fellows (<http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/funding/funding_program.htm>), most notably the Ruth L. Kirchstein National Research Service Award. NIH Institutional Research Training Grants (T32 awards) provide support to medical schools, which use this funding to provide salaries for junior investigators. The NIH Loan Repayment Program (<www.lrp.nih.gov>) can substantially ease the financial burden of young clinical researchers, providing up to $35,000 of debt relief per year for up to four years.The ultimate goal of many postdoctoral research fellows is to obtain an NIH career-development award, known as a K award. These provide up to five years of salary and research support, as well as funding to develop specialized training (e.g., course work and conference travel). Widely considered the gold standard for developing scientific independence, a K award requires both academic promise and strong preliminary data. However, evidence of good mentorship and institutional support are also essential for successful K award applications.Mentors serve critical roles in teaching, advising, and fostering independence. Obtaining mentorship on four overlapping levels provides an ideal milieu for academic development.The “uber” mentor. This is typically a senior member of your department who has overseen the advancement of many junior investigators. He or she can help brainstorm around inter- and intra-department collaborations and can help you think about your career in broad strokes. These individuals also can play important roles in allocation of departmental resources, so it is important for them to be familiar with your work. You may not meet regularly with these extraordinarily busy people, so when you do, maximize your time by coming well prepared.The senior mentor. A senior mentor is usually the head of a large lab group or the director of a clinical research program. He or she is often the last author on your grant applications and publications until you achieve independence. Many senior mentors have large federal grants and preexisting data sets that can support new fellows who need to generate salary and pilot data. You should meet with your senior mentor regularly to plan projects and review your progress.The junior mentor. As an early fellow, you interact with your junior mentor on a daily basis. He or she is typically several years ahead of you and is well on the way to independence (e.g., late in a K award). Your junior mentor can be invaluable in helping navigate through logistical and technical aspects of your work, strategizing about funding, familiarizing you with relevant literature and key support personnel, and refining grant applications and manuscripts.The off-site mentor. It is often useful to gain the perspective of a researcher who works in a related area, but not within your group (or even your department). As an objective source of information, an off-site mentor can help you think creatively about your career development.Even after the long medical training process, research fellowships entail lower relative salary and delayed professional gratification. Further, as federal funding continues to tighten, research fellows are competing for a shrinking pool of resources. However, for those who are motivated and patient, the rewards can be substantial and well worth the effort. Thoughtful attention to mentorship, funding, and career planning will help ensure success in these challenging but exciting times for young clinician-scientists in psychiatry.▪Joshua Roffman, M.D., is a postdoctoral fellow in the Psychiatric Neuroscience Research Program at Massachusetts General Hospital and is supported by the APIRE/Lilly Psychiatric Research Fellowship. ISSUES NewArchived