Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Jan 11;25(1):47.
doi: 10.1186/s12909-024-06629-y.

Identifying the mentorship needs among faculty in a large department of psychiatry- support for the creation of a formal mentorship program

Mary Jane Esplen  1 , Lisa M Fiksenbaum  2 , Elizabeth Lin  2   3 , Shaheen A Darani  2   3 , John Teshima  2   4 , Simone N Vigod  2   5 , Nicole Kozloff  2   3 , Peter Szatmari  2   3 , Krista L Lanctôt  2   4 , Certina Ho  2 , Ivan Silver  2 , Sophie Soklaridis  2   3 , Jiahui Wong  2   6
Affiliations

Identifying the mentorship needs among faculty in a large department of psychiatry- support for the creation of a formal mentorship program

Mary Jane Esplen et al. BMC Med Educ. .

Abstract

Background: Study aims were to assess the current state and needs of faculty to inform the design of a formal mentorship program in a large academic Department of Psychiatry.

Methods: A 57- item self-administered online survey questionnaire was distributed to all faculty members.

Results: 225 faculty members completed the survey (24%). 68% of respondents had a mentor and reported high satisfaction (mean = 4.3, SD = 1.05) (range 1 to 5). Among those respondents lacking access to mentorship, 65% expressed interest. Open-ended questions indicated that international medical graduates, faculty identifying as minority, women and clinician teachers may lack access to mentorship. PhD faculty felt disadvantaged compared to MD faculty in gaining first authorship (MNon-MD=1.64 ± 0.79 vs. MMD=1.36 ± 0.67; t = 2.51, p = .013); reported more authorship disputes (MNon-MD =1.99 ± 0.91 vs. MMD =1.66 ± 0.76; t = 2.63 p = .009) and experienced questionable scientific integrity concerning colleagues (MNon-MD =2.01 ± 0.92 vs. MMD =1.70 ± 0.81; t = 2.42 p = .017). For both MD and PhD faculty, women were significantly more likely to experience authorship disputes (χ2(2) = 8.67, p = .013). The department was perceived as treating faculty with respect (72% agreed) with 54% agreeing that it embraces diversity (54%). Identified benefits to mentorship included receiving advice about academic promotion, opportunities for career advancement, advocacy, and advice as a researcher, teacher or clinician. Only 26% of mentors received formal training to support their role; 59% expressed interest in education. Respondents supported a more formal, accessible, inclusive program, with training, tools, and a matching strategy based on mentee preferences.

Conclusions: Challenges and inequities were identified with the department's current ad hoc approach to mentorship. A limitation of the study was the response rate, while similar to response rates of other physician surveys, raises the potential for response bias. In comparing study participants to the department, the sample appeared to provide a fair representation. The study has implications for identifying the need and design of more formal mentorship programs in academic medicine.

Keywords: Inequities in mentorship; Mentorship; Priorities in mentorship; academic medicine; Psychiatry Department.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: The study is conceptualized as a quality improvement initiative for the Department of Psychiatry, and therefore, was exempted from ethics review by the Human Research Ethics Program, University of Toronto. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests. Consent for publication: The manuscript does not contain data from any individual person, therefore, the consent is not applicable.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Overall helpfulness or importance with mentoring activities. a) For those with a mentor (percentage); b) For those without a mentor (percentage)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
“Feeling Disadvantaged” by Gender (percentage)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Perception of importance of specific components of mentorship program for the department of psychiatry (percentage)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Kashiwagi DT, Varkey P, Cook DA. Mentoring programs for physicians in academic medicine: a systematic review. Acad Med. 2013;88(7):1029–37. 10.1097/ACM.0b013e318294f368. - PubMed
    1. Womack VY, Wood CV, House SC, Quinn SC, Thomas SB, McGee R, Byars-Winston A. Culturally aware mentorship: lasting impacts of a novel intervention on academic administrators and faculty. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(8):e0236983. 10.1371/journal.pone.0236983. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Spence JP, Buddenbaum JL, Bice PJ, Welch JL, Carroll AE. Independent investigator incubator (I3): a comprehensive mentorship program to jumpstart productive research careers for junior faculty. BMC Med Educ. 2018;18(1):186. 10.1186/s12909-018-1290-3. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Sambunjak D, Straus SE, Marusic A. A systematic review of qualitative research on the meaning and characteristics of mentoring in academic medicine. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25(1):72–8. 10.1007/s11606-009-1165-8. - PMC - PubMed
    1. McRae M, Zimmerman KM. Identifying Components of Success within Health Sciences-Focused Mentoring Programs through a review of the literature. Am J Pharm Educ. 2019;83(1):6976. 10.5688/ajpe6976. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources