Premium
Mentors’ perspectives on the successes and challenges of mentoring in the COG Young Investigator mentorship program: A report from the Children's Oncology Group
Author(s) -
Esbenshade Adam J.,
Kahalley Lisa S.,
Baertschiger Reto,
Dasgupta Roshni,
Goldsmith Kelly C.,
Nathan Paul C.,
HarkerMurray Paul,
Kitko Carrie L.,
Kolb Edward Anders,
Murphy Erin S.,
Muscal Jodi A.,
Pierson Christopher R.,
Reed Damon,
Schore Reuven,
Unguru Yoram,
Venkatramani Rajkumar,
Wistinghausen Birte,
Dhall Girish
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
pediatric blood and cancer
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.116
H-Index - 105
eISSN - 1545-5017
pISSN - 1545-5009
DOI - 10.1002/pbc.27920
Subject(s) - mentorship , cog , medicine , interquartile range , rating scale , test (biology) , career development , scale (ratio) , medical education , family medicine , psychology , paleontology , developmental psychology , physics , quantum mechanics , artificial intelligence , computer science , biology
Abstract Background Identification and development of young investigators (YI) is critical to the long‐term success of research organizations. In 2004, the Children's Oncology Group (COG) created a mentorship program to foster the career development of YIs (faculty <10 years from initial appointment). This study sought to assess mentors’ long‐term assessment of this program. Procedure In 2018, 101 past or current mentors in the COG YI mentorship program completed an online survey. Statistical comparisons were made with the Kruskal‐Walis test. Results The response rate was 74.2%. As some mentors had multiple mentees, we report on 138 total mentee‐mentor pairs. Mentors were 57.4% male, and mentees were 39.1% male. Mentors rated being mentored as a YI as important with a median rating of 90 on a scale of 1‐100, interquartile range (IQR) 80‐100. Most mentors reported that being mentored themselves helped their own success within COG (78.2%) and with their overall career development (92.1%). Most mentors enjoyed serving in the program (72.3%) and the median success rating (on a scale of 1‐100) across the mentor‐mentee pairings was 75, IQR 39‐90. Success ratings did not differ by mentor/mentee gender, but improved with increased frequency of mentor‐mentee interactions ( P < .001). Mentor‐mentee pairs who set initial goals reported higher success ratings than those who did not ( P < .001). Tangible successes included current mentee COG committee involvement (45.7%), ongoing mentor‐mentee collaboration (53.6%), and co‐authored manuscript publication (38.4%). Conclusion These data indicate that mentorship is important for successful professional development. Long‐term mentoring success improves when mentors and mentees set goals upfront and meet frequently.