Mentoring up for early career investigators: Empowering mentees to proactively engage in their mentoring relationships.

Introduction: Effective mentorship is recognized as critical for the professional development of clinical and translational investigators. Evidence-based mentorship training prompted the development of training for mentees at early career stages who are navigating both mentor and mentee roles. The curriculum titled, Mentoring Up for Early Career Investigators, recognizes the importance of building mentee self-efficacy across proactive mentorship skills and competencies. Methods: Mentoring Up for Early Career Investigators curriculum is based on the research mentor training approach in Entering Mentoring. Pilot implementations of Mentoring Up at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and University of Pennsylvania had positive training outcomes for KL2 Scholars. Subsequently, Mentoring Up was implemented and evaluated at several other institutions. For 26 implementations longer than 4 hours, data were collected on trainee demographics, satisfaction with training, skill gains across mentorship competencies, and the intent to change mentoring behaviors following training. Results: 88% of participants rated the mentee training as valuable. Significant skill gains were reported across all mentorship competencies following training. 77% reported specific plans to change or augment their mentoring behaviors because of the training. The majority aligned with mentorship skill competencies (aligning expectations, effective communications) or mentoring up strategies (voicing needs, setting boundaries, communicating proactively). Conclusion: Mentoring Up training is effective in advancing mentee skills and promoting strategies to be more proactive in getting their mentoring needs met. Mentoring Up offers an expansion to the suite of mentorship education and resources to support the career advancement of all in the translational science workforce.

Advancing the Science of Mentorship: Future Directions for Sustainable Implementation and Evaluation of Mentorship Education for the Clinical and Translational Science Workforce.

The Advancing the Science of Mentorship: Future Directions for Sustainable Implementation and Evaluation of Mentorship Education for the Clinical and Translational Science Workforce conference was held in Madison, Wisconsin, in April 2023. The conference provided an engaging and scholarly forum for clinical and translational researchers from diverse backgrounds and career stages (including leaders at Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs and affiliated institutions) with a professional interest and commitment to improving and diversifying workforce development and fostering a climate of inclusive excellence through best practices in mentorship. Outcomes from the conference include an online resource and a new Community of Practice.

Fostering Success and Promoting Professional Development of Clinician Educator Mentees: A Workshop for Mentors.

Introduction: The goal of academic mentoring relationships is to enable the mentee to identify/achieve professional advancement. Although mentors of clinician educators (CEs) must understand the criteria for successful career advancement, few have received formal CE mentor training. Methods: The National Research Mentoring Network convened an expert panel to develop a 90-minute module for training CE mentors. This module included individual development plans, case studies involving challenges for CE faculty, and examples of the broadened scope of scholarly activity. The workshop was delivered to 26 participants across four institutions and evaluated by a retrospective pre/post survey. Results: Using a 7-point scale (1 = very low, 4 = average, 7 = very high), participants rated the overall quality of their CE mentoring as slightly below average preworkshop (M = 3.9) and as above average postworkshop (M = 5.2, p < .001). Areas of greatest self-perceived change in skills on a 7-point scale (1 = not at all skilled, 4 = moderately skilled, 7 = extremely skilled ) included setting clear expectations of the mentoring relationship (pre M = 3.6, post M = 5.1, p < .001), aligning mentor expectations with those of mentees (pre M = 3.6, post M = 5.0, p < .001), and helping mentees set career goals (pre M = 3.9, post M = 5.4, p < .001). Discussion: This module trains CE mentors using an interactive and collective problem-solving approach. Workshop participants better defined demonstrable markers for CE progression with potential to impact tailored guidance for mentees.

A randomized controlled trial of an intervention to increase cultural diversity awareness of research mentors of undergraduate students.

Cultural diversity variables like race and/or ethnicity influence research mentoring relationships, but mentors may not know how to address such variables with their mentees. Using a randomized controlled trial design, we tested a mentor training intervention to increase mentors' awareness and skill in addressing cultural diversity in research mentoring relationships, documenting its impact on mentors and their undergraduate mentees' ratings of mentor effectiveness. Participants were a national sample of 216 mentors and 117 mentees from 32 undergraduate research training programs in the United States. Mentors in the experimental condition reported greater gains than those in the comparison condition regarding the relevance of their racial/ethnic identity to mentoring and their confidence to mentor students across diverse cultural identities. Paired mentees of mentors in the experimental group rated their mentors higher at respectfully broaching and creating opportunities to address race/ethnicity matters than those with mentors in the comparison group. Our results support the efficacy of culturally focused mentorship education.

Comparing the Outcomes of Face-to-Face and Synchronous Online Research Mentor Training Using Propensity Score Matching.

In this study, propensity score matching (PSM) was conducted to examine differences in the effectiveness of research mentor training (RMT) implemented using two modes-face-to-face or synchronous online training. This study investigated each training mode and assessed participants' perceived gains in mentoring skills, ability to meet mentees' expectations, and overall quality of mentoring, as well as intention to make changes to their mentoring practices. Additional factors that may contribute to participant outcomes were also examined. In total, 152 mentors trained using a synchronous online platform and 655 mentors trained in in-person workshops were analyzed using the PSM method. Mentors were matched based on similar characteristics, including mentee's career stage, mentor's title, mentor's prior mentoring experience, mentor's race/ethnicity and sex, and mentor's years of experience; results show that both face-to-face and synchronous online modes of RMT are effective. Findings indicated that the training mode did not significantly impact the mentors' perceived training outcomes. Factors associated with the reported training outcomes included dosage (hours of training), facilitator effectiveness, race/ethnicity, and previous mentoring experience. The results of this study demonstrate that mentors' perceived training outcomes are comparable regardless of the training modality used-online versus face-to-face.

Evaluation of a Culturally Responsive Mentorship Education Program for the Advisers of Howard Hughes Medical Institute Gilliam Program Graduate Students.

Effective mentorship is critical to the success of trainees in research career pathways, significantly impacting their research productivity, academic and research self-efficacy, and career satisfaction. Research faculty may be unaware of or unprepared to address mentor-mentee dynamics in mentoring relationships, especially those that go beyond traditional scientific skill development. Addressing mentorship dynamics can be even more challenging for mentors from well-represented backgrounds working with mentees from historically excluded racial/ethnic groups. The Howard Hughes Medical Institute supports programmatic interventions, like the Mentorship Skills Development (MSD) course, an innovative program that aims to advance the mentorship competencies and cultural diversity awareness of mentors. Between 2015 and 2020, more than 200 faculty mentors participated in the MSD. Quantitative and qualitative data reveal significant gains in mentorship skills and cultural awareness, with mentors reporting increases in their confidence to have conversations around race and culture with their mentees. More than 85% reported actual or intended changes to their cultural responsiveness or mentorship behaviors. Importantly, behavioral changes were also observed by their mentees. These data indicate that culturally responsive mentorship education can increase knowledge and efficacy in effective mentorship practices and improve mentorship experiences of both mentors and mentees.

Revalidation of the Mentoring Competency Assessment to evaluate skills of research mentors: The MCA-21.

Introduction: The Mentoring Competency Assessment (MCA) is an example of a validated instrument for measuring mentor skills for postsecondary Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine research. The purpose of this study was to revalidate the MCA scale using a larger, more diverse population since the original MCA was validated on a small sample of predominantly senior white male faculty. Methods: The MCA was completed by 1626 mentors from a survey data set of 1759 respondents who participated in eight or more hours of face-to-face Entering Mentoring-based training between 2010 and 2019. We conducted principal component analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation to investigate the internal structure of the MCA and Hatcher's criteria were applied. After a team of mentoring experts independently interpreted the PCA results and reached a consensus on the interpretations of the components, factor analysis and internal consistency reliability analysis were applied to assess the construct validity and the reliability. Results: While the 26-item MCA instrument was originally validated with six subscales, through the factor and reliability analyses, all the parameter estimates for each item of seven components of 24-item MCA were significant and had relatively high internal consistency; the alpha coefficient for the components ranged from 0.77 to 0.86. Conclusions: Five items from the MCA have been dropped, leaving a condensed 21 item scale (MCA-21) which loads onto six competencies, and should now be used to effectively measure mentoring skills. We provide recommendations for furthering the scale development and validation of common measures.

A system-wide health sciences faculty mentor training program is associated with improved effective mentoring and institutional climate.

Introduction: Mentorship is critical for faculty success, satisfaction, and engagement. However, many faculty, particularly underrepresented racial/ethnic (UR) faculty, lack access to high-quality mentoring. In an effort to improve mentoring for all faculty, we developed and implemented a formally structured faculty mentor training program (FMTP) across UC San Diego Health Sciences, which included institutional support, mentorship training, and department/division mentorship programs. Methods: FMTP impact was evaluated using three primary outcome variables: mentoring quality, mentoring behaviors, and institutional climate. Participants' self-assessed mentoring competencies were measured using validated instruments. Results: A total of 391 (23%) of Health Sciences faculty participated in FMTP. Participation rate was higher for women than men (30% versus 17%) and highest for UR faculty (39%). FMTP was implemented in 16 of 19 departments. Self-reported mentoring improved for FMTP participants with mentoring quality (p = 0.009) and meeting mentees' expectations (p = 0.01) continuing to improve for up to 2 years after training. However, participants were unsure if they were meeting UR mentees' expectations. FMTP participants were significantly more satisfied with mentoring quality (p < 0.001) compared to non-participants, with the greatest increase in satisfaction reported by UR faculty (38-61%). UR faculty reported improved overall morale (51-61%) and a perception that the environment was supportive for UR faculty (48-70%). Conclusion: The implementation of a system-wide formal structured FMTP was associated with improved faculty satisfaction, quality of mentoring, and institutional climate, especially for UR faculty.

Enhancing Research Mentors' Cultural Awareness in STEM: A Mentor Training Intervention.

Research mentoring relationships are critical to mentees' persistence in STEM careers. Cultural identity variables (gender, race, ethnicity) influence how mentees experience mentoring relationships, including their developmental needs and expectations of mentors. Research shows that mentees from underrepresented groups in STEM often want to discuss topics related to race and ethnicity and how these factors impact their careers. However, many research mentors are uncertain of their ability to broach cultural diversity issues in mentorship, or in strategies to engage in culturally aware mentoring practices. To address this need, we developed an evidence-based mentor training intervention for Enhanced Cultural Awareness (ECA) in mentorship. We implemented this 2hr module online with research mentors (N=62) largely from well-represented racial/ethnic groups in STEM who were mentoring undergraduate researchers from underrepresented racial/ethnic groups. Mentors reported significant gains in skills, attitudes and behaviors related to cultural awareness in mentoring. The majority of mentors found the training valuable, and 97% of mentors reported intending to make changes in mentoring practices post intervention. Our results indicate that the ECA module is an effective tool to increase mentors' capacity to enact culturally aware mentoring practices. Implications for continued research and mentorship education to enhance mentors' cultural awareness are also discussed.

Reassess-Realign-Reimagine: A Guide for Mentors Pivoting to Remote Research Mentoring.

Maintaining your research team's productivity during the COVID-19 era can be a challenge. Developing new strategies to mentor your research trainees in remote work environments will not only support research productivity and progress toward degree, but also help to keep your mentees' academic and research careers on track. We describe a three-step process grounded in reflective practice that research mentors and mentees can use together to reassess, realign, and reimagine their mentoring relationships to enhance their effectiveness, both in the current circumstances and for the future. Drawing on evidence-based approaches, a series of questions for mentees around documented mentoring competencies provide structure for remote mentoring plans. Special consideration is given to how these plans must address the psychosocial needs and diverse backgrounds of mentors and mentees in the unique conditions that require remote interactions.

Building the Next Generation of Researchers: Mentored Training in Dissemination and Implementation Science.

PROBLEM: Dissemination and implementation (D&I) science provides the tools needed to close the gap between known intervention strategies and their effective application. The authors report on the Mentored Training for Dissemination and Implementation Research in Cancer (MT-DIRC) program-a D&I training program for postdoctoral or early-career cancer prevention and control scholars. APPROACH: MT-DIRC was a 2-year training institute in which fellows attended 2 annual Summer Institutes and other conferences and received didactic, group, and individual instruction; individualized mentoring; and other supports (e.g., pilot funding). A quasi-experimental design compared changes in 3 areas: mentoring, skills, and network composition. To evaluate mentoring and D&I skills, data from fellows on their mentors' mentoring competencies, their perspectives on the importance of and satisfaction with mentoring priority areas, and their self-rated skills in D&I competency domains were collected. Network composition data were collected from faculty and fellows for 3 core social network domains: contact, mentoring, and collaboration. Paired t tests (mentoring), linear mixed models (skills), and descriptive analyses (network composition) were performed. OUTCOMES: Mentors were rated as highly competent across all mentoring competencies, and each mentoring priority area showed reductions in gaps between satisfaction and importance between the 6 and 18 months post-first Summer Institute. Fellows' self-rated skills in D&I competencies improved significantly in all domains over time (range: 42.5%-52.9% increase from baseline to 18 months post-first Summer Institute). Mentorship and collaboration networks grew over time, with the highest number of collaboration network ties for scholarly manuscripts (n = 199) in 2018 and for research projects (n = 160) in 2019. NEXT STEPS: Building on study findings and existing literature, mentored training of scholars is an important approach for building D&I skills and networks, and thus to better applying the vast amount of available intervention evidence to benefit cancer control.

Baseline Characteristics of the 2015-2019 First Year Student Cohorts of the NIH Building Infrastructure Leading to Diversity (BUILD) Program.

Objective: The biomedical/behavioral sciences lag in the recruitment and advancement of students from historically underrepresented backgrounds. In 2014 the NIH created the Diversity Program Consortium (DPC), a prospective, multi-site study comprising 10 Building Infrastructure Leading to Diversity (BUILD) institutional grantees, the National Research Mentoring Network (NRMN) and a Coordination and Evaluation Center (CEC). This article describes baseline characteristics of four incoming, first-year student cohorts at the primary BUILD institutions who completed the Higher Education Research Institute, The Freshmen Survey between 2015-2019. These freshmen are the primary student cohorts for longitudinal analyses comparing outcomes of BUILD program participants and non-participants. Design: Baseline description of first-year students entering college at BUILD institutions during 2015-2019. Setting: Ten colleges/universities that each received <$7.5mil/yr in NIH Research Project Grants and have high proportions of low-income students. Participants: First-year undergraduate students who participated in BUILD-sponsored activities and a sample of non-BUILD students at the same BUILD institutions. A total of 32,963 first-year students were enrolled in the project; 64% were female, 18% Hispanic/Latinx, 19% African American/Black, 2% American Indian/Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 17% Asian, and 29% White. Twenty-seven percent were from families with an income <$30,000/yr and 25% were their family's first generation in college. Planned Outcomes: Primary student outcomes to be evaluated over time include undergraduate biomedical degree completion, entry into/completion of a graduate biomedical degree program, and evidence of excelling in biomedical research and scholarship. Conclusions: The DPC national evaluation has identified a large, longitudinal cohort of students with many from groups historically underrepresented in the biomedical sciences that will inform institutional/national policy level initiatives to help diversify the biomedical workforce.

Race and Ethnicity in Biology Research Mentoring Relationships.

This case study investigated how mentors and mentees in biology experience and understand race and ethnicity in their research mentoring relationships. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with mentors (n = 23) and mentees (n = 15) who had participated in an undergraduate biology summer research opportunity program at a large Midwestern research-intensive university. Interview transcripts were coded using an inductive, thematic analysis. Themes that emerged are presented, describing both participants' experiences with and beliefs about race and ethnicity in research training contexts (e.g., mentoring relationships, lab and field experiences). Although similarities were identified, the experiences and beliefs of mentors and mentees were not always aligned. Implications of the findings for training interventions and institutional partnerships to enhance the effectiveness of research mentoring relationships are discussed, with the goal of positively impacting the educational success of students from historically underrepresented racial/ethnic groups in science career pathways.

The "secret sauce" for a mentored training program: qualitative perspectives of trainees in implementation research for cancer control.

BACKGROUND: Mentored training approaches help build capacity for research through mentoring networks and skill building activities. Capacity for dissemination and implementation (D&I) research in cancer is needed and mentored training programs have been developed. Evaluation of mentored training programs through quantitative approaches often provides us with information on "what" improved for participants. Qualitative approaches provide a deeper understanding of "how" programs work best. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were conducted with 21 fellows of the National Cancer Institute-funded Mentored Training for Dissemination and Implementation in Cancer to gain understanding of their experiences with mentoring received during the program. Fellows were selected from all 55 trained participants based upon their gain in D&I research skills (highest and lowest) and number of collaborative connections in the program network (highest and lowest) reported in previous quantitative surveys. Phone interviews were recorded with permission, transcribed verbatim, and de-identified for analysis. Codes were developed a priori to reflect interview guide concepts followed by further development and iterative coding of three common themes that emerged: 1) program and mentoring structure, 2) importance of mentor attributes, and 3) enhanced capacity: credentials, confidence, credibility and connections. RESULTS: Interviews provided valuable information about program components that worked best and impacts attributed to participation in the program. Fellows reported that regular monthly check-in calls with mentors helped to keep their research moving forward and that group mentoring structures aided in their learning of basic D&I research concepts and their application. Accessible, responsive, and knowledgeable mentors were commonly mentioned by fellows as a key to their success in the program. Fellows mentioned various forms of impact that they attributed to their participation in the program including gaining credibility in the field, a network of peers and experts, and career developments (e.g., collaborative publications and grant funding). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that mentored training works best when mentoring is structured and coupled with applied learning and when respected and dedicated mentors are on board. Increased scientific collaborations and credibility within a recognized network are important trainee experiences that should be considered when designing, implementing, and sustaining mentored training programs.

Interventions to Optimize Mentoring Relationships for Diverse Biomedical Researchers.

The articles in this special issue provide insights from a variety of mentoring interventions that were implemented across the NIH Diversity Program Consortium (DPC). Many of the articles highlight examples of how the Entering Mentoring and Entering Research curricular materials, available through the National Research Mentoring Network (NRMN), were adapted and implemented for research mentors and research trainees at Building Infrastructure Leading to Diversity (BUILD) institutions. Other articles report the outcomes of programs developed and offered more broadly by the NRMN. This overview provides background information on NIH DPC-wide efforts and the Entering Mentoring and Entering Research curricula.

Increasing research mentor training among biomedical researchers at Clinical and Translational Science Award hubs: The impact of the facilitator training initiative.

As part of their mission, Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs are charged with developing, testing, and disseminating evidence-based practices to other CTSA hubs. Over the past 7 years, the University of Wisconsin-Madison has answered this charge by implementing the facilitator training (FT) initiative for research mentors. Three elements to advance training across the CTSA hubs have been critical: (1) using an FT model to empower others to build research mentor training at their local institutions; (2) tracking implementation of training events across the CTSA hubs over time; and (3) partnering with implementation sites to build local capacity and evaluate the effectiveness and quality of training. Here we report that facilitators have been trained at 75% of CTSA hubs. These facilitators report high satisfaction with the training and increased confidence in their ability to implement mentor training, and plan to implement local mentor training. These findings demonstrate that the FT initiative can serve as a model for dissemination and implementation of other workforce development interventions across the CTSA hubs.

Building a Sustainable National Infrastructure to Expand Research Mentor Training.

An evidence-based research mentor training (RMT) curricular series has been shown to improve the knowledge and skills of research mentors across disciplines and career stages. A train-the-trainer model was used in the context of several targeted approaches aimed at sustainability to support national dissemination of RMT and expand the network of facilitators prepared to implement the curricula. These infrastructure elements included 1) an expansion initiative to increase the number of trained facilitators able to deliver train-the-trainer workshops nationwide; 2) adaptation of RMT curricula for multiple audiences and career stages to increase accessibility; 3) implementation resources to support facilitators and help them overcome implementation barriers; and 4) standardized evaluation of training. This approach to dissemination and implementation has resulted in the preparation of nearly 600 trained facilitators, a large percentage of whom have implemented mentor training for more than 4000 graduate student, junior faculty, and senior faculty mentors. Implications for and challenges to building and sustaining the national dissemination of RMT are discussed.

Training scholars in dissemination and implementation research for cancer prevention and control: a mentored approach.

BACKGROUND: As the field of D&I (dissemination and implementation) science grows to meet the need for more effective and timely applications of research findings in routine practice, the demand for formalized training programs has increased concurrently. The Mentored Training for Dissemination and Implementation Research in Cancer (MT-DIRC) Program aims to build capacity in the cancer control D&I research workforce, especially among early career researchers. This paper outlines the various components of the program and reports results of systematic evaluations to ascertain its effectiveness. METHODS: Essential features of the program include selection of early career fellows or more experienced investigators with a focus relevant to cancer control transitioning to a D&I research focus, a 5-day intensive training institute, ongoing peer and senior mentoring, mentored planning and work on a D&I research proposal or project, limited pilot funding, and training and ongoing improvement activities for mentors. The core faculty and staff members of the MT-DIRC program gathered baseline and ongoing evaluation data regarding D&I skill acquisition and mentoring competency through participant surveys and analyzed it by iterative collective reflection. RESULTS: A majority (79%) of fellows are female, assistant professors (55%); 59% are in allied health disciplines, and 48% focus on cancer prevention research. Forty-three D&I research competencies were assessed; all improved from baseline to 6 and 18 months. These effects were apparent across beginner, intermediate, and advanced initial D&I competency levels and across the competency domains. Mentoring competency was rated very highly by the fellows--higher than rated by the mentors themselves. The importance of different mentoring activities, as rated by the fellows, was generally congruent with their satisfaction with the activities, with the exception of relatively greater satisfaction with the degree of emotional support and relatively lower satisfaction for skill building and opportunity initially. CONCLUSIONS: These first years of MT-DIRC demonstrated the program's ability to attract, engage, and improve fellows' competencies and skills and implement a multicomponent mentoring program that was well received. This account of the program can serve as a basis for potential replication and evolution of this model in training future D&I science researchers.