Content uploaded by Patricia A Areán
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Patricia A Areán
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Does mentoring matter: results from a
survey of faculty mentees at a large
health sciences university
Mitchell D. Feldman
1
*, Patricia A. Arean
2
, Sally J. Marshall
3
,
Mark Lovett
4
and Patricia O’Sullivan
5
1
Faculty Mentoring, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA;
2
Department of Psychiatry,
University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA;
3
Office of Academic Affairs, Department of
Preventive and Restorative Dental Sciences, Division of Biomaterials and Bioengineering, Faculty
Development and Advancement, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA;
4
Office of
Educational Technology, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA;
5
Office of Medical Education, Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, University of California,
San Francisco, CA, USA
Background:To determine the characteristics associated with having a mentor, the association of mentoring
with self-efficacy, and the content of mentormentee interactions at the University of California, San
Francisco (UCSF), we conducted a baseline assessment prior to implementing a comprehensive faculty
mentoring program.
Method:We surveyed all prospective junior faculty mentees at UCSF. Mentees completed a web-based, 38-
item survey including an assessment of self-efficacy and a needs assessment. We used descriptive and
inferential statistics to determine the association between having a mentor and gender, ethnicity, faculty series,
and self-efficacy.
Results:Our respondents (n464, 56%) were 53% female, 62% white, and 7% from underrepresented
minority groups. More than half of respondents (n319) reported having a mentor. There were no differences
in having a mentor based on gender or ethnicity (p]0.05). Clinician educator faculty with more teaching and
patient care responsibilities were statistically significantly less likely to have a mentor compared with faculty
in research intensive series (pB0.001). Having a mentor was associated with greater satisfaction with time
allocation at work (pB0.05) and with higher academic self-efficacy scores, 6.07 (sd 1.36) compared with
those without a mentor, 5.33 (sd1.35, pB0.001). Mentees reported that they most often discussed funding
with the mentors, but rated highest requiring mentoring assistance with issues of promotion and tenure.
Conclusion:Findings from the UCSF faculty mentoring program may assist other health science institutions
plan similar programs. Mentoring needs for junior faculty with greater teaching and patient care
responsibilities must be addressed.
Keywords: mentoring;faculty development;program evaluation;self-efficacy
Received: 8 February 2010; Revised: 28 March 2010; Accepted: 29 March 2010; Published: 23 April 2010
Prior research has shown that mentorship in the
academic health sciences has an important influ-
ence on academic productivity, personal develop-
ment, and career guidance for students, fellows, and
junior faculty (15). As a result, there has been growing
interest in developing mentoring programs for prote´ge´s
at all levels of career development (68) in a variety of
health professional settings (913) and for diverse men-
tors and mentees (1416). Most of these programs have
been modest in scope, informally organized, and have
faced challenges to long-term sustainability, in part due
to increased clinical and administrative demands on
mentors and mentees (1, 17).
The University of California, San Francisco (UCSF)
recently established what we believe to be the largest and
most comprehensive mentoring program in the USA for
health sciences faculty (http://acpers.ucsf.edu/mentoring/).
Junior faculty members from the professional Schools of
Dentistry, Medicine, Nursing, and Pharmacy are eligible
for participation in the program. The primary goal of the
UCSF faculty mentoring program is to promote the
careers of junior faculty members by facilitating and
(page number not for citation purpose)
æ
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Medical Education Online 2010. #2010 Mitchell D. Feldman et al. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-
Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/), permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
1
Citation: Medical Education Online 2010, 15: 5063 - DOI: 10.3402/meo.v15i0.5063
supporting their relationship with a career mentor who can
help guide their professional development. At the time of
the launch of the faculty mentoring program in 20062007,
we conducted a comprehensive baseline survey of all
potential mentees to assess if UCSF faculty were currently
receiving mentoring, the characteristics associated with
having a mentor, the association of mentoring with self-
efficacy, and the content of mentormentee interactions.
Methods
All junior faculty members (below the Associate Profes-
sor rank) in the Schools of Medicine, Nursing, Dentistry,
and Pharmacy were considered eligible to receive the
baseline survey. Eight hundred and fifty-two junior
faculty with appointments of greater than 50% were
invited by e-mail between October 2006 and January 2007
to complete a web-based 38-item mentoring survey. To
maximize recruitment, we contacted the faculty by e-mail
a total of five times over the course of three months,
inviting them to participate in the survey. No incentives
were offered. The UCSF Committee on Human Research
approved the research.
The study investigators created the survey after
extensive review of prior research in mentoring program
evaluation for academic health professionals. It was then
reviewed and pilot tested by experts in medical education
and professional development at UCSF to assure
relevance and wording.
The survey consisted of 10 demographic questions
about the respondent, eight questions about current
mentoring relationships, if any, and their mentoring
needs, and six questions about academic self-efficacy. In
addition to baseline demographic information, we asked
faculty to identify in which of the five UCSF faculty
series they held an appointment. [The faculty series
consist of Ladder Rank, In Residence, Clinical X, Health
Sciences Clinical (the ‘Health Sciences’ designation was
added to distinguish it from the title given to volunteer
clinical faculty), and Adjunct.] In general, faculty in the
Ladder Rank, In Residence, and Adjunct series are
expected to spend most of their time engaged in research
and their advancement and promotion is mainly linked to
accomplishments in this domain, while faculty in the two
clinical series (Clinical X and Health Sciences Clinical)
are evaluated for promotion on the basis of their teaching
and clinical competence. In addition, respondents were
asked to indicate (in intervals of 20%) the amount of time
they spent teaching, providing patient care, conducting
research, and doing administrative tasks.
Respondents were also queried about their academic
self-efficacy. The self-efficacy questions were derived from
a previously validated survey reported in prior research
on faculty development (2, 18). The six self-efficacy items
were rated on a scale from weak (1) to strong (9) for level
of confidence in key academic skills such as identifying
their professional goals and interests and identifying the
requirements for advancement and promotion at UCSF.
These items formed a single factor in a principal
components factor analysis, and the scale had an internal
consistency reliability of 0.84.
We also asked the faculty members to indicate which of
20 topics, if any, were discussed with a mentor. These
same topics were rated on a scale of ‘no interest in
assistance’ (1) to ‘strong interest in assistance’ (5).
Descriptive statistics were used to characterize respon-
dent faculty and their mentorship experiences at UCSF.
Associations of gender, ethnicity, and faculty series with
having a mentor were assessed with chi-square tests and
odds ratios. A t-test was used to determined differences
in self-efficacy between mentored and non-mentored
faculty.
Results
Response rate and participant demographics
Fifty-six percent of the faculty members we contacted
responded to the survey (n464). The majority of
respondents (84%) were in the School of Medicine, 53%
were women, 62% white, 27% Asian-American, 3%
African-American, and 4% Latino. Our respondents
were very comparable to those eligible who were 89%
from the School of Medicine, 54% female, 61% white,
29% Asian, 2% African American, and 3% Latino.
About two-thirds (n319) of the respondents reported
that they currently had a mentor; of these, 67% said they
found the mentor themselves and 20% had the mentor
assigned to them. Overall, 28% of faculty reported they
needed help finding a mentor.
Characteristics associated with having a mentor
Those with a mentor were younger (m38.7, sd5.7)
than those without a mentor (m 40.8, sd7.1,
p0.004). Table 1 shows the association with having a
mentor by various demographic variables. Faculty series
was associated with having a mentor (pB0.001). When
examining the association, we found that faculty in both
of the clinical series were significantly less likely to have a
mentor compared to the other series (pvalues ranged from
B0.001 to 0.022). There was an association between time
for teaching and having a mentor (p0.001), with those
teaching less than 60% time more likely to have a mentor
than those junior faculty members who reported spending
more time teaching. Likewise, time spent engaged in
research and the likelihood of having a mentor were
associated (pB0.001); faculty with 20% or less time for
research were significantly less likely than all other levels
of protected time for research to have a mentor. Likewise,
patient care was associated with having a mentor
(pB0.001); those who reported spending 20% or less of
their time in patient care were more likely to have a mentor
Mitchell D. Feldman et al.
2
(page number not for citation purpose) Citation: Medical Education Online 2010, 15: 5063 - DOI: 10.3402/meo.v15i0.5063
than those who reported spending a higher percentage of
their time at work in patient care activities. Finally, having
a mentor was associated with being more satisfied with the
time allocations at work (p0.026). We found no
association with having a mentor and gender, ethnicity,
or school.
Self-efficacy and mentoring
We found that those with a mentor had an average self-
efficacy score of 6.1 (sd1.4), which was statistically
significantly higher than the self-efficacy scores of those
without a mentor, 5.4 (sd 1.4, pB0.001). This corre-
sponds to a modest effect size for having a mentor of 0.5
(19).
Issues discussed with mentor
Table 2 indicates the topics that the mentees reported
discussing with their mentor and their level of interest in
seeking assistance about these topics from the new faculty
mentoring program. As seen in Table 2, the topic most
often discussed with mentors was obtaining funding (57%
discussed with their mentor) and the least common topic
was computer and statistical skills (11%). Teaching was
discussed by 34% of mentees. Surprisingly, only 28%
reported that they discussed their merit and promotion
packet with their mentor. Yet, while obtaining funding
was the topic that mentees most frequently talked to
mentors about, mentees indicated that they most wanted
assistance from the new faculty mentoring program on
issues related to promotion and tenure. There were no
differences in topics discussed based on gender or
ethnicity. However, there were differences in what was
discussed based on series. Generally, issues related to
funding, grant writing, presentation, research design, and
delivering presentations and manuscripts were less fre-
quently discussed in the clinical series compared to the
other series.
Discussion
In this study, we examined the processes and content of
mentoring relationships and the mentoring needs of
junior faculty in a large academic health sciences
university prior to the implementation of a structured
mentorship program. We found that at baseline, faculty
who focus more heavily on teaching and clinical respon-
sibilities are less likely to have a mentor and that faculty
with a mentor have higher academic self-efficacy. While
our findings are limited by the fact that we surveyed
faculty members only at a single institution, we believe
that these observations make an important contribution
as this is the largest such survey reported in the peer-
reviewed literature. We expect that our results will
not only inform the development of the faculty mentor-
ing program at UCSF, but will also help guide the
Table 1
.Descriptive statistics for demographics from 464
survey respondents of whether they have (n319) or do
not have (n145) a career mentor
Variable/value Have a mentor, n(%) p*
Gender
Female 154 (51.7) 0.50
Male 144 (70.2)
Ethnicity
White 186 (68.1) 0.57
Asian 83 (70.9)
African-American/Latino 24 (72.7)
Other 10 (55.6)
School
Dentistry 20 (64.5) 0.68
Medicine 266 (83.4)
Nursing 14 (66.7)
Pharmacy 19 (79.2)
Series
Ladder rank 30 (76.9) B0.001
Clinical X 41 (49.4)
Adjunct 105 (82.0)
In Residence 57 (67.9)
Health sciences clinical 86 (66.2)
Percentage of time teaching
020 168 (72.7) 0.001
2140 90 (62.9)
4160 26 (78.8)
6180 3 (25)
81100 2 (33.3)
Percentage of time patient care
020 129 (80.1) B0.001
2140 65 (73.0)
4160 44 (56.4)
6180 22 (44.9)
81100 8 (47.1)
Percentage of time research
020 63 (50.8) B0.001
2140 55 (73.3)
4160 36 (69.2)
6180 97 (87.4)
81100 37 (72.5)
Satisfaction with time allocation
Yes 231 (77.5) 0.026
No 67 (22.5)
*pvalues determined by chi-square analyses. Significant chi-
squares were followed up with pair-wise comparisons to deter-
mine which categories were significantly different from each other.
Note: Due to missing data, responses do not always total to 319.
Does mentoring matter?
Citation: Medical Education Online 2010, 15: 5063 - DOI: 10.3402/meo.v15i0.5063 3
(page number not for citation purpose)
development of similar programs at other health sciences
universities.
Found versus assigned mentors
While a majority of junior faculty at UCSF reported
having a career mentor, one-third said that they could not
identify a mentor. Of these, most faculty members stated
that they needed assistance in finding an appropriate
mentor. The mentorship literature suggests that organi-
cally derived mentoring relationships are generally more
satisfying and productive than those based on assign-
ments but supports an assigned mentor as superior to
none at all (21). In fact, junior faculty without mentors are
at risk for isolation, do not feel as closely tied to their
department or institution, and may rely too much on a
risky strategy of trial and error for information about the
institution and as a career-building strategy (22). In the
new UCSF faculty mentoring program, junior faculty
who cannot identify a career mentor are contacted by
their departmental mentoring facilitator and together
they identify an appropriate mentor for the academic
year.
Mentoring for women and underrepresented minority
faculty
We found that women and underrepresented minority
faculty at UCSF were as likely to have a career mentor as
other faculty. This finding is contrary to some previous
research in the area. A systematic review of mentorship
in academic medicine found that women report more
difficulty in finding mentoring compared with men,
though they found mixed results regarding sex concor-
dance and satisfaction with mentoring and mentee
productivity (1). It is critical that we better understand
the work experiences of minority and women faculty and
women in academic health settings and provide out-
standing mentoring to ensure that we recruit, retain, and
support a diverse health professions workforce (2326).
While some research has found that gender and/or ethnic
concordance in mentoring relationships may be prefer-
able (27), given the current workforce in academic
medicine this is often not feasible and in fact has not
been found to be critical to mentee satisfaction with
mentoring (3, 28). A national survey of US medical
schools found that women and minority faculty felt that
such matching was not important, though this research
was limited by the lack of diversity in the study
participants (29). What seems clear, however, is that
mentor training and mentoring programs that specifically
address the needs of women and minority faculty can be
effective in improving recruitment of similar faculty and
trainees to that institution (30, 31).
Clinician educator faculty less likely to have mentors
We found that clinical and clinician educator faculty
were significantly less likely to be mentored than
Table 2
.Topics reported by all respondents as discussed with or would like assistance from any mentor
Percent discussed
Would like assistance from Faculty Mentoring Program
a
Topic with any mentor (n464) nMean sd
Obtaining funding 57 441 3.72 1.43
Manuscript preparation and publishing 51 440 3.09 1.44
Grant writing 49 443 3.48 1.44
Research design 44 439 3.22 1.41
Long-term career planning 41 441 3.72 1.43
Understanding promotion and tenure 40 442 3.12 1.29
Presentation/posters 39 437 2.49 1.29
Time management 36 439 3.01 1.46
Networking nationally and internationally 34 441 2.67 1.35
Teaching 34 436 2.40 1.40
Curriculum vitae 33 441 3.69 1.26
Networking on campus 32 442 3.65 1.33
Clinical care 32 443 3.09 1.40
Balancing personal/professional demands 31 446 3.60 1.25
Communicating effectively with colleagues 31 437 2.94 1.35
Review promotion/merit packet 28 444 3.95 1.30
Developing a research portfolio 28 441 3.04 1.42
Translational research skills 15 437 3.09 1.39
Developing an educator’ portfolio 12 441 3.08 1.36
a
Assistance rated from no interest (1) to strong interest (5).
Mitchell D. Feldman et al.
4
(page number not for citation purpose) Citation: Medical Education Online 2010, 15: 5063 - DOI: 10.3402/meo.v15i0.5063
research intensive faculty. This is a disturbing though
perhaps not surprising finding, since traditional mentor-
ship models at academic health sciences settings focus
on career development in research-oriented faculty.
Prior research has suggested that mentoring programs
for clinician educator faculty members may enhance
productivity and job satisfaction, but few mentoring and
faculty development programs explicitly target these
faculty (32, 33). This may explain, in part, why retention
of clinician-educator faculty is often a challenge in
academic health sciences institutions despite the fact
that these faculty members are highly valued as
educators. Enhanced mentorship may offer an opportu-
nity to improve retention of clinician-educator faculty
members.
Correlates of mentorship
Our results indicate that faculty with mentors were more
likely to be satisfied with the distribution of their work
and had higher self-efficacy than those who were not
mentored. Self-efficacy is defined, in part, as a belief in
one’s ability to accomplish specific goals and tasks (34
36). Because of the cross-sectional nature of our data, we
cannot say with confidence that mentorship necessarily
leads to enhanced self-efficacy and positive academic
outcomes, as those who have high self-efficacy may be
more likely to seek out mentoring. However, other
research suggests that prote´ge´s with more exposure to
mentoring report higher levels of self-efficacy (2, 15, 18,
19, 20, 34, 37, 38), and results from a faculty development
program for medical faculty found a positive correlation
Executive Vice Chancellor
and Provost
&
Vice Provost
Academic Affairs, Faculty
Development
Advancement
Vice and Associate Deans
Office of Academic Affairs,
Schools of Dentistry, Nursing,
Medicine, and Pharmacy
Director of Faculty
Mentoring
Mentoring Facilitators
Faculty Mentoring Program
Mentors
Faculty Mentoring Program
Mentees/Junior Faculty
Faculty Mentoring Program
Chancellor
Chancellor’s Council on
Faculty Life
Program Coordinator
Faculty Mentoring Program
Director, Academic
Personnel
Assoc Director, Faculty
Development &
Advancement
Fig. 1. UCSF Faculty Mentoring Program organizational chart.
Does mentoring matter?
Citation: Medical Education Online 2010, 15: 5063 - DOI: 10.3402/meo.v15i0.5063 5
(page number not for citation purpose)
between mentorship, improved self-efficacy, and en-
hanced research and leadership skills necessary for
academic advancement and retention (2, 18).
Mentor talk
As seen in Table 2, mentees report discussing a broad
variety of topics with their mentor. Given the current
funding climate, it is not surprising that junior faculty
report that they need assistance with funding issues from
their mentor and from the overall program. Conversely, it
is interesting that several key topics are reportedly
discussed infrequently with mentors although mentees
indicate that they need assistance with them. For
example, while only 28% of mentees reported reviewing
their promotion/merit packet with their mentor, it was
the top-rated topic that mentees said they wanted
assistance with. Likewise, only 31% reported discussing
issues of personalprofessional balance with their mentor,
but it was in the top five topics for which mentees
reported wanting assistance. It is not clear what underlies
this disconnect between what faculty mentors and
mentees discuss in mentoring meetings and what areas
mentees say they need assistance. Perhaps mentors define
their mentoring relationships more narrowly (to assist
with funding, grants, and manuscripts) than most men-
tees do, and mentees do not have the communication
tools or confidence needed to broaden the agenda.
Future research should address these barriers.
Strategies implemented at UCSF to date
The UCSF Faculty Mentoring Program targets all junior
faculty in the four health sciences professional schools at
UCSF (Medicine, Nursing, Pharmacy, and Dentistry).
The Graduate Division supports its own mentoring
program and similar programs are being developed for
medical students and other trainees at the university. The
program is led by the Director of Faculty Mentoring
along with the Mentoring Program Coordinator, and the
Vice Provost Office of Academic Affairs and Faculty
Development and Advancement. Senior faculty ‘mentor-
ing facilitators’ were appointed in each department to
help facilitate the matching of mentormentee pairs and
to help disseminate mentoring best practices across the
campus (Fig. 1). In addition, to underscore the impor-
tance of mentoring, UCSF recently stipulated that
mentoring activities must be documented on the CV to
be evaluated at the time of promotion, along with
competence in teaching. Numerous awards have been
established to recognize and promote outstanding men-
torship, and mentor development activities have been
initiated along with mentoring resources.
The Faculty Mentoring Program aims to pair every
junior faculty member (up to the Associate Professor
rank) with a career mentor. We encourage junior faculty
members to assemble a mentoring team consisting of a
career mentor,scholarly mentor, and co-mentor with clear
roles and responsibilities (Table 3). The junior faculty
member is responsible for arranging meetings of the
mentoring team on an annual basis to review career
progress toward promotion. Additional meetings of
the team are essential for faculty engaged in research.
The career mentor is a senior faculty member usually
in the mentee’s home department, who is responsible for
overall career guidance and support for their mentee,
including a minimum of twice yearly meetings to review
the mentee’s CV and Individual Development Plan (IDP).
The faculty mentee is expected to complete an IDP
semi-annually and send it to the mentor with an updated
CV prior to each meeting. The career mentor is also
responsible for reviewing advancement and promotion
issues, helping the mentee to set short- and long-term
professional goals, assisting with networking in the
institution and nationally, and reviewing issues of perso-
nal/professional balance as they arise. To avoid any real
Table 3
.Types of mentors
Types of
mentors Characteristics
Career
mentor
A senior faculty member primarily responsible for
providing career guidance and support
May not have expertise in the mentees’ scholarly
or research area
Assigned by the Faculty Mentoring Program,
Mentoring Facilitator in each department or
school
Expected to meet with the mentee at least every
six months to review overall career goals and
advise them on issues related to advancement
and promotion
Should not be a mentee’s direct supervisor, but
will usually be in their home department
Scholarly
mentor
Must be expert in the scientific or scholarly area
of the mentee
Able to guide mentees in the following areas:
Professional research and academic skills
Develop a feasible, coordinated research plan
Provide resources: databases, access to space,
research staff, access to funding and potential
funding sources (campus and national)
Collegial networking: national, international
Assist with communication of findings including
oral presentations, writing of abstracts,
manuscripts, and development of grants
Co-mentor Responsible for working with the lead mentor on
overall mentoring responsibilities (as outlined
above) for the mentee and for providing
particular guidance in their area of expertise
Mitchell D. Feldman et al.
6
(page number not for citation purpose) Citation: Medical Education Online 2010, 15: 5063 - DOI: 10.3402/meo.v15i0.5063
or potential conflicts of interest regarding job responsi-
bilities, we recommend that the career mentor should not
be the mentee’s direct supervisor, department chair,
division chief, or laboratory head. While these leaders
are expected to provide career advice to their junior
faculty members and can effectively serve as a research or
scholarship mentor, other senior faculty should be tapped
to fill the role of career mentor in the faculty mentoring
program.
Conclusion
We believe that the UCSF Faculty Mentoring Program is
the largest and most comprehensive program for aca-
demic health sciences faculty in the nation. Lessons
learned from this program should help to inform similar
faculty developments efforts at other medical and health
sciences universities.
Acknowledgements
Dr. Feldman had full access to all the data in the study and takes
responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the
data analysis. Dr. Feldman is responsible for the conception and
design of the research, data collection, analysis and interpretation of
data, drafting and/or editing and final review of the manuscript. Drs
Arean, O’Sullivan, and Marshall are responsible for analysis and
interpretation of data, drafting and/or critical revision of the
manuscript, and administrative support. Mark Lovett is responsible
for analysis and interpretation of data, critical revision of the
manuscript and statistical analysis. The authors thank Sarah Zins
and Viverly Maniago for their assistance.
Conflict of interest and funding
The authors have not received any funding or benefits
from industry to conduct this study.
References
1. Ambunjak D, Straus SE, Marusic A. Mentoring in academic
medicine: a systematic review. J Am Med Assoc 2006; 296: 1103
15.
2. Garman KA, Wingard DL, Reznik V. Development of junior
faculty’s self-efficacy: outcomes of a national center of leader-
ship in academic medicine. Acad Med 2001; 76: S746.
3. Ramanan RA, Phillips RS, Davis RB, Silen W, Reede JY.
Mentoring in medicine: keys to satisfaction. Am J Med 2002;
112: 33641.
4. Steiner JF, Lanphear BP, Curtis P, Vu KO. Indicators of early
research productivity among primary care fellows. J Gen Intern
Med 2002; 17: 85460.
5. Pololi L. Career development for academic medicine a nine
step strategy. BMJ Careers; 2006.
6. Levy BD, Katz JT, Wolf MA, Sillman JS, Handin RI, Dzau VJ.
An initiative in mentoring to promote residents’ and faculty
members’ careers. Acad Med 2004; 79: 84550.
7. Rose GL, Rukstalis MR, Schuckit MA. Informal mentoring
between faculty and medical students. Acad Med 2005; 80:
3448.
8. Bickel J, Brown AJ. Generation X: implications for faculty
recruitment and development in academic health centers. Acad
Med 2005; 80: 20510.
9. Singletary SE. Mentoring surgeons for the 21st century. Ann
Surg Oncol 2005; 12: 84860.
10. Byrne MW, Keefe MR. Building research competence in nursing
through mentoring. J Nurs Scholarship 2002; 34: 3916.
11. Wagner AL, Seymour ME. A model of caring mentorship for
nursing. J Nurses Staff Dev 2007; 23: 20111.
12. Zeind CS, Zdanowicz M, MacDonald K, Parkhurst C, King C,
Wizwer P. Developing a sustainable faculty mentoring program.
Am J Pharm Educ 2005; 69: 1006.
13. Bibb CA, Lefever KH. Mentoring future dental educators
through an apprentice teaching experience. J Dent Educ 2002;
66: 7039.
14. Hamel MB, Ingelfinger JR, Phimister E, Solomon CG. Women
in academic medicine progress and challenges. New Eng J Med
2006; 355: 3102.
15. Hersey P, Blanchard K. Management and organizational
behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1988.
16. Lewellen-Williams C, Johnson VA, Deloney LA, Thomas BR,
Goyol A, Henry-Tillman R. The POD: a new model for
mentoring underrepresented minority faculty. Acad Med 2006;
81: 2759.
17. Straus SE, Chatur FP, Taylor MM. Issues in the mentormentee
relationship in academic medicine: a qualitative study. Acad
Med 2009; 84: 1359.
18. Wingard DL, Garman KA, Reznik V. Facilitating faculty
success: outcomes and cost benefit of the UCSD National
Center of Leadership in Academic Medicine. Acad Med 2004;
79: S911.
19. Hojat M, Xu G. A visitor’s guide to effect sizes statistical
significance versus practical (clinical) importance of research
findings. Adv Health Sci Educ 2004; 9: 2419.
20. Allen TD, Eby LT, Lentz E. Mentorship behaviors and mentor-
ship quality associated with formal mentoring programs: closing
the gap between research and practice. J Appl Psychol 2006; 91:
56778.
21. Carr PL, Bickel J, Inui TS, editors. Taking root in a forest
clearing: a resource guide for medical faculty. Boston, MA:
Boston University School of Medicine and the W.K. Kellogg
Foundation; 2003.
22. Kalet AL, Fletcher KE, Ferdman DJ, Bickell NA. Defining,
navigating, and negotiating success: the experiences of mid-
career Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholar women. J Gen
Intern Med 2006; 21: 9205.
23. Nunez-Smith M, Curry LA, Bigby J, Berg D, Krumholz HM,
Bradley EH. Impact of race on the professional lives
of physicians of African descent. Ann Intern Med 2007; 146:
4551.
24. Grumbach K, Mendoza R. Disparities in human resources:
addressing the lack of diversity in the health professions. Health
Affairs 2008; 27: 41322.
25. Price EG, Gozu A, Kern DE, Powe NR, Wand GS, Golden S,
et al. The role of cultural diversity climate in recruitment,
promotion, and retention of faculty in academic medicine. J
Gen Intern Med 2005; 20: 56571.
26. Jackson VA, Palepu A, Szalacha L, Caswell C, Carr PL, Inui T.
‘Having the right chemistry’: a qualitative study of mentoring in
academic medicine. Acad Med 2003; 78: 32834.
27. O’Neill RM, Blake-Beard SD. Gender barriers to the female
mentor male protege relationship. J Bus Ethics 2002; 37:
5163.
28. Palepu A, Friedman RH, Barnett RC, Carr PL, Ash AS,
Szalacha L, et al. Junior faculty members’ mentoring relationships
Does mentoring matter?
Citation: Medical Education Online 2010, 15: 5063 - DOI: 10.3402/meo.v15i0.5063 7
(page number not for citation purpose)
and their professional development in US medical schools. Acad
Med 1998; 73: 31823.
29. Girves JE, Zepeda Y, Gwathmey JK. Mentoring in a post-
affirmative action world. J Soc Iss 2005; 61: 44979.
30. Johnson JC, Williams B, Jayadevappa R. Mentoring program
for minority faculty at the University of Pennsylvania School of
Medicine. Acad Med 1999; 74: 3769.
31. Chew LD, Watanabe JM, Buchwald D, Lessler DS. Junior
faculty’s perspectives on mentoring. Acad Med 2003; 78: 652.
32. Farrell SE, Digioia NM, Broderick KB, Coates WC. Mentoring
for clinician-educators. Acad Emerg Med 2004; 11: 134650.
33. Koberg C. Factors and outcomes associated with mentoring
among health-care professionals. J Vocat Behav 1998; 53: 5872.
34. Bandura A. Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. Am
Psychol 1982; 37: 12247.
35. Bandura A. Social foundations of thought and action: a social
cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1986.
36. Day R, Allen TD. The relationship between career motivation
and self-efficacy with protege career success. J Vocat Behav
2004; 64: 7291.
37. Seibert S. The effectiveness of facilitated mentoring: a longi-
tudinal quasi-experiment. J Vocat Behav 1999; 54: 483502.
38. Johnson MO, Subak LL, Brown JS, Lee KA, Feldman MD. An
innovative program to train health sciences researchers to be
effective clinical and translational research mentors. Acad Med
2010; 85: 4849.
*Mitchell D. Feldman
Faculty Mentoring
University of California
400 Parnassus Ave Box 0320
San Francisco, CA 94143-0320, USA
Fax: 1 (415) 476 7964
Email: mfeldman@medicine.ucsf.edu
Mitchell D. Feldman et al.
8
(page number not for citation purpose) Citation: Medical Education Online 2010, 15: 5063 - DOI: 10.3402/meo.v15i0.5063
