Christine Pfund

An unprecedented situation requiring remote research mentorship from faculty and research group leaders has emerged from the COVID-19 health crisis. The ability of mentors to pivot and adopt new ways to lead their research teams during this time will be a critical factor in maintaining research productivity and fostering talent development.

Dr Christine Pfund is a researcher at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA. With a strong network of colleagues and collaborators, her work focuses on developing, implementing, documenting, and studying interventions to optimise research mentoring relationships across science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine. Read on to discover how the success of these initiatives has resulted in the development of a national network of mentors in the USA. Both diabetic adults and premature babies are at risk for a similar type of eye disease that involves the growth of abnormal, blood vessels in the retina, the photosensitive layer of the eye. When this eye disease occurs in diabetics, it is called diabetic retinopathy and when it occurs in premature infants, it is called retinopathy of prematurity. The pathologic vessels, seen in both of these diseases, can pull on the retina and cause it to detach, leading to blindness. Dr Tammy Movsas (Executive Director and Principal Investigator) and Dr Arivalagan Muthusamy (Chief Scientist) at the Zietchick Research Institute, USA, are developing new therapeutics to treat these serious retinal diseases that affect both premature baby eyes and mature adult eyes, such as those of diabetic women.

Despite evidence of mentoring’s importance in training researchers, studies to date have not yet determined which mentoring relationships have the most impact and what specific factors in those mentoring relationships contribute to key outcomes, such as the commitment to and persistence in research career paths for emerging researchers from diverse populations. Efforts to broaden participation and persistence in biomedical research careers require an understanding of why and how mentoring relationships work and their impact, not only to research training but also to promoting career advancement. This paper proposes core attributes of effective mentoring relationships, as supported by the literature and suggested by theoretical models of academic persistence. In addition, both existing and developing metrics for measuring the effectiveness of these attributes within mentoring relationships across diverse groups are presented, as well as preliminary data on these metrics from the authors’ work.

Few studies have empirically investigated the specific factors in mentoring relationships between undergraduate researchers (mentees) and their mentors in the biological and life sciences that account for mentees’ positive academic and career outcomes. Using archival evaluation data from more than 400 mentees gathered over a multi-year period (2005–2011) from several undergraduate biology research programs at a large, Midwestern research university, we validated existing evaluation measures of the mentored research experience and the mentor–mentee relationship. We used a subset of data from mentees (77% underrepresented racial/ethnic minorities) to test a hypothesized social cognitive career theory model of associations between mentees’ academic outcomes and perceptions of their research mentoring relationships. Results from path analysis indicate that perceived mentor effectiveness indirectly predicted post-baccalaureate outcomes via research self-efficacy beliefs. Findings are discussed with implications for developing new and refining existing tools to measure this impact, programmatic interventions to increase the success of culturally diverse research mentees and future directions for research.

Research mentor training (RMT), based on the published Entering Mentoring curricula series, has been shown to improve the knowledge and skills of research mentors across career stages, as self-reported by both the mentors engaged in training and their mentees. To promote widespread dissemination and empower others to implement this evidence-based training at their home institutions, we developed an extensive, interactive, multifaceted train-the-trainer workshop. The specific goals of these workshops are to 1) increase facilitator knowledge of an RMT curriculum, 2) increase facilitator confidence in implementing the curriculum, 3) provide a safe environment to practice facilitation of curricular activities, and 4) review implementation strategies and evaluation tools. Data indicate that our approach results in high satisfaction and significant confidence gains among attendees. Of the 195 diverse attendees trained in our workshops since Fall 2010, 44% report implementation at 39 different institutions, collectively training more than 500 mentors. Further, mentors who participated in the RMT sessions led by our trained facilitators report high facilitator effectiveness in guiding discussion. Implications and challenges to building the national capacity needed for improved research mentoring relationships are discussed.

Purpose To determine whether a structured mentoring curriculum improves research mentoring skills. Method The authors conducted a randomized controlled trial (RCT) at 16 academic health centers (June 2010 to July 2011). Faculty mentors of trainees who were conducting clinical/translational research ≥50% of the time were eligible. The intervention was an eight-hour, case-based curriculum focused on six mentoring competencies. The primary outcome was the change in mentors’ self-reported pretest to posttest composite scores on the Mentoring Competency Assessment (MCA). Secondary outcomes included changes in the following: mentors’ awareness as measured by their self-reported retrospective change in MCA scores, mentees’ ratings of their mentors’ competency as measured by MCA scores, and mentoring behaviors as reported by mentors and their mentees. Results A total of 283 mentor–mentee pairs were enrolled: 144 mentors were randomized to the intervention; 139 to the control condition. Self-reported pre-/posttest change in MCA composite scores was higher for mentors in the intervention group compared with controls (P < .001). Retrospective changes in MCA composite scores between the two groups were even greater, and extended to all six subscale scores (P < .001). More intervention-group mentors reported changes in their mentoring practices than control mentors (P < .001). Mentees working with intervention-group mentors reported larger changes in retrospective MCA pre-/posttest scores (P = .003) and more changes in their mentors’ behavior (P = .002) than those paired with control mentors. Conclusions This RCT demonstrates that a competency-based research mentor training program can improve mentors’ skills.

Purpose: To design and evaluate a research mentor training curriculum for clinical and translational researchers. The resulting 8‐hour curriculum was implemented as part of a national mentor training trial.Method: The mentor training curriculum was implemented with 144 mentors at 16 academic institutions. Facilitators of the curriculum participated in a train‐the‐trainer workshop to ensure uniform delivery. The data used for this report were collected from participants during the training sessions through reflective writing, and following the last training session via confidential survey with a 94% response rate.Results: A total of 88% of respondents reported high levels of satisfaction with the training experience, and 90% noted they would recommend the training to a colleague. Participants also reported significant learning gains across six mentoring competencies as well as specific impacts of the training on their mentoring practice.Conclusions: The data suggest the described research mentor training curriculum is an effective means of engaging research mentors to reflect upon and improve their research mentoring practices. The training resulted in high satisfaction, self‐reported skill gains as well as behavioral changes of clinical and translational research mentors. Given success across 16 diverse sites, this training may serve as a national model. Clin Trans Sci 2013; Volume 6: 26–33