Skip to main content
Mentorship in academic general internal medicine. Results of a survey of mentors.
Published Web Locationhttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.215.x
BackgroundEffective mentorship is crucial to career development. Strategies to improve the availability of mentors include mentoring multiple mentees at once, compensating mentors, comentoring, and long-distance mentoring.
ObjectiveTo describe current trends in mentorship in general Internal Medicine (GIM).
MethodsWe conducted a national cross-sectional web-based survey of GIM mentors, GIM fellowship directors, and GIM National Institutes of Health K24 grant awardees to capture their experiences with mentoring, including compensation for mentorship, multiple mentees, comentorship, and long-distance mentorship. We compared experiences by mentorship funding status, faculty type, academic rank, and sex.
ResultsWe collected data from 111 mentors (77% male, 54% full professors, and 68% clinician-investigators). Fifty-two (47%) received funding for mentorship. Mentors supervised a median (25th percentile, 75th percentile) of 5 (3, 8) mentees each, and would be willing to supervise a maximum of 6 (4, 10) mentees at once. Compared with mentors without funding, mentors with funding had more current mentees (mean of 8.3 vs 5.1, respectively; P<.001). Full professors had more current mentees than associate or assistant professors (8.0 vs 5.9 vs 2.4, respectively; P=.005). Ninety-four (85%) mentors had experience comentoring, and two-thirds of mentors had experience mentoring from a distance. Although most mentors found long-distance mentoring to be less demanding, most also said it is less effective for the mentee and is personally less fulfilling.
ConclusionsMentors in GIM appear to be close to their mentorship capacity, and the majority lack funding for mentorship. Comentoring and long-distance mentoring are common.
For improved accessibility of PDF content, download the file to your device.