Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Mentorship is critical to success in postgraduate science, technology, engineering, math, and medicine (STEMM) settings. As such, the purpose of this study is to comprehensively explore the state of mentorship interventions in postgraduate STEMM settings to identify novel practices and future research directions. The selection criteria for reviewed articles included: 1) published between 2002 and 2022, 2) peer-reviewed, 3) in English, 4) postgraduate mentees, 5) a program where mentorship is a significant, explicit focus, and 6) a description of mentee outcomes related to the mentorship intervention. Overall, 2583 articles were screened, and 109 articles were reviewed.
RESULTS: Most postgraduate STEMM mentorship intervention studies lack strong evidence to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention, with only 5.5% of articles designed as randomized controlled trials. Most mentorship interventions (45.6%) were created for faculty, and few (4%) were for postdoctoral researchers. Also, only 18.8% of interventions focused on underrepresented groups in STEMM. Most interventions (53.7%) prescribed a dyadic structure, and there was more mentorship training for mentors than mentees.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, these findings identify gaps in mentorship interventions and provide step-by-step guidance for future interventions, including a consideration for underrepresented groups and postdoctoral scholars, robust mentorship training, and more randomized controlled trials.
RESULTS: Most postgraduate STEMM mentorship intervention studies lack strong evidence to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention, with only 5.5% of articles designed as randomized controlled trials. Most mentorship interventions (45.6%) were created for faculty, and few (4%) were for postdoctoral researchers. Also, only 18.8% of interventions focused on underrepresented groups in STEMM. Most interventions (53.7%) prescribed a dyadic structure, and there was more mentorship training for mentors than mentees.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, these findings identify gaps in mentorship interventions and provide step-by-step guidance for future interventions, including a consideration for underrepresented groups and postdoctoral scholars, robust mentorship training, and more randomized controlled trials.
摘要：
背景：导师对研究生科学的成功至关重要，技术,工程,数学,和药物(STEMM)设置。因此，这项研究的目的是全面探索研究生STEMM设置中导师干预的状态，以确定新颖的实践和未来的研究方向。评审文章的选择标准包括：1）在2002年至2022年之间发表，2）同行评审，3）在英语中，4)研究生学员，5)指导是一个重要的项目，明确的焦点，和6)描述与导师干预相关的受训者结果。总的来说,筛选了2583篇文章，共审查了109篇文章。
结果：大多数研究生STEMM指导干预研究缺乏强有力的证据来评估干预的有效性，只有5.5%的文章设计为随机对照试验。大多数导师干预措施（45.6％）是为教师创建的，很少（4％）是博士后研究人员。此外，只有18.8%的干预措施集中于STEMM中代表性不足的群体.大多数干预措施(53.7%)规定了二元结构，导师的导师培训多于受训者。
结论：总体而言，这些发现确定了导师干预措施的差距，并为未来的干预措施提供了逐步的指导，包括对代表性不足的群体和博士后学者的考虑，强大的指导培训，和更多的随机对照试验。
结果：大多数研究生STEMM指导干预研究缺乏强有力的证据来评估干预的有效性，只有5.5%的文章设计为随机对照试验。大多数导师干预措施（45.6％）是为教师创建的，很少（4％）是博士后研究人员。此外，只有18.8%的干预措施集中于STEMM中代表性不足的群体.大多数干预措施(53.7%)规定了二元结构，导师的导师培训多于受训者。
结论：总体而言，这些发现确定了导师干预措施的差距，并为未来的干预措施提供了逐步的指导，包括对代表性不足的群体和博士后学者的考虑，强大的指导培训，和更多的随机对照试验。
