BACKGROUND: The American College of Rheumatology (ACR)/Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance (CARRA) Mentoring Interest Group (AMIGO) is an inter-institutional mentorship program launched to target mentorship gaps within pediatric rheumatology. Initial program evaluation indicated increased mentorship access. Given the small size of the pediatric rheumatology workforce, maintaining a consistent supply of mentors was a potential threat to the longevity of the network. Our aims were to: (i) describe the sustainability of AMIGO over the period 2011-2018, (ii) highlight ongoing benefits to participants, and (iii) describe challenges in the maintenance of a mentorship network.
METHODS: A mixed-methods approach centered on a quality improvement framework was used to report on process and outcomes measures associated with AMIGO annual cycles.
RESULTS: US and Canada Pediatric rheumatology workforce surveys identified 504 possible participants during the time period. As of fall 2018, 331 unique individuals had participated in AMIGO as a mentee, mentor or both for a program response rate of 66% (331/504). Survey of mentees indicated high satisfaction with impact on general career development, research/scholarship and work-life balance. Mentors indicated increased sense of connection to the community and satisfaction with helping mentees despite limited perceived benefit to their academic portfolios. Based on AMIGO\'s success, a counterpart program for adult rheumatology, Creating Adult Rheumatology Mentorship in Academia (CARMA), was launched in 2018.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the challenges of a limited workforce, AMIGO continues to provide consistent access to mentorship opportunities for the pediatric rheumatology community. This experience can inform approaches to mentorship gaps in other academic subspecialties.

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: Effective mentorship is an important component of medical education with benefits to all stakeholders. In recent years, conceptualization of mentorship has gone beyond the traditional dyadic experienced mentor-novice mentee relationship to include group and peer mentoring. Existing theories of mentorship do not recognize mentoring\'s personalized, evolving, goal-driven, and context-specific nature. Evidencing the limitations of traditional cause-and-effect concepts, the purpose of this review was to systematically search the literature to determine if mentoring can be viewed as a complex adaptive system (CAS).
METHODS: A systematic scoping review using Krishna\'s Systematic Evidence-Based Approach was employed to study medical student and resident accounts of mentoring and CAS in general internal medicine and related subspecialties in articles published between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2023 in PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC, Google Scholar, and Scopus databases. The included articles underwent thematic and content analysis, with the themes identified and combined to create domains, which framed the discussion.
RESULTS: Of 5,704 abstracts reviewed, 134 full-text articles were evaluated, and 216 articles were included. The domains described how mentoring relationships and mentoring approaches embody characteristics of CAS and that mentorship often behaves as a community of practice (CoP). Mentoring\'s CAS-like features are displayed through CoPs, with distinct boundaries, a spiral mentoring trajectory, and longitudinal mentoring support and assessment processes.
CONCLUSIONS: Recognizing mentorship as a CAS demands the rethinking of the design, support, assessment, and oversight of mentorship and the role of mentors. Further study is required to better assess the mentoring process and to provide optimal training and support to mentors.

UNASSIGNED: Community partnership is a key strategy for addressing the social determinants of health and achieving health equity. There are few examples of curricula for undergraduate medical education that teach all, rather than self-selected, medical students to collaborate with community members to improve health. We describe the design and implementation of the Community Health Advocacy Initiative (CHAI) curriculum, a new yearlong educational program for medical students at Northwestern University\'s Feinberg School of Medicine.
UNASSIGNED: CHAI aimed to fill the curricular gap in social determinants of health education by providing medical students with the knowledge and skills to improve the health of patients through collaborations with community partners. This longitudinal curriculum included structured faculty mentorship and an applied community experience.
UNASSIGNED: The CHAI curriculum was delivered to 164 second-year medical students in academic year 2021-2022. Faculty mentors rated most students as meeting expectations for application of community partnership principles and demonstration of professionalism. Qualitative analysis of faculty mentor comments demonstrated that medical students exhibited positive outcomes in engaging with community organizations, overcoming barriers, developing feasible and impactful goals, and advancing their own knowledge and skills.
UNASSIGNED: Implementing a community health curriculum for all medical students is feasible and represents an important model for teaching about the importance of community partnerships in addressing the social determinants of health.

BACKGROUND: Integrating complex interventions within healthcare settings can be challenging. Mentoring can be embedded within a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to upskill and support those delivering the intervention. This study aimed to understand, from a realist perspective, how mentoring worked to support implementation fidelity for occupational therapists (OTs) delivering a vocational rehabilitation (VR) intervention within the context of an RCT.
METHODS: A realist evaluation using secondary data (emails, mentoring record forms, interviews) collected as part of an RCT. Three researchers coded the data following content analysis, focused on refining or refuting an initial programme theory by exploring the interactions between context, mechanisms, and outcomes. The research team met to further refine the programme theories.
RESULTS: Data from 584 emails, 184 mentoring record forms, and 25 interviews were analysed following a realist approach. We developed a programme theory consisting of two contexts (trial set-up, ongoing mentoring), nine mechanisms (collective understanding, monitoring, timely support, positive reinforcement, reflective practice, support data completeness, facilitation strategy, shared learning experience, management of research and clinical duties), and three outcomes (improved confidence, improved fidelity, reduced contamination).
CONCLUSIONS: Offering mentoring support to OTs delivering a VR intervention as part of an RCT improves intervention fidelity and reduces the risk of contamination. It improves OTs\' understanding of the differences between their clinical and research roles and increases their confidence and competence in trial paperwork completion and identification of potential contamination issues.

BACKGROUND: Peer mentorship can be a potential tool to reduce the disparities in health research capacity between high- and low- and middle-income countries. This case study describes the potential of peer mentorship to tackle two critical issues: bridging health research capacity of doctors from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and the transformation of human resource for health brain drain into \"brain gain\".
METHODS: In 2021, a virtual peer mentorship group was established by 16 alumni of the University of Benin College of Medical Sciences\' 2008 graduating class, residing across three continents. This program aimed to facilitate research collaboration and skill development among colleagues with diverse research experience levels, fostering a supportive environment for career development in research. The group relied heavily on digital technology to carry out its activities due to the different geographical locations of the group members. Led by experienced peer leaders, the group fostered a collaborative learning environment where members leveraged each other\'s expertise. Within 18 months, we published two research papers in high-impact peer-reviewed global health journals, launched a mixed-methods research study, and conducted training sessions on research design and implementation. Findings from our work were presented at conferences and workshops. However, logistical hurdles, competing priorities, structural constraints, and uneven participation presented challenges.
CONCLUSIONS: The peer mentorship collaboration has achieved some successes so far, and this model can be emulated by other cohorts of medical professionals across LMICs. Despite the group\'s success at a micro- or individual level, there remain significant structural barriers to research capacity building in LMICs that can only be addressed at the meso- and macro-levels by institutions and government, respectively. A systems-level approach is required to develop and support research capacity building and foster global research collaboration and effectively turn brain drain into brain gain.

OBJECTIVE: The National Framework for Inclusion Health identified the need for collaborative action between the NHS and third sector health to improve access and outcomes for Inclusion Health groups. Clinical psychology trainee placements in homelessness settings could be a valuable pathway to improving access to psychological support for people experiencing homelessness and the provision of clinical services, which is key to developing the workforce and a catalyst for the future recruitment of clinical psychologists in the third sector.
METHODS: A qualitative evaluation was conducted using semistructured interviews to explore the perspectives of clinical psychology trainees, supervisors, staff in homelessness settings and a peer mentor. Twenty-two participants were recruited from two universities and six services across the South East, including 11 clinical psychology trainees, six supervisors, four placement staff and one peer mentor.
RESULTS: Placement staff described the value of a psychological approach but identified some challenges to be overcome. Induction was identified as the key to success. Supervisors recognised the breadth and depth added to trainees\' knowledge and skills alongside significant challenges. Trainees valued the opportunities to work in homelessness settings and develop their understanding of the role. The peer mentor identified collaborative working as especially important.
CONCLUSIONS: Clinical psychology trainee placements are a necessary programme to fulfil the NHS vision for Inclusion Health. These placements equip the health and social care workforce to create excellent and sustainable provisions to improve the physical and mental health of people experiencing homelessness whilst also providing much-needed psychological support for staff.
UNASSIGNED: Psychologically Informed Environments Through Staff Training: Staff training and support within these placements contribute to the development of psychologically informed environments. This not only leads to better outcomes for both staff and clients but also aligns with the objectives of the National Framework for Inclusion Health, fostering sustainable provision for the health needs of people experiencing homelessness (PEH). Enhanced Therapeutic Adaptability: Trainees gain invaluable experience in adapting therapy to meet the diverse needs of clients, benefiting both trainees and clients alike. This adaptability fosters more effective therapeutic relationships and contributes to the improvement of inclusion health provision in the long term. Tailored Therapy for Timely Intervention: Clinical psychology trainee placements in homelessness settings offer therapy that bypasses long waiting times for interventions, crucial for individuals experiencing homelessness. This flexible approach caters to the unpredictable engagement levels of PEH, ensuring timely support aligning with the Health and Care Act 2022 to improve overall health and address health disparities through primary care networks.

UNASSIGNED: Per the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 6.5% of practicing orthopedic surgeons are female and a majority subspecialize in pediatrics, hand, and foot and ankle surgery. The study purpose is to evaluate influences of orthopedic subspecialty selection, specifically factors such as perceived strength, lifestyle, and mentorship influence on subspecialty decisions and to identify if gender plays a role in these perceptions.
UNASSIGNED: An IRB approved cross-sectional study was conducted via email distribution of a REDCapTM survey to U.S. licensed orthopedic surgeons. Data regarding demographics, professional degree, training and current practice location, and perceptions regarding orthopedic surgery was obtained using Likert rating scales. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics with two-tailed student\'s t-tests (α=0.05).
UNASSIGNED: The survey yielded 282 responses (182 females and 100 males). Overall, the distribution of residents (28%), fellows (6%), and attendings (66%) correlates well with the prevalence of each respective physician category in the field of orthopedic surgery. The study demonstrated no difference in subspecialty choice based on mentorship, work-life-balance, career advancement, subspecialty culture, salary potential, family planning, or schedule. However, a statistically significant difference exists regarding stereotypes, perceived strength required, and perception of discrimination from pursuing a specific orthopedic subspecialty. 27% of females and 10% of males reported discouragement from any subspecialty (p<0.05). Adult reconstructive and oncology were most frequently discouraged. Women reported not choosing a subspecialty because of perceived physical demands more often than men (p<0.001). Women reported an increased use of adaptive strategies in the operating room (p<0.001). Women were also more likely to report feeling discouraged from pursuing a subspecialty due to their gender (p<0.001). Both men and women reported mentorship as the most influential factor in subspecialty selection.
UNASSIGNED: Women and men reported different factors were important in their decision of subspecialty. Women were more likely to be discouraged from a subspecialty and experience discrimination based on their perceived strength compared to male peers. Residents, fellows, and attending surgeons valued mentorship as the most influential in their subspeciality choice. This study suggests intrinsic and extrinsic influences that may differentially affect male and female orthopedic surgeons when they choose a subspecialty. Level of Evidence: III.

Linda-Gail Bekker is a professor, chief executive officer of the Desmond Tutu HIV Foundation, and director of the Desmond Tutu HIV Centre at the Institute of Infectious Disease and Molecular Medicine, University of Cape Town, South Africa. Her research interests include HIV treatment and prevention and tuberculosis, and she is active in developing community projects to promote education and research. We talked to Linda-Gail about her career, the importance of mentorship, and how rewarding it is to collaborate, mentor, and uplift other scientists.

BACKGROUND: With an overarching goal of increasing diversity and inclusion in biomedical sciences, the National Research Mentoring Network (NRMN) developed a web-based national mentoring platform (MyNRMN) that seeks to connect mentors and mentees to support the persistence of underrepresented minorities in the biomedical sciences. As of May 15, 2024, the MyNRMN platform, which provides mentoring, networking, and professional development tools, has facilitated more than 12,100 unique mentoring connections between faculty, students, and researchers in the biomedical domain.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the large-scale mentoring connections facilitated by our web-based platform between students (mentees) and faculty (mentors) across institutional and geographic boundaries. Using an innovative graph database, we analyzed diverse mentoring connections between mentors and mentees across demographic characteristics in the biomedical sciences.
METHODS: Through the MyNRMN platform, we observed profile data and analyzed mentoring connections made between students and faculty across institutional boundaries by race, ethnicity, gender, institution type, and educational attainment between July 1, 2016, and May 31, 2021.
RESULTS: In total, there were 15,024 connections with 2222 mentees and 1652 mentors across 1625 institutions contributing data. Female mentees participated in the highest number of connections (3996/6108, 65%), whereas female mentors participated in 58% (5206/8916) of the connections. Black mentees made up 38% (2297/6108) of the connections, whereas White mentors participated in 56% (5036/8916) of the connections. Mentees were predominately from institutions classified as Research 1 (R1; doctoral universities-very high research activity) and historically Black colleges and universities (556/2222, 25% and 307/2222, 14%, respectively), whereas 31% (504/1652) of mentors were from R1 institutions.
CONCLUSIONS: To date, the utility of mentoring connections across institutions throughout the United States and how mentors and mentees are connected is unknown. This study examined these connections and the diversity of these connections using an extensive web-based mentoring network.