Scholarly Mentorship and Publication: An Innovative Approach for Female Psychiatry Residents
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Female physicians have remained proportionately poorly represented in the research academic track.1 Opportunities for female residents to have an impact on the future of academic research may be considerable if early developmental characteristics are identified in a timely way.We offered mentoring for female residents in an academic psychiatry department at McMaster University, a 5-year postgraduate training program, where research activities are not a requirement. Consecutively enrolled third-year female residents (n = 5), who underwent their 2-month core inpatient psychiatry rotation, were assigned to the same female faculty supervisor. This pilot project was conducted during a 12-month period starting August 2011. Women were asked the same question exploring their research interest: “Would you be interested in conducting a scholarly project during your current rotation, in which you will receive mentorship while you hold the first authorship position?” Four of 5 participants expressed motivation. Subsequently, all 4 participants have since become successful in publishing research articles (n = 1), case reports (n = 2), and letters to the editor (n = 1) to various high-quality peer-reviewed journals. An anonymous, electronic survey was sent to and completed by all those who successfully published to assess the perceived value of the mentoring project. We also analyzed research attitudes prior to and following outcomes of successful participation in scholarly activities; level of interest and research experience prior to and during residency; educational background; and factors that increased or decreased desirability of research, rather than the number of projects per resident. For 3 of 4 participants, the presence of at least one prior research residency experience and interest in and/or prior graduate degree were predictive of whether the subject would either be a published author or be active in current research.In line with previous literature,2 mentorship in research was important to all our participants; however, 2 subjects did not have a preference for whether the mentor was male or female, only 2 held a prior graduate degree, and 1 affirmatively changed her opinion regarding pursuing an academic career after publication. As also shown in our findings, most residents find it difficult to conduct research because of various constraints3 (eg, patient care, lack of financial support, dedicated office space, and lack of support staff with biostatistics expertise). Dedicated mentoring faculty members with allowed protected time to administer, teach, and evaluate all research components may also need to be considered.This strategy of scholarly mentorship appeared to be successful in the short term. Further evaluation of measurable outcomes will be necessary to fully determine their true impact. There are clear limitations to any interpretations deriving from such a small sample limited to one department in one institution; however, it does raise questions about women's research training in an academic program. It is evident that specific research mentoring is desirable during residency to facilitate the eventual research and academic success of academic female physicians. The authors advocate for more studies to explore the impact of exposure to early research mentorship.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,083 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».