Innovations in Mentorship: Implementation of a Mentorship Program in Psychiatry That Encourages Reflection on Intersectionality and Wellness
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Aims Mentorship supports professional development, academic outcomes, and wellness. Effective mentorship can develop careers of faculty through greater access, and equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI). At a Department of Psychiatry in Canada, a recent survey showed more than 60% faculty were without mentors and would like to have one; and 75% mentors received no training nor resources to support mentorship. The aims of the Psychiatry Mentorship Program are to facilitate sharing of expertise, self-reflection, and career growth among faculty. Methods A Mentorship Working Group was formed in 2020–2021. The Mentorship Program design was evidence-informed by a literature review and consultation with other mentorship programs. While a traditional primary mentor-mentee relationship is at the core of the program, the mentorship dyad will be further supported by mentorship groups focused on academic roles, areas of scholarship and career development (e.g., clinician scientists; wellness) or specific groups (e.g., members of a minority group). The program offers an online mentor/mentee matching process, based on faculty self-reported scholarship interests, academic roles, and preferences related to social identity. A three-year evaluation strategy, guided by a logic model, is integrated throughout program implementation. Mentees and mentors are expected to complete a baseline assessment upon program enrolment and annual follow-up questionnaires. Continuous quality improvement of the Mentorship Program will be based on user experience collected via focus groups and interviews where perception and concepts, such as intersectionality, wellness, and EDI, will be explored. Results The Mentorship Program pilot was launched in fall 2021 with mentor and mentee virtual orientation workshops offering best practices and opportunities for reflection on challenges that may be encountered during a mentoring relationship. Thirty-six faculty mentors and 60 newly appointed faculty mentees attended the orientation workshops respectively. Workshop evaluations were positive. For example, 93% participating mentors indicated that the workshop met its learning objectives; 80% rated the workshop as excellent. Eighty-seven percent of mentor participants reported increased awareness of best practices to support successful mentorship, including the use of contracts and developmental plans, and indicated the workshop stimulated reflection and learning. Conclusion This preliminary positive feedback suggests faculty found the orientation workshops on mentorship to be useful and thus represents an effective mode of facilitating implementation of a department wide mentorship program. We anticipate the implementation of our mentorship program could be adapted to other academic settings.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,024 | 0,026 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».