Acad Psychiatry DOI 10.1007/s40596-014-0163-2

EMPIRICAL REPORT

Developing a Mentorship Program for Psychiatry Residents Sophie Soklaridis & Jenna López & Nate Charach & Kathleen Broad & John Teshima & Mark Fefergrad

Received: 13 December 2013 / Accepted: 7 May 2014 # Academic Psychiatry 2014

Abstract Objective The authors sought to evaluate a formal mentorship program for second-year psychiatry residents at the University of Toronto after the program’s first year of implementation. Methods Ten mentees and ten faculty mentors were interviewed by fellow second-year residents and an independent researcher, respectively, about their experiences in the program. Interview data were thematically coded and analyzed using a grounded theory approach. Results Three major themes were identified. First, participants emphasized the importance of a natural, flexible, and engaging matching process for mentors and mentees. Many experienced the random assignment approach to matching and the mandatory nature of the program as barriers to developing a meaningful relationship with their mentors. Second, participants expressed a preference for geographic proximity between mentor and mentee workplaces and for meetings to take place in informal settings in order to improve the quality and quantity of their interactions. Lastly, participants felt that clear directions and expectations about the program’s goals should be communicated, and that a forum for information sharing among mentors was needed. Conclusions Overall, the majority of participants believed that the program facilitated growth and development and provided positive opportunities for both mentors and mentees. While challenges were present in the program, participants provided tangible recommendations to improve the process. S. Soklaridis : J. López Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, ON, Canada S. Soklaridis (*) : N. Charach : K. Broad University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada e-mail: [email protected] J. Teshima : M. Fefergrad Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre and the University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

Keywords Mentorship . Residents . Education . Program development . Evaluation

Mentorship is considered to be an essential component of career development and success for both trainees and healthcare professionals, and is a source of career satisfaction for those providing this support. In academic medicine, the mentorship relationship usually consists of a mentor, who is a more experienced faculty member that acts as a guide, role model, and teacher to a mentee, who is a less experienced student in pursuit of becoming a full member of a particular profession [1]. For mentees, mentorship has been linked to the following beneficial outcomes: perceptions of preparedness for practice, more reflective career choices, increased research productivity, improved school performance, and higher likelihood of receiving a promotion [2–5]. There is also evidence for benefits of mentorship in interpersonal areas of development including decreased feelings of isolation among mentees, increased sense of empowerment and improved well-being [6, 7]. Some studies indicate that mentoring for women and minority faculty and students can be a significant way to address the serious underrepresentation of these groups in university and academic healthcare institutions [8]. In addition, women who have mentors tend to publish more and are more satisfied with their careers [9, 10]. However, women are less likely than men to have a mentor [4, 11]. This finding is relevant given the increasing number of women that are becoming physicians. The Association of Faculties of Medicine of Canada reported that women earned 57.1 % of Medical Doctorate degrees in 2011 compared to 50.2 % in 2001 and only 44.8 % in 1991 [12]. In the United States, 48.3 % of Medical School Graduates in 2011 were women compared to 36 % in 1990 [13]. Mentorship serves several benefits for mentors as well including fulfilling a psychological need for continuous learning

Acad Psychiatry

and career development [14, 15]. Mentors can get stimulation of their own ideas and revitalization of interest in their own work, as well as professional assistance with projects that can lead to their completion [15]. In addition, a mentor’s professional recognition increases when their mentees perform well [16, 17]. Thus, mentorship is often viewed by mentors as a positive career pursuit that increases both research productivity and career satisfaction [18, 19]. Despite the demonstrated benefits of mentorship for both mentees and mentors, mentoring relationships are fairly uncommon and inconsistent. Results of a systematic review of mentorship in academic medicine revealed that fewer than 50 % of medical students, and in some fields fewer than 20 % of faculty members, had a mentor [4]. In addition, a survey of 229 psychiatric chief residents indicated that less than half of them felt they had adequate mentorship [2]. Taking into account the perceived benefits of mentorship and the perceived need for more adequate mentorship, the University of Toronto Psychiatry Residency program embarked on a mentorship program to promote and support the career growth of psychiatry residents. In Canadian training programs, the second (PGY2) year is the first year that psychiatry residents are fully in psychiatry rotations. Thus, second-year residents were matched with faculty members who had previously been identified as strong mentors. Given that many residents in psychiatry lack adequate mentorship [2] and the success of previous formal mentorship programs in other areas of medicine (for example: 20, 21), the goal of the mentorship program was to facilitate relationships among residents and faculty. The purpose of this study was to assess the program, from both the perspectives of the mentees and mentors, at the end of its first year for the purpose of improving the mentorship program.

Methods The Program Faculty members who had either formal or informal resident education roles and who were known by the residents and the Post Graduate Medical Education (PGME) Director as resident advocates were invited to become mentors. They were sent a Mentorship Invitation Letter that provided information about the program and its expectations. The expectations were that faculty mentors: (1) meet with their assigned mentee at least once every 6 months and that these meetings were to be mutually arranged with mentees; (2) attend an interactive faculty development workshop; and (3) complete evaluation forms. Of the 20 invited faculty members, 19 agreed to become mentors. Mentors who agreed to participate in the program were given key articles on mentorship and attended a halfday faculty development course on mentorship through the

Centre for Faculty Development, University of Toronto. While the pilot mentorship program was not mandatory for faculty members, participation was mandatory for all PGY2 residents (mentees). This first cohort of mentees received a link to an article on mentorship [22]; however, they did not receive additional training on mentorship. The mentees were randomly paired with a mentor. Randomization was achieved by alphabetizing the lists of names of both mentors and mentees and creating matches based on corresponding positions in the alphabetized lists. The only provision was that the pair should not be based at the same hospital site, in order to decrease the possibility for conflict of interest with faculty supervisors involved in evaluating residents. Mentees and mentors were informed of the pairings and invited to make initial contact with one another. The mentors were asked to hold a minimum of two in-person meetings per year with their mentees. These meetings could be held in formal (i.g., office) or informal (i.g., restaurant) settings. Periodic reminder emails from the PGME Director were sent to the mentors, generally in the beginning, middle, and end of rotations (approximately six times a year) to encourage the mentors to invite their mentees to meet. Two reminders were sent to the mentees. The PGME director sent less frequent reminders to the mentees to ease the potential burden of initiating and/or maintaining meetings.

The Participants Ten second-year residents and ten faculty mentors participated in the study. Mentors were recruited to participate in interviews through an email sent by the PGME Director requesting feedback on the project followed up by an email from the interviewer (JL). Participation was voluntary and mentors signed up by replying to the interviewer’s email. All mentors were psychiatrists in Toronto, Canada with different self-identified areas of focus including child/adolescent, geriatric, consultation/ liaison and several others. Most mentor participants were male (n=8; 80 %), and more than half had at least 10 years of experience practicing psychiatry (n=6; 60 %). Mentors were assigned up to three mentees in the program. To recruit mentees, all second year residents were sent an email by one of the PGY-2 resident interviewers inviting fellow PGY-2 mentees to participate in a study to evaluate the mentorship program. Those who responded (n=11) were offered interviews. One resident was unable to schedule an interview during the time interval the interviews were to be completed. Participation was voluntary and participants signed up for interviews by emailing the PGY-2 resident interviewers. Most mentee participants were female (n=9; 90 %) and all mentee participants were completing their PGY-2 year of residency. No other demographic data were collected on the characteristics of the mentees.

Acad Psychiatry

Data Collection Two fellow PGY2 residents conducted the face-to-face interviews with mentees. Peer-to-peer interviewing served two purposes. First, conducting peer-to-peer interviews provided the resident interviewers with the opportunity to acquire new skills and experiences with qualitative interview techniques and data analysis. Second, this approach attempted to minimize the power relationships that can exist between interviewer and interviewee. Bourdieu has argued that the failure to minimize the asymmetries of power in research relationships can serve to inflict “symbolic violence” on those being researched [23]. We believed that resident-interviewingresidents provided the social proximity and familiarity needed to neutralize this potential power dynamic. Interviews with faculty mentors were conducted by a research coordinator. Academic researchers, such as research coordinators, without a health professional background can approach the interview without preconceived notions [24] and can employ a certain degree of naivety to encourage thorough explanations from the interviewee [25]. All mentees followed an informed consent process, whereby consent to being interviewed and audio recorded was established verbally and through a signed consent form. All mentors agreed to participate in a program evaluation at the end of each year as a requirement for participation in the program. Verbal consent was established at the beginning of each interview. Data Analysis The mentee face-to-face interviews were audiotaped but not transcribed. Notes were taken during these interviews. The mentor interviews were conducted over the telephone. The advantage of telephone interviewing is that it allows for more detailed note taking. The telephone interviews were not taped or transcribed due to budgetary constraints but detailed notes were taken and direct quotes recorded by the interviewer. The resident interviewers (NC and KB) compared the findings of their interviews and the second (JR) and first author (SS) compared the findings of the mentor interviews. The findings of all interview data were discussed, compared, and contrasted by the first four authors (SS, JL, NC, KB). Codes were created, and themes were generated through consensus among the first four authors using a thematic approach [26]. Direct quotes were selected by re-listening to parts of the audio recordings and reviewing the detailed notes from the telephone interviews according to the themes that emerged through the data analysis process. In addition, because the resident interviewers were directly involved in the mentorship program, they were asked to reflect on their personal experiences of conducting the interviews. As Strauss and Corbin note, researchers using interpretive methodologies must

“accept responsibility for their interpretive roles” (p. 160) [27]. Thus, prior to the interviews taking place, they documented their thoughts and expectations regarding the peer mentoring process. These self-reflections were discussed by the four investigators during the analysis process as a means of establishing trustworthiness of the findings. The self-reflection exercise helped to verify interpretations of the data and establish authenticity [28]. The fifth (JT) and last author (MF) reviewed the preliminary codes, themes, and findings.

Results Three main themes were identified. First, the respondents identified how the process of randomly assigned and mandatory formal mentorship was often a barrier to forming a meaningful relationship. Second, the respondents identified how the social environment of the mentor-mentee meetings affected the quality and quantity of the interactions. Lastly, the respondents described how the mentorship program needed to provide clear expectations and structure to both the mentor and mentee around the goals of the program. Our mentorship program used the pathway of a randomly assigned and mandatory formal mentorship process to form a mentor-mentee pair. Almost all participants were critical of the random and mandatory nature of the program. Some mentees explained how it led to a forced or contrived relationship. As one mentee stated: “It’s good to have people to talk to but it needs to be someone that you can have honest and meaningful conversations with.” Although the randomly assigned and mandatory mentorship process ensures that some mentorship takes place, the respondents stated that a more deliberate approach to the suitable pairing of the mentor and mentee is one of the most important steps in forming a strong relationship. They preferred a method of creating mentor-mentee pairs that was more natural, flexible, and engaging. Some respondents suggested holding an event at the beginning of the program with the purpose of matching. For example, a mix and mingle event where people eventually pair off an event with a “speeddating” format or some “reflective exercise” for helping to understand people’s backgrounds and what they are hoping to get out of the mentor-mentee relationship. Others suggested the importance of incorporating more flexibility in the pairings for changing mentors if, for whatever reason, an interpersonal connection between the mentor and mentee cannot be established. The social environment of the mentor-mentee meetings focused around two subthemes. First, a commonly discussed challenge was geographical dispersion and the difficulties in scheduling appropriate times and locations for meetings. The rationale of the mentorship program was to match mentees to

Acad Psychiatry

mentors at different clinical sites to decrease conflict of interest. However, with regard to convenience, some mentees were located at sites that were not near the mentor’s workplace, and in many instances, this geographic distance was experienced as a significant scheduling barrier. As one mentor stated, “The resident wanted me to come downtown to meet, which would have taken an entire evening of my time. It would have been easier to be a mentor for someone at a hospital close by.” Mentees agreed that the travel time involved was sometimes a barrier to meeting with their mentor. Second, the setting in which the mentorship meetings took place seemed to have an effect on the quality and quantity of the meetings. Respondents were asked about how meetings were structured, including the number of times they met and the locations for the meetings. Within the program requirements, mentors and mentees were encouraged to meet a minimum of two times over the course of 12 months. Out of ten mentors interviewed, four met this requirement. Mentors and mentees, who met two or more times, were more likely to have met in informal spaces (e.g., coffee shops and restaurants). Those who never met or met only once were more likely to have met in formal spaces, primarily the mentor’s office. One mentee reflected on how the experience might have been improved: “Meeting outside of work with food or drinks might help to set a better environment". Mentors agreed and one mentor offered their perspective stating the following: “We usually met over a couple of hours in an informal setting such as over dinner. I found that formal versus informal settings made a difference… Informal settings allowed for more free discussions, less focus on academic issues and changed the tone of the conversation.” Lastly, our respondents stated that more direction and clarity about the program would greatly improve the mentorship experience. Several respondents described needing more guidance, support, and clear communication of the program’s goals, expectations, and parameters. According to this mentor, “More direction was needed on what is the role of the mentor and what the resident can expect to get out of mentorship.” The majority of the mentees concurred with the need to know how to make the most of the mentorship: “if they [the program] could give us suggestions of how to make better use of our mentors.” It was unclear how mentees viewed the provision of mentorship literature and its impact on the success of the mentorship relationship or attitudes towards mentorship. Although the mentors were provided with several articles that provide insight on how to create satisfying and productive relationships for both the mentor and mentee [22, 29] and received a half-day orientation, they expressed a knowledge to practice gap. Several mentors suggested that one potential way of helping bridge the knowledge to practice gap would be to create a community among the mentors as part of the program. Some mentors were hoping for more opportunities to share experiences and learning from and with their

colleagues who were also part of the program. They described how creating a community of mentors might lead to higher quality mentorship in the program. The mentees did not express a need to form a community of practice. As stated above, the majority of mentees were looking for tools and resources that would provide suggestions on how to facilitate communication and set goals with a mentor. Many mentees suggested that an in-person interactive educational or orientation session prior to the commencement of the mentorship program would have been useful.

Discussion Overall, the majority of respondents believed that the program facilitated growth and development, provided an opportunity to meet new people, created a structure to have stimulating and meaningful conversations, assisted in normalizing anxiety, and was a venue for sharing the excitement of beginning a new career. While challenges were present in the program, the respondents provided tangible recommendations to improve the process. First, many factors should be considered in the match process—including personal attributes, career interests, and also geography or location. According to the literature on mentorship, formally assigned mentorships appear to result in “less relational comfort, less motivation for mentoring, and ultimately less communication and interaction between mentor and mentee” (30, p. 89). In addition, randomly assigned mentorship pairings are typically associated with the lowest degree of success with regard to relational comfort [31]. Research suggests that formal mentorship programs can lead to successful relationships, especially when mentees are given the freedom to select their own mentors [32]. Our study supported these findings. Suggestions for a more deliberate matching process were provided by the majority of respondents. Second, the respondents who met or surpassed the minimum suggested requirement of two meetings per year tended to meet in informal settings as opposed to formal settings. Meeting in informal settings was perceived by respondents to foster deeper interpersonal connections that are conducive to effective mentoring. The frequency of meetings that was attributed to meeting in formal or informal settings is not a straightforward conclusion. Perhaps, if the matching process were more deliberate, the perceived benefits of meeting in informal settings might be offset. Alternatively, it could be that those mentors willing to meet outside of office hours and in more informal settings may have, themselves, been more invested in the process, since they were willing to sacrifice more “personal time.” Lastly, providing more direction to the program’s goals and expectations, orientation for the mentees and a community of practice for mentors were all suggestions for improving the

Acad Psychiatry

program. There are several resources and tools to help improve the pairing process [33] and to assist the mentor and mentee as they engage in the mentoring process [34] that could be offered to the mentors and mentees as a means of providing more structure and guidance. However, we know from the implementation science literature that providing tools and resources does not easily translate into practice [35]. As suggested by several mentors and supported by the literature, developing a community of practice of mentors could support their need for collective learning. A community of practice is formed by people who share a concern and passion about a shared topic and who are willing to share their practice with others in the spirit of collective learning [36]. Several mentors suggested that they would benefit from such a membership. Another potential avenue of learning how to mentor others could be from faculty’s personal experiences being mentored themselves. It may be of interest to investigate in future studies whether faculty members’ experiences as recipients of mentorship impact their ability to mentor others. Although this was a small qualitative pilot study, the gender differences between the mostly male mentors and the mostly female mentees is worth mentioning. These findings are consistent with psychiatry departments across North America being male dominated, with the gender distribution becoming more skewed in leadership roles where the higher the rank you consider, the more sparse women become [37–39]. In the United States, half of all medical students and residents, yet only one-third of fulltime faculty are women, and women make up only 22 % of division and section chiefs, 22 % of associate and vicechairs, 14 % of department chairs, and 12 % of decanal positions [40]. Adequate mentorship for women residents then may not be currently attainable, especially if residents are seeking mentorship on issues specific to navigating a career in psychiatry as a woman. The literature on mentorship shows how special problems for women in mentoring relationships include family obligations, sexual issues, paternalistic tensions, performance pressures, isolation, and limiting role expectations if the mentor is male [15]. Even if residents are not intentionally seeking gender specific mentorship, the unequal gender distribution in psychiatry may still act as a barrier to a positive mentorship experience as research shows that female mentees in psychiatry are less likely to be encouraged by their mentors to participate in outside professional activities, are three times more likely to have mentors take credit for their work, and frequently perceive their mentors as negative role models [41]. Indeed a systematic review of mentoring in academic medicine highlighted that strategies used to enhance mentorship for women is an area needing more research [4]. A future avenue of research could be to conduct a study with a larger pool of

participants, particularly one that included more pairs that were matched for gender. A limitation of the current study was the use of notes recorded by the interviewer during telephone interviews rather than audio recordings. While detailed electronic notes were taken in real time, notes may not be as reliable as audio recordings followed by professional transcription.

Conclusion The goal of the program was to facilitate relationships among residents and faculty and to promote and support the career growth of residents. Three main findings were revealed through the evaluative individual interviews with both faculty and resident participants of this program. First, the random assignment approach to matching mentors and mentees and the mandatory nature of the program were experienced as barriers in forming meaningful mentorship relationships. Second, participants expressed a preference for geographic proximity between mentor and mentee workplaces and for meetings to take place in informal settings in order to improve the quality and quantity of their interactions. Lastly, participants felt that direction and clarity about the program’s goals, expectations, and parameters were needed in order to maximize the benefits of the program. As a result of this evaluation, the Postgraduate Medical Education Director will meet with the residents and faculty to discuss how incorporating the findings of this evaluation into the mentorship program in 2014. The focal point of these discussions will be on improving communication in mentorship and strategies for an improved matching process. Implications for Academic Leaders • A formal mentorship program for psychiatry residents can result in the facilitation of growth and development for mentees and provide positive opportunities for both faculty and residents. • Formal mentorship programs should carefully consider the unintended consequences of randomly assigning mentors to mentees. • Mentorship meetings taking place in informal settings rather than in professional settings such as offices seem to correlate with more positive experiences for both mentors and mentees. • Respondents suggested that clear direction and communication to all participants about the mentorship program’s goals, expectations, and parameters are needed in order to maximize the benefits of the program. • Gender was identified as an issue in the matching process in a formal mentorship program, and further, strategies that enhance mentorship for women in psychiatry were advised by several respondents.

Acknowledgments The authors would like to acknowledge Nick Gamble for his consultation during the editing process of writing this manuscript. The authors would also like to thank the reviewers for their thoughtful feedback of this manuscript.

Acad Psychiatry Disclosures On behalf of all authors, the first and corresponding author, Dr. Sophie Soklaridis, states that there is no conflict of interest.

References 1. Clark RA, Harden SL, Johnson WB. Mentor relationships in clinical psychology doctoral training: results of a national survey. Teach Psychol. 2000;27:262–8. doi:10.1207/S15328023TOP2704_04. 2. DeFrancisci Lis L, Wood WC, Petkova E, Shatkin J. Mentoring in psychiatric residency programs: a survey of chief residents. Acad Psychiatry. 2009;33(4):307–12. doi:10.1176/appi.ap.33.4.307. 3. Frei E, Stamm M, Buddeberg-Fischer B. Mentoring programs for medical students—a review of the PubMed literature 2000–2008. BMC Med Educ. 2010;10(32). doi:10.1186/1472-6920-10-32. 4. Sambunjak D, Straus SE. Mentoring in academic medicine: a systematic review. J Am Med Assoc. 2006;296(9):1103–15. doi:10. 1001/jama.296.9.1103. 5. Wise, MR, Shapiro H, Bodley J, Pittini R, McKay D, Willan A, Hannah ME. Factors affecting academic promotion in obstetrics and gynaecology in Canada. J Obstet Gynaecol Can, 26(2), 127–136. 6. Moss J, Teshima J, Leszcz M. Peer group mentoring of junior faculty. Acad Psychiatry. 2008;32(3):230–5. doi:10.1176/appi.ap.32.3.230. 7. Scheckler WE, Tuffli G, Schalch D, MacKinney A, Ehrlich E. The Class Mentor Program at the University of Wisconsin Medical School: a unique and valuable asset for students and faculty. WMJ. 2004;103(7):46–50. 8. Kosoko-Lasaki O, Sonnino RE, Voytko ML. Mentoring for women and underrepresented minority faculty and students: experience at two institutions of higher education. J Natl Med Assoc. 2006;98(9):1449–59. 9. Levinson W, Kaufman K, Clark B, Tolle SW. Mentors and role models for women in academic medicine. West J Med. 1991;154(4):423–6. 10. Tesch BJ, Wood HM, Helwig AL, Nattinger AB. Promotion of women physicians in academic medicine: glass ceiling or sticky floor? J Am Med Assoc. 1995;273(13):1022–5. doi:10.1001/jama. 1995.03520370064038. 11. Association of American Medical Colleges Project Implementation Committee, Bickel J, Wara D, Atkinson BF, Cohen LS, Dunn M, et al. Increasing women’s leadership in academic medicine: report of the AAMC Project Implementation Committee. Acad Med. 2002;77(10):1043–61. 12. The Association of Faculties of Medicine of Canada. Canadian medical education statistics 2011. 2011. Retrieved from: http:// www.afmc.ca/publications-statistics-e.php. 13. Barzansky B, Etzel SI. Medical Schools in the United States, 2010– 2011. J Am Med Assoc. 2011;306(9):1007–14. doi:10.1001/jama. 2011.1220. 14. Allen TD, Lentz E, Day R. Career success outcomes associated with mentoring others: a comparison of mentors and nonmentors. J Career Dev. 2006;32(3):272–85. doi:10.1177/0894845305282942. 15. Rodenhauser P, Rudisill JR, Dvorak R. Skills for mentors and protégés applicable to psychiatry. Acad Psychiatry. 2000;24(1):14–27. 16. Ragins BR, Scandura TA. Gender differences in expected outcomes of mentoring relationships. Acad Manag J. 1994;37:957–71. doi:10. 2307/256606. 17. Russell JEA, Adams DM. The changing nature of mentoring in organizations: an introduction to the special issues on mentoring and organizations. J Vocat Behav. 1997;51:1–14. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1997.1602. 18. Steiner J, Curtis P, Lanphear B, Vu K, Main DS. Assessing the role of influential mentors in the research development of primary care fellows. Acad Med. 2004;79(9):865–72.

19. Wingard DL, Garman KA, Reznik V. Facilitating faculty success: outcomes and cost benefit of the UCSD National Center of Leadership in Academic Medicine. Acad Med. 2004;79(10 Suppl): S9–S11. 20. Ogunyemi D, Solnik MJ, Alexander C, Fong A, Azziz R. Promoting residents’ professional development and academic productivity using a structured faculty mentoring program. Teach Learn MedInt J. 2010;22(2):93–6. doi:10.1080/10401331003656413. 21. Zink BJ, Hammoud MM, Middleton E, Moroney D, Schigelone A. A comprehensive medical student career development program improves medical student satisfaction with career planning. Teach Learn Med. 2007;19(1):55–60. 22. Zerzan JT, Hess R, Schur E, Phillips RS, Rigotti N. Making the most out of mentors: a guide for mentees. Acad Med. 2009;84(1):140–4. 23. Bourdieu P. Understanding. Theory Culture Soc. 1996;13:17–37. 24. Iversen L, Farmer JC, Hannaford PC. Workload pressures in rural general practice: a qualitative investigation. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2002;20(3):139–44. 25. Coar L, Sim J. Interviewing one’s peers: Methodological issues in a study of health professionals. 2006;24(4):251–6. doi:10.1080/ 02813430601008479. 26. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3:77–101. 27. Strauss A, Corbin J. Grounded theory methodology: an overview. In: Denzin N, Lincoln Y, editors. Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp. 158_183). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1998. 28. Rossman G, Rallis S. Learning in the field. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1998. 29. Jackson VA, Palepu A, Szalacha L, Caswell C, Carr PL, Inui T. “Having the right chemistry”: a qualitative study of mentoring in academic medicine. Acad Med. 2003;78(3):328–34. 30. Johnson BW. The intentional mentor: strategies and guidelines for the practice of mentoring. Prof Psychol Res Pract. 2002;33(1):88–96. 31. Cesa IL, Fraser SC. A method for encouraging the development of good mentor-protégé relationships. Teach Psychol. 1989;16:125–8. 32. Flint JH, Jahangir AA, Browner BD, Mehta S. The value of mentorship in orthopaedic surgery resident education: the residents’ perspective. J Bone Joint Surg. 2009;91(4):1017–22. doi:10.2106/JBJS. H.00934. 33. Rose GL. Enhancement of mentor selection using the ideal mentor scale. Res High Educ. 2003;44(4):473–94. doi:10.1023/ A:1024289000849. 34. Cahill L, Blanchard SR. GWA Mentoring Handbook. 2001. Retrieved from: http://www.asu.edu/clubs/gwa/. 35. Grol R. Successes and failures in the implementation of evidencebased guidelines for clinical practice. Med Care. 2001;3(8 Suppl 2): II46–54. 36. Wenger-Trayner E. Communities of practice: a brief introduction. 2007. Retrieved from: http://www.ewenger.com/theory/. 37. Council of Canadian Academies. Strengthening Canada’s research capacity: the gender dimension. Ottawa, ON: The Expert Panel on Women in University Research, Council of Canadian Academies; 2012. 38. Morley L. Hidden transcripts: The micropolitics of gender in Commonwealth universities. Women’s Stud Int Forum. 2006;29: 543–51. 39. van den Brink M, Benschop Y, Jansen W. Transparency in academic recruitment: a problematic tool for gender equality? Organ Stud. 2010;31(11):1459–83. 40. Joliff L, Leadley J, Coakley E, Sloane RA. Women in U.S. Academic Medicine and Science: Statistics and Benchmarking Report 2011– 2012: Association of American Medical Colleges. 2012. 41. Bickel J. Women in academic psychiatry. Acad Psychiatry. 2004;28(4):285–91.

Developing a mentorship program for psychiatry residents.

The authors sought to evaluate a formal mentorship program for second-year psychiatry residents at the University of Toronto after the program's first...
179KB Sizes 2 Downloads 4 Views