Maisel Natalya C, Halvorson Max A, Finney John W, Bi Xiaoyu, Hayashi Ko P, Blonigen Daniel M, Weitlauf Julie C, Timko Christine, Cronkite Ruth C
N.C. Maisel is a social science research professional, Institute for Research in the Social Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, California, and research health science specialist, Center for Innovation to Implementation, VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Menlo Park, California.M.A. Halvorson is a graduate student, Department of Psychology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, and research health science specialist, Center for Innovation to Implementation, VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Menlo Park, California.J.W. Finney is research health science specialist (WOC), Center for Innovation to Implementation, VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Menlo Park, California, and consulting professor, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.X. Bi is analytics and research manager, American Academy of Ophthalmology, San Francisco, California.K.P. Hayashi is a biostatistician, Impax Laboratories, Hayward, California.D.M. Blonigen is research health science specialist, Center for Innovation to Implementation, VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Menlo Park, California, and adjunct professor, Palo Alto University, Palo Alto, California.J.C. Weitlauf is director, Women's Mental Health and Aging Core, VISN 21 Mental Illness, Research, Education and Clinical Center, and center investigator, Center for Innovation to Implementation, VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, California, as well as clinical professor (affiliated) of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.C. Timko is senior research career scientist, VA Health Services Research and Development, Center for Innovation to Implementation, VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Menlo Park, California, and consulting professor, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.R.C. Cronkite is research health science specialist, Center for Innovation to Implementation, VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Menlo Park, California, as well as consulting professor, Department of Sociology, and affiliate, Center for Primary Care and Outcomes Research, Stanford University, Stanford, California.
Acad Med. 2017 Apr;92(4):521-527. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001507.
Limited empirical attention to date has focused on best practices in advanced research mentoring in the health services research domain. The authors investigated whether institutional incentives for mentoring (e.g., consideration of mentoring in promotion criteria) were associated with mentors' perceptions of mentoring benefits and costs and with time spent mentoring.
The authors conducted an online survey in 2014 of a national sample of mentors of U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Services Research and Development Service (HSR&D) mentored career development award recipients who received an award during 2000-2012. Regression analyses were used to examine institutional incentives as predictors of perceptions of benefits and costs of mentoring and time spent mentoring.
Of the 145 mentors invited, 119 (82%) responded and 110 (76%) provided complete data for the study items. Overall, mentors who reported more institutional incentives also reported greater perceived benefits of mentoring (P = .03); however, more incentives were not significantly associated with perceived costs of mentoring. Mentors who reported more institutional incentives also reported spending a greater percentage of time mentoring (P = .02). University incentives were associated with perceived benefits of mentoring (P = .02), whereas VA incentives were associated with time spent mentoring (P = .003).
Institutional policies that promote and support mentorship of junior investigators, specifically by recognizing and rewarding the efforts of mentors, are integral to fostering mentorship programs that contribute to the development of early-career health services researchers into independent investigators.
迄今为止，在卫生服务研究领域，对高级研究指导的最佳实践的实证关注有限。作者调查了指导方面的机构激励措施（例如，在晋升标准中考虑指导情况）是否与导师对指导的益处和成本的认知以及指导所花费的时间相关。
作者于2014年对美国退伍军人事务部（VA）卫生服务研究与发展局（HSR&D）指导的职业发展奖获得者的导师进行了全国范围的在线调查，这些获奖者在2000 - 2012年期间获得了该奖项。回归分析用于检验机构激励措施作为指导的益处和成本认知以及指导所花费时间的预测因素。
在145名受邀导师中，119名（82%）做出了回应，110名（76%）提供了研究项目的完整数据。总体而言，报告有更多机构激励措施的导师也报告了更高的指导感知益处（P = .03）；然而，更多激励措施与指导的感知成本无显著关联。报告有更多机构激励措施的导师还报告花费在指导上的时间比例更高（P = .02）。大学激励措施与指导的感知益处相关（P = .02），而VA激励措施与指导所花费的时间相关（P = .003）。
促进和支持初级研究人员指导工作的机构政策，特别是通过认可和奖励导师的努力，对于培养有助于将早期职业卫生服务研究人员发展为独立研究人员的指导计划至关重要。
