Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Center for Bioethics and Social Science in Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2018 Jul 1;101(3):732-740. doi: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.03.035. Epub 2018 Mar 30.
Given concerns about attrition and career outcomes of academic radiation oncologists, we sought to gather empirical evidence regarding mentorship experiences.
We surveyed academic radiation oncologists in the United States and Canada who were within 5 years of board certification, using a pretested questionnaire that included 14 questions evaluating the following aspects of mentorship: relationship development, peer mentorship, satisfaction with mentorship, sponsorship, relationship nature, informal interactions, mentoring roles, presence of a primary mentor, and primary mentor characteristics. We described responses and evaluated associations with gender in separate multivariable regression models that adjusted for years in practice, nature of research, possession of higher degrees, and race.
Of 347 faculty surveyed, 221 responded (64% response rate); 66% of respondents were men. Over half of respondents indicated difficulty in identifying role models (56%, n = 124); just under half reported ease in developing mentoring relationships (49%, n = 108). Peer-mentor use was commonly reported (62%, n = 138). Most respondents (66%, n = 145) spent ≤1 hour per month meeting with mentors. Only 51% (n = 112) reported having a primary mentor. Just under half of all respondents reported being very or somewhat satisfied with their mentorship experiences (49%, n = 108).
These findings suggest a need for academic radiation oncology departments to facilitate mentorship of all junior faculty through deliberate, structured programs, with training of mentors and mentees alike. It is heartening that substantial rates of sponsorship and peer-mentorship use were reported, which may serve as the grounding for further initiatives.
鉴于对学术放射肿瘤学家流失和职业发展结果的担忧，我们试图收集有关指导经验的实证证据。
我们对美国和加拿大的学术放射肿瘤学家进行了调查，这些医生在获得委员会认证后 5 年内，使用经过预测试的问卷，其中包括 14 个问题，评估指导的以下方面：关系发展、同行指导、对指导的满意度、指导赞助、关系性质、非正式互动、指导角色、主要指导老师的存在以及主要指导老师的特征。我们描述了答复，并在分别的多变量回归模型中评估了与性别之间的关联，这些模型调整了实践年限、研究性质、更高学位的拥有情况和种族。
在接受调查的 347 名教师中，有 221 人做出了回应（回应率为 64%）；66%的应答者为男性。超过一半的应答者表示难以确定榜样（56%，n=124）；近一半的人报告说很容易发展指导关系（49%，n=108）。常见的是报告使用同行指导（62%，n=138）。大多数应答者（66%，n=145）每月仅花费≤1 小时与导师见面。只有 51%（n=112）的人报告有主要导师。近一半的应答者报告对其指导经历非常满意或有些满意（49%，n=108）。
这些发现表明，学术放射肿瘤学系需要通过精心设计的结构化计划来促进所有初级教职员工的指导，对导师和学员进行培训。令人欣慰的是，报告了大量的指导赞助和同行指导的使用，这可能为进一步的举措奠定基础。
