Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background: Mentorship has benefits for students and faculty, helping to support their professional development, connectedness, and career endeavors. While the value of mentorship programs is well documented in the literature, there is less practical guidance and few compiled resources to start a program. This paper reviews different mentorship practices in pharmacy education and provides a list of strategies to develop high-functioning mentorship programs or groups. Methods: A review of the literature was conducted through PubMed and other databases. If the titles and abstracts met the initial criteria for relevance to the topic, the complete article was reviewed in the context of the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Included articles focused on mentorship, mentorship programs, mentorship development, mentoring faculty or students, or mentoring in the workplace. Results: Twenty-three studies were included in the final review. Summaries and key points from the studies were reviewed and discussed. The advantages of mentorship programs include increased social connection, goal setting, and professional development. Challenges include increased time commitments and difficulty in determining objective markers of success. Critical components have been extracted from the literature, and key resources and templates have been provided to aid in mentorship program development. Conclusions: This review summarizes the pharmacy mentorship literature and provides user-friendly tables to quickly locate resources to build a mentorship program in pharmacy education.

Introduction: In 2018, the Library Publishing Coalition (LPC) Professional Development Committee (PDC) created the Peer Mentorship Program as a way for library publishing practitioners to build professional relationships within the LPC community and support the development of professionals in the library publishing field. This program was created to help fill the gap in library publishing mentorship resources, in both programs and published literature. Description of Program: The LPC Mentorship Program was created in 2018 as a traditional mentor/mentee mentorship relationship, but it has undergone iterations each year since, resulting in the current Peer Mentorship Program. Additionally, more structure and support for mentorship pairs have been developed and made available each year, thanks to helpful feedback from mid-year and end-of-year participant survey responses. Next Steps: This article identifies ways in which further outreach should be conducted to diversify and expand participants of the Peer Mentorship Program, and also to help support the work needed to sustain a program like this. Finally, suggestions are made for further research and literature to be made available to support the growing need for mentorship in the library publishing field.

Mentorship plays a vital role in pain medicine, guiding professionals from medical training through independent practice. This article explores how mentorship fosters research, enhances clinical competence, and promotes multidisciplinary collaboration. Drawing on insights from leading institutions, we propose a structured mentorship framework tailored to different career stages. Effective mentorship cultivates research skills, expands academic networks, and provides early exposure to the field, shaping long-term career trajectories. It also strengthens clinical expertise, encourages cross-disciplinary collaboration, and advances diversity, equity, and inclusion in medicine. Structured academic mentorship models offer longitudinal guidance for sustained professional development. By aligning mentor-mentee goals and ensuring consistent support, mentorship programs maximize professional growth and ultimately improve patient outcomes. This article outlines key strategies and tools for building effective mentorship programs, emphasizing their transformative impact on the field of pain medicine.

Mentorship is a vital component within general surgery residency that fosters success extending into future practices. Recognizing the need for formalized mentorship within our general surgery residency, a survey based match process was developed. The “Mentor Match” was developed by creating resident and faculty surveys using the six ACGME core competencies of patient care, medical knowledge, communication skills, practice based learning, system based practice and professionalism. Surveys focused on resident areas of weakness correlating to areas in which faculty expressed subjective strength. Survey results were used to match faculty mentors with resident mentees. One year after implementation, residents were surveyed to evaluate the perceived success of the match process and mentorship program. Resident participation was 100% with a survey response of 78%. Ninety-two percent of residents were satisfied with the program, 83% saw improvement in their areas of weakness and 75% felt the match process was effective in pairing mentors with mentees. In conclusion, the “Mentor Match” was an effective tool in developing a formalized mentorship program with positive results after one year of implementation. •Mentorship is a vital component for a general surgery resident that fosters success extending beyond residency into future practices. With the recognized need for a formalized mentorship within our general surgery residency program, a survey based match process was developed to assist in assigning residents to faculty mentors.•The mentor match was created using the six ACGME core competencies and effectively paired mentee areas of weakness with mentor areas of strength in order to promote growth and improvement within the competencies.•After a year of implementation, the mentor match was found to be a successful way to match each resident with a faculty mentor. Residents reported a high satisfaction with the program along with improvement in perceived weaknesses. Overall this process provides a successful framework in implementing mentorship in general surgery residency.

BackgroundThough the USA is becoming increasingly diverse, the physician workforce contains a disproportionately low number of physicians from racial and ethnic groups that are described as underrepresented in medicine (URiM). Mentorship has been proposed as one way to improve the retention and experiences of URiM physicians and trainees. The objective of this systematic review was to identify and describe mentoring programs for URiM physicians in academic medicine and to describe important themes from existing literature that can aid in the development of URiM mentorship programs.MethodsThe authors searched PubMed, PsycINFO, ERIC, and Cochrane databases, and included original publications that described a US mentorship program involving academic medical doctors at the faculty or trainee level and were created for physicians who are URiM or provided results stratified by race/ethnicity.ResultsOur search yielded 4,548 unique citations and 31 publications met our inclusion criteria. Frequently cited objectives of these programs were to improve research skills, to diversify representation in specific fields, and to recruit and retain URiM participants. Subjective outcomes were primarily participant satisfaction with the program and/or work climate. The dyad model of mentoring was the most common, though several novel models were also described. Program evaluations were primarily subjective and reported high satisfaction, although some reported objective outcomes including publications, retention, and promotion. All showed satisfactory outcomes for the mentorship programs.DiscussionThis review describes a range of successful mentoring programs for URiM physicians. Our recommendations based on our review include the importance of institutional support for diversity, tailoring programs to local needs and resources, training mentors, and utilizing URiM and non-URiM mentors.

Background Study aims were to assess the current state and needs of faculty to inform the design of a formal mentorship program in a large academic Department of Psychiatry. Methods A 57- item self-administered online survey questionnaire was distributed to all faculty members. Results 225 faculty members completed the survey (24%). 68% of respondents had a mentor and reported high satisfaction (mean = 4.3, SD = 1.05) (range 1 to 5). Among those respondents lacking access to mentorship, 65% expressed interest. Open-ended questions indicated that international medical graduates, faculty identifying as minority, women and clinician teachers may lack access to mentorship. PhD faculty felt disadvantaged compared to MD faculty in gaining first authorship ( M Non−MD =1.64 ± 0.79 vs. M MD =1.36 ± 0.67; t  = 2.51, p  = .013); reported more authorship disputes ( M Non−MD =1.99 ± 0.91 vs. M MD =1.66 ± 0.76; t  = 2.63 p  = .009) and experienced questionable scientific integrity concerning colleagues ( M Non−MD =2.01 ± 0.92 vs. M MD =1.70 ± 0.81; t  = 2.42 p  = .017). For both MD and PhD faculty, women were significantly more likely to experience authorship disputes (χ 2 (2) = 8.67, p  = .013). The department was perceived as treating faculty with respect (72% agreed) with 54% agreeing that it embraces diversity (54%). Identified benefits to mentorship included receiving advice about academic promotion, opportunities for career advancement, advocacy, and advice as a researcher, teacher or clinician. Only 26% of mentors received formal training to support their role; 59% expressed interest in education. Respondents supported a more formal, accessible, inclusive program, with training, tools, and a matching strategy based on mentee preferences. Conclusions Challenges and inequities were identified with the department’s current ad hoc approach to mentorship. A limitation of the study was the response rate, while similar to response rates of other physician surveys, raises the potential for response bias. In comparing study participants to the department, the sample appeared to provide a fair representation. The study has implications for identifying the need and design of more formal mentorship programs in academic medicine.

Presidential Spotlight from 2025.

Experience plays a critical role in crafting high-impact scientific work. This is particularly evident in top multidisciplinary journals, where a scientist is unlikely to appear as senior author if he or she has not previously published within the same journal. Here, we develop a quantitative understanding of author order by quantifying this “chaperone effect,” capturing how scientists transition into senior status within a particular publication venue. We illustrate that the chaperone effect has a different magnitude for journals in different branches of science, being more pronounced in medical and biological sciences and weaker in natural sciences. Finally, we show that in the case of high-impact venues, the chaperone effect has significant implications, specifically resulting in a higher average impact relative to papers authored by new principal investigators (PIs). Our findings shed light on the role played by experience in publishing within specific scientific journals, on the paths toward acquiring the necessary experience and expertise, and on the skills required to publish in prestigious venues.

This proceedings paper summarizes the first network meeting in the project , held in Copenhagen, Denmark, from 26-28 May 2024. The meeting brought together 31 participants from across the Arctic, including Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers, students, and health professionals. The aim was to enhance collaboration among circumpolar health networks and to develop a mentorship program supporting young scholars. Sessions included mapping exercises, regional health updates, and discussions on ethics, education, collaboration, and community engagement. Participants identified overlapping mandates, gaps in coordination, and opportunities for joint initiatives across different health networks and societies. The meeting emphasized inclusive, community-based approaches and the integration of Indigenous knowledge. Action items for the coming years include developing and evaluating a model for mentorship in circumpolar health research, enhancing ethical research practices, and continuing the work and conversation of coordinating efforts across health networks. The workshop was concluded with a strong sense of shared purpose and commitment to advancing health and well-being in Arctic communities through strengthened collaborative in both research and education.

Objectives: To explore perception of mentors and mentees about ‘Mentorship Program at Aga Khan University Medical College (AKU-MC) from a structured feedback form Methods: A retrospective study was conducted for evaluation of mentorship program at AKU-MC during the period from Jan 2019 to March, 2021. Responses on validated “Pre-intervention Probe Forms”, from forty-seven mentors and fourteen mentees inducted in the program were reviewed. Confidentiality and anonymity of data were deliberated. All replies to each question were entered in a separate worksheet to determine the frequency and percentage of answers. Responses conveying same message, but worded differently were then grouped. Results: All the mentees (n=14) responded positively to the question on the “understanding of the mentoring program. The mentees (n=12, 86%) recognized the potential of the program to transfer knowledge and skills, (n=11, 79%) supported its role for achievement of goals, (n=7, 50%), acknowledged its role in faculty relationships. The mentors expressed their enthusiasm to help the mentee’s in their professional development. They (n=20, 43%) offered support to set career goals, (n=29, 62%) proposed transfer of knowledge, skills, and experiences to achieve goals, (n=15, 32%) decided to be “role models”. Some (n=10, 21%) forecasted improved communication skills, (n=14, 30%) boosted leadership capabilities, (n=13, 28%) expected improved work performance, (n=15, 32%) opinioned that networking and leadership qualities will impact the growth of the mentee to meet the university’s expectations. Conclusion: Both mentors and mentees recognized the importance of the faculty mentorship program at AKU-MC for professional guidance, development and improvement in work performance. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.38.6.5454 How to cite this:Rehman R, Khan F, Kayani N, Ali TS. Reflection of mentors and mentees at initiation of Faculty Mentorship Program at Aga Khan University: A perspective . Pak J Med Sci. 2022;38(6):---. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.38.6.5454 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.