Mentorship, the developmental relationship between a more experienced guide (the mentor) and his or her protégé (the mentee), can contribute substantially to success in the field of medicine, particularly in the academic arena (1). The ability of mentors to influence their charges’ personal and professional development, job satisfaction, career choices, and advancement enhances academic productivity (2–7). The value of individual mentoring to the mentor’s career satisfaction, personal development, and overall feeling of self-worth has also been described (8, 9). These findings underscore the attractiveness of mentoring as a strategy to enhance the recruitment and retention of academic staff, in addition to the recruitment of medical students into underserved disciplines (6, 10). As such, academic institutions have embraced mentorship as a potentially valuable strategy for faculty and student development (6, 10, 11). However, the process of mentoring requires a significant time commitment (12), and faculty whose professional advancement is largely linked to scholarly productivity sometimes perceive mentorship as being undervalued by their academic institution (13, 14). Thus, mentors must typically balance a desire to be generative through mentoring with the demands of their academic institution, career advancement, and personal lives.

One approach to overcoming obstacles of time and availability of highly qualified mentors is incorporating group mentoring programs into large conferences. We have previously described a structured approach to group mentorship for child and adolescent psychiatry and allied professions (15). In a subsequent cross-sectional study, we suggested the model was reproducible, transportable, and valued by its participants, who reported gains in knowledge of, and connectedness to, the field of child and adolescent psychiatry after participating in an intensive mentorship program (16). Challenges to replicate and expand such programs include not only logistic and financial considerations, but also the ability to identify and recruit a large enough number of well-suited and committed mentors who are willing to provide their valuable time without compensation.

Settings and Participants

Mentors were invited to participate in a short, intensive mentorship program as a component of the child and adolescent psychiatry meeting of two professional organizations: the 13th International Congress of the European Society for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (ESCAP), held August 25–29, 2007, in Florence, Italy, and the 54th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP), held October 23–28, 2007, in Boston. These mentorship programs were modeled on programs held annually since 2004 which shared a common goal: to increase the connectivity of trainees (medical students, general psychiatric residents, and child and adolescent psychiatric residents) to the field of child and adolescent psychiatry by providing a formal overview of the field including research opportunities, establishing child and adolescent psychiatrists as mentors, and providing access to various networking opportunities. A detailed description of these similar mentorship programs has previously been documented (15, 16).

Mentors were invited to participate in the program based on their reputation, previous experience, expressed interest, involvement with the organizations and availability during the organization’s meeting, and commitment to participate for the entirety of the mentorship program, which included daily activities for 4 days. A total of 43 mentors were recruited (12 for ESCAP and 31 for AACAP). Based on a competitive application process and selection by two independent panels of referees using a standard set of criteria, 182 mentees were selected (65 for ESCAP and 117 for AACAP). Of these, 88% (n=160) received a stipend to defray the costs associated with attending the respective conferences. Mentors received no financial support. The combination of mentors and awardees yielded 18 small groups (six at ESCAP and 12 at AACAP), each with six to eight trainees (mode of 8) and two (ESCAP) or three (AACAP) mentors. The awardees were from a range of professional backgrounds, including medical students, psychiatric residents, child and adolescent psychiatry fellows, and junior faculty (ESCAP only). The mentors within each small group were balanced in gender, diversity of clinical background, research interest, seniority, and geographic origin.

Prior to the meetings, mentors were given written instructions that included tips on preparing for the meetings and facilitating a natural, open dialog and potential topics for discussion. The information was further reviewed during a preconference teleconference. Mentors were encouraged to communicate through e-mail with their group members to establish rapport prior to the meeting. During the conferences, small groups met in a predetermined location for an average of 2 hours per day for 3 days. A combined group meeting was held during day 4 of the program. Each small group briefly presented, and feedback was provided in an open forum.

Survey Instrument and Data Analysis

We developed a 25-question survey for mentors who participated in the group mentorship programs to ascertain their views and experiences regarding the program. Some items were derived from an instrument that had been developed for mentees in the same program (16). The survey was distributed to mentors within 2 weeks of the conclusion of each conference, using SurveyMonkey, a web-based program (www.surveymonkey.com). The survey was designed to capture the characteristics of the mentors who volunteered for the program, with an emphasis on their past experiences with mentorship, the suitability of the group mentorship model, and potential logistical or other barriers toward implementation at future conferences and within their academic institutions. Questions included items scored on a 5-point Likert scale as well as yes/no and multiple-choice questions. In addition, open-ended narrative fields were provided to allow mentors to comment freely on the strengths and weaknesses of the program and to share suggestions for improvement.

Mentors in both programs rated their experiences of mentoring (in general and in the context of the group mentoring program) on a Likert scale (1=none or strongly disagree, 5=very much or strongly agree). Results were highly (favorably) skewed for most responses, so we dichotomized them as 1 to 3 (negative to neutral) versus 4 or 5 (positive). Results were largely comparable across the two meetings; therefore, in general, the results for AACAP and ESCAP mentors were pooled. We highlight in the text or in Table 1 salient differences (defined as p<0.05 by chi square analysis).

To ensure anonymity and confidentiality, information was downloaded from SurveyMonkey into de-identified working files. The study was deemed exempt from requiring formal informed consent by the University of Vermont’s institutional review board. A copy of the survey instrument is available from the corresponding author upon request.

Out of 43 mentors, 42 (98%) completed the survey, and their characteristics are summarized in Table 1. Mentors were predominantly male (64%, n=27), full-time faculty (69%, n=29) whose work included a mixture of research, clinical duties, teaching, and administration. ESCAP mentors were more likely than AACAP mentors to be senior career professionals with full professor rank and federally funded research grants. Prior attendance of the host organization’s meeting and the United States as country of primary residence were higher among AACAP participants.

Mentors rated highly the importance of having been mentored themselves (81%, n=34) and the role of being a mentor on their overall career path and professional satisfaction (90%, n=38). Most mentors (76%, n=32) did not consider their mentorship activities as competing with other professional duties but, rather, as enhancing them. Whereas 61% (n=19) of AACAP mentors agreed that being a mentor is highly valued at their home institution, only 36% (n=4) of ESCAP participants agreed (p<0.05).

Almost two-thirds of the mentors (64%) had prior experience with group (n=28) and co-mentoring (n=27) formats. Forty-eight percent of mentors (n=20) had participated in the mentorship program in previous years. Most mentors (95%, n=40) strongly endorsed having established meaningful connections with their mentees. They reported that connections were facilitated by mentees’ willingness to initiate communication (69%, n=29), but not by gender matching (mentor-mentee gender concordance was considered important by only 7% [n=3] of respondents). The influence of sharing professional interests on the mentors’ ability to connect varied, with 42% of AACAP mentors (n=13) indicating it was an influential factor, compared with none of the ESCAP mentors (p<0.05). Ninety-three percent of mentors (n=39) viewed the mentorship experience as personally fulfilling and identified it as equally valuable as a teaching and a learning opportunity. Mentors uniformly agreed that co-mentoring (the process by which two or more mentors simultaneously provide guidance and knowledge to two or more mentees with the goal of promoting their career development), as exemplified by this model, enhanced their mentorship experience, and 86% (n=36) responded that the diversity of the group members’ experiences and interests enhanced group dynamics. Seventy-four percent of mentors (n=31) reported that their experience in the mentorship program was positive and greatly enhanced their experience of the overall meeting, despite 86% (n=36) also feeling that, as a result, they were too busy during the conference. Sixty-two percent of mentors (n=26) agreed that they would adapt or had already adapted lessons and experiences from the mentorship program at their home institution, and the overwhelming majority (95%, n=40) agreed or strongly agreed that, if invited, they would participate in a similar mentorship program again.

Analysis of the narrative responses revealed that mentors in both programs had similar comments about the relative strengths and weaknesses of the program (Table 2). The opportunity for co-mentoring, the diversity of mentors and mentees, the exposure of mentees to the field of child and adolescent psychiatry, and networking were seen as some of the program’s strengths. Relative weaknesses identified included inadequate preparation time and guidance for mentors; too much diversity in the mentees’ interests and experience, resulting in difficulty addressing topics in depth or meeting the needs of all participants; scheduling conflicts with other events at the meeting; and insufficient privacy for the small-group sessions.

The results of our study of mentors support previous findings from individual mentorship models; professionals who volunteer to mentor are more likely to have received mentorship themselves and to identify mentoring as influential to their career choice, career success, and professional satisfaction. Most mentors indicated their willingness to participate in the mentoring program in the future and acknowledged the value of the program as a conference-enhancing experience that was equally valuable as a teaching and learning opportunity. The satisfaction that mentors identified as part of the mentoring process reinforced their desire to mentor in the future and thus promotes the generative cycle of mentoring (9, 17).

Mentors unanimously endorsed co-mentoring as a technique that enhanced their group mentoring experience. The highly positive experience of co-mentoring was also apparent in comments on the wealth of experience, knowledge, and support gained from mentoring with peers of diverse backgrounds and varying levels of professional experience. A similar view had been previously reported in an internal medicine study (18) in which a majority of mentors reported improved experiences for mentees whom they co-mentored over those for whom they had served as sole mentor. Moreover, co-mentoring was described as more fulfilling and less demanding than being a sole mentor.

The diversity of seniority levels and career stages among mentors emerged as an especially appreciated aspect. Davis et al. (19) proposed that midcareer mentors are optimally positioned for the task. Rather than any given level or career stage being “optimal,” our findings suggest that mentors at various seniority levels and career stages contribute various unique aspects. This view is supported by Cochran et al. (20), whose study of medical students and their views on residents and attending physicians in surgery revealed that mentors who were attending physicians were more often viewed as fulfilling a “teacher role,” whereas junior mentors met more of a “person role” (20). These findings support the role of early career physicians as mentors and propose a crucial role for them: assisting trainees to negotiate the developmental stage they have recently mastered.

Gender and race have been noted to be two potential barriers to mentor-mentee relationships in individual mentorship. Mentors have been shown to more frequently develop mentoring relationships with protégés who remind them of themselves (21, 22). The requirement of mentors to develop a close, individual relationship with their charges becomes less critical when mentoring occurs in a group setting. The decreased requirement for longer-term closeness may explain why gender matching did not emerge as a critical aspect on mentors’ ability to connect within this co-mentorship model. At the same time, the group setting potentially establishes a competitive situation in which mentees have to work to connect with mentors; this may have contributed to some mentors’ dissatisfaction with their ability to adequately address their mentees’ needs.

There were approximately twice as many male as female mentors, and recruitment of women was considerably more challenging. This gender discrepancy became more pronounced for higher academic ranks. These observations support previously discussed concerns about women, academia, and mentorship with regard to a relative lack of female mentors (21, 23, 24). A professional’s history of receiving career mentorship is a predictor for becoming a mentor in the future; the lack of female mentors in our study may be a reflection of the decreased mentorship reported by women during training (11, 25).

Our findings are preliminary and not without limitations. First, we described a small number of mentors from a mentorship program held at two meetings; a larger sample drawn from several meetings would facilitate generalization of data. Second, the skewed pattern of responses and their lack of variability may accurately reflect mentors’ views, but may also point to shortcomings of the survey instrument (e.g., limited sensitivity). Third, some of the mentors had been involved in similar mentorship programs in preceding years; their responses may have summarized their overall mentorship experience rather than views about the recently completed mentorship program. Mentors who participated in the premeeting conference call (only conducted prior to the AACAP meeting) may have begun to establish rapport with their mentees and been better prepared for the group mentorship experience by the time of its commencement than those who did not, and this may have partly accounted for differences in some of the responses. Discussions regarding other participants’ experience of the group mentorship program during and after its completion may have also influenced their responses to the subsequent survey.

Despite such limitations, our findings suggest that mentors valued their participation in the group mentorship program and would be willing to participate if invited in the future. These findings are particularly welcome given the competing time commitments for mentors and in light of the fact that the mentors were not remunerated for their efforts. Future studies should consider addressing the long-term impact of mentorship programs such as the one described here on career choice, trajectory, and satisfaction.

Mentors found the intensive group co-mentorship model to be a powerful, time-efficient, and enjoyable approach, although group composition, schedule coordination, and logistics remain challenges for future programs. The mentors’ positive perceptions bode well for mentor recruitment and retention in similar mentorship programs and suggest that the program might also be attempted in other medical fields. Given concerns about the shortage of mentors and the lack of time to mentor, this model may be used as a complement or an alternative to the traditional individual mentorship model seen at academic institutions.

On behalf of all the program participants, the authors express their deepest gratitude to the leadership of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and the European Society for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, in particular Dr. Robert Hendren (president of AACAP) and Dr. Ernesto Caffo (past president of ESCAP) for their vision, support, and commitment to the initiatives described here, and to acknowledge the mentors whose generativity and generosity are captured in this article.

At the time of submission, Drs. Alleyne, Schnabel Horner, Walter, Arzubi, and Martin declared no competing interests. Dr. Hall Fleisher is an employee of AACAP, serving as Director of Research, Training, and Education.