Article Figures & Data
Tables
CHARACTERISTIC VALUE Mean (SD) age, y (N = 604) 47.5 (10.6) Sex, n (%) (N = 620) • Women 324 (52.3) • Men 296 (47.7) Marital status, n (%) (N = 616) • Married or common-law 536 (87.0) • Other 80 (13.0) Ethnicity, n (%) (N = 613) • White 444 (72.4) • Chinese 45 (7.3) • South Asian 63 (10.3) • Other 61 (10.0) Place of birth, n (%) (N = 622) • Born in Canada 470 (75.6) • Other 152 (24.4) Education, n (%) (N = 619) • Have MD 585 (94.5) • Do not have MD 34 (5.5) Certification, n (%) (N = 687) • Have CCFP 542 (78.9) • Certification unknown 145 (21.1) Length of time licensed to practise, y, n (%) (N = 605) • 0–5 115 (19.0) • 6–15 174 (28.8) • ≥ 16 316 (52.2) Mean (SD) h worked per wk (N = 622) 46.4 (17.0) Works overtime, n (%) (N = 687) • Yes 604 (87.9) • Unknown 83 (12.1) Mean (SD) on-call h/mo (N = 539) 70.7 (110.1) Practice type (N = 614) • Interprofessional practice 348 (56.7) • Group practice 224 (36.5) • Solo practice 42 (6.8) Work setting (N = 687) • Family practice teaching unit 195 (28.4) • Other 492 (71.6) Payment model (N = 617) • Fee for service 277 (44.9) • Salary 149 (24.1) • Sessional payment 106 (17.2) • Capitation 85 (13.8) CCFP—Certification in Family Medicine, MD—medical degree.
MENTORSHIP EXPERIENCE AREA OF MENTORSHIP, N (%) OVERALL CAREER CLINICAL TEACHING LEADERSHIP RESEARCH WORK-LIFE BALANCE Type of mentorship received • Formal 23 (3.9) 50 (8.7) 73 (12.4) 36 (6.2) 45 (9.1) 10 (1.7) • Informal 383 (65.1) 293 (50.7) 246 (41.7) 304 (52.4) 155 (31.2) 336 (58.2) • Both 94 (16.0) 165 (28.5) 188 (31.9) 79 (13.6) 81 (16.3) 51 (8.8) • Neither 88 (15.0) 70 (12.1) 83 (14.1) 161 (27.8) 215 (43.4) 180 (31.2) Ever provided mentorship • Yes 468 (75.7) 497 (81.3) 391 (63.5) 255 (41.9) 144 (25.3) 411 (66.7) • No 150 (24.3) 114 (18.7) 225 (36.5) 354 (58.1) 425 (74.7) 205 (33.3) Importance of mentorship in current role • Somewhat or very 387 (61.9) 379 (60.6) 413 (66.1) 362 (57.9) 192 (30.7) 349 (55.8) • Not at all, not very, or neutral 238 (38.1) 246 (39.4) 212 (33.9) 263 (42.1) 433 (69.3) 276 (44.2) Overall mentorship quality • Poor 94 (16.0) 54 (9.3) 67 (11.4) 105 (18.2) 178 (36.6) 117 (20.2) • Fair 143 (24.4) 97 (16.7) 132 (22.4) 156 (27.1) 142 (29.2) 182 (31.5) • Good 156 (26.6) 159 (27.4) 182 (30.9) 174 (30.2) 97 (19.9) 178 (30.8) • Very good 150 (25.6) 188 (32.4) 157 (26.7) 117 (20.3) 48 (9.9) 79 (13.7) • Excellent 44 (7.5) 83 (14.3) 51 (8.7) 24 (4.2) 22 (4.5) 22 (3.8) - Table 3.
Variables associated with overall rating of mentorship quality: Of the 597 total respondents who rated the overall quality of mentorship, 354 respondents rated at least 1 area as very good or excellent.
VARIABLES OVERALL QUALITY OF MENTORSHIP,* N (%) UNADJUSTED ODDS RATIO (95% CI) P VALUE† VERY GOOD OR EXCELLENT POOR, FAIR, OR GOOD Local department Rating of overall support for teaching, research, leadership, mentorship, and career (N = 579) • Very good or excellent 166 (75.1) 55 (24.9) 3.05 (2.11–4.41) < .001 • Poor, fair, or good 178 (49.7) 180 (50.3) Reference Rating of overall recognition of teaching, research, leadership, and mentorship (N = 577) • Very good or excellent 150 (77.3) 44 (22.7) 3.39 (2.29–5.01) < .001 • Poor, fair, or good 192 (50.1) 191 (49.9) Reference Rating of communication (N = 577) • Very good or excellent 217 (74.1) 76 (25.9) 3.68 (2.59–5.23) < .001 • Poor, fair, or good 124 (43.7) 160 (56.3) Reference Rating of leadership (N = 567) • Very good or excellent 194 (70.5) 81 (29.5) 2.53 (1.79–3.58) < .001 • Poor, fair, or good 142 (48.6) 150 (51.4) Reference Rating of effort to attract and retain the best academic leaders (eg, undergraduate, postgraduate, professional development, and research directors) (N = 520) • Very good or excellent 182 (71.9) 71 (28.1) 2.70 (1.88–3.89) < .001 • Poor, fair, or good 130 (48.7) 137 (51.3) Reference Rating of mission, vision, and values (N = 518) • Very good or excellent 216 (73.5) 78 (26.5) 3.50 (2.42–5.06) < .001 • Poor, fair, or good 99 (44.2) 125 (55.8) Reference Rating of workload and practice (N = 533) • Very good or excellent 131 (77.1) 39 (22.9) 3.13 (2.07–4.72) < .001 • Poor, fair, or good 188 (51.8) 175 (48.2) Reference Rating of teamwork (N = 527) • Very good or excellent 226 (70.0) 97 (30.0) 2.89 (2.01–4.17) < .001 • Poor, fair, or good 91 (44.6) 113 (55.4) Reference Rating of physician involvement in programs and planning (N = 529) • Very good or excellent 181 (78.7) 49 (21.3) 4.25 (2.88–6.27) < .001 • Poor, fair, or good 139 (46.5) 160 (53.5) Reference Rating of resource distribution for clinical work, teaching, and research (N = 509) • Very good or excellent 153 (76.1) 48 (23.9) 3.15 (2.12–4.66) < .001 • Poor, fair, or good 155 (50.3) 153 (49.7) Reference Rating of remuneration (N = 521) • Very good or excellent 153 (71.8) 60 (28.2) 2.45 (1.70–3.56) < .001 • Poor, fair, or good 157 (51.0) 151 (49.0) Reference Rating of respect (N = 557) • Very good or excellent 240 (74.5) 82 (25.5) 4.47 (3.11–6.42) < .001 • Poor, fair, or good 93 (39.6) 142 (60.4) Reference Main practice setting Rating of main practice setting with regard to infrastructure support (N = 571) • Very good or excellent 158 (73.8) 56 (26.2) 2.62 (1.81–3.79) < .001 • Poor, fair, or good 185 (51.8) 172 (48.2) Reference Teaching activities Participated in clerkship teaching activities (N = 597) • Ever 214 (63.5) 123 (36.5) 1.49 (1.07–2.07) .02 • Never 140 (53.8) 120 (46.2) Reference Participated in resident teaching activities (N = 597) • Ever 271 (62.4) 163 (37.6) 1.60 (1.11–2.30) .01 • Never 83 (50.9) 80 (49.1) Reference Professional development Importance of academic career development and promotion (N = 597) • Somewhat important or very important 125 (69.4) 55 (30.6) 1.87(1.29–2.70) < .001 • Not at all, not very, or neutral 229 (54.9) 188 (45.1) Reference Leadership Have taken a graduate degree related to leadership (N = 597) • Yes 190 (65.3) 101 (34.7) 1.63 (1.17–2.27) .004 • No 164 (53.6) 142 (46.4) Reference Likelihood of participating in a workshop or training program on team building (N = 597) • Somewhat likely or very likely 140 (67.6) 67 (32.4) 1.72 (1.21–2.45) .003 • Not at all, not very, or neutral 214 (54.9) 176 (45.1) Reference Mentorship Frequency with which mentoring was received (N = 597) • Monthly or more often 326 (62.8) 193 (37.2) 3.02 (1.84–4.95) < .001 • Less than monthly 28 (35.9) 50 (64.1) Reference Rating of importance of receiving work-life balance mentoring in current role (N = 597) • Somewhat important or very important 139 (66.8) 69 (33.2) 1.63 (1.15–2.32) .006 • Not at all, not very, or neutral 215 (55.3) 174 (44.7) Reference Burnout Mean (SD) Maslach Burnout Inventory rating for Emotional Exhaustion subscale‡ (N = 595) 19.14 (10.33)§ 21.39 (11.97)‖ 0.98 (0.97–0.99) .01¶ Mean (SD) Maslach Burnout Inventory rating for Personal Accomplishment subscale# (N = 595) 6.56 (5.87)§ 7.79 (6.39)‖ 0.97 (0.94–0.99) .02¶ Job satisfaction Overall rating of job satisfaction (N = 595) • Satisfied or very satisfied 204 (67.1) 100 (32.9) 1.94 (1.40–2.71) < .001 • Very dissatisfied, dissatisfied, or not sure 149 (51.2) 142 (48.8) Reference Rating of quality of local department as a place to practise medicine (N = 530) • Very good or excellent 192 (75.9) 61 (24.1) 3.56 (2.45–5.17) < .001 • Poor, fair, or good 130 (46.9) 147 (53.1) Reference Likelihood of recommending local department to another physician or new recruit (N = 595) • Somewhat likely or very likely 311 (63.6) 178 (36.4) 2.66 (1.73–4.10) < .001 • Uncertain, somewhat, or very unlikely 42 (39.6) 64 (60.4) Reference Health status Self-rated stress at work in the past year (N = 594) • Not at all, not very, or a bit stressful 291 (61.9) 179 (38.1) 1.63 (1.09–2.42) .02 • Quite stressful or extremely stressful 62 (50.0) 62 (50.0) Reference Self-rated stress in life in the past year (N = 594) • Not at all, not very, or a bit 301 (61.9) 185 (38.1) 1.75 (1.15–2.67) .01 • Quite stressful or extremely stressful 52 (48.1) 56 (51.9) Reference Demographic and practice characteristics Length of time licensed for independent practice, y,** (N = 577) • 0–5 82 (71.9) 32 (28.1) 1.97 (1.26–3.08) .003 • ≥ 6 262 (56.6) 201 (43.4) Reference Mean (SD) faculty member age, y, (N = 576) 45.76 (10.39)†† 49.54 (10.48)‡‡ 0.97 (0.95–0.98) < .001 Work in family practice teaching unit (N = 597) • Yes 128 (67.4) 62 (32.6) 1.65 (1.15–2.37) .006 • No 226 (55.5) 181 (44.5) Reference ↵* Obtained from the question, “How would you rate the overall quality of the mentoring that you have received in each of the following areas?” The 6 areas included overall career, clinical, teaching, leadership, research, and work-life balance. A composite outcome was created by dichotomizing responses into individuals who rated overall mentorship quality to be very good or excellent in any of the 6 areas versus those who did not rank any of the mentoring received as very good or excellent.
↵† Using
2 test.↵‡ A measure of feelings of being overextended and exhausted by work. Higher scores indicate higher emotional exhaustion (range 0 to 54).
↵§ N = 353.
↵‖ N = 242.
↵¶ Using t test.
↵# A measure of feelings of successful achievement in work. Higher scores indicate less personal accomplishment (range 0 to 48).
↵** Junior faculty member was defined in the questionnaire as licensed to practise for 0–5 y, in contrast to ≥ 6 y.
↵†† N = 342.
↵‡‡ N = 234.
- Table 4.
Final logistic regression model of variables associated with receiving high-quality mentorship (rating of very good or excellent): Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test = 0.26; ρ2 (McFadden pseudo R2) = 0.12 (values between 0.2 and 0.4 suggest a very good fit); N = 557.
VARIABLES ADJUSTED ODDS RATIO (95% CI)* P VALUE Composite ratings of local department† • Very good or excellent 4.02 (2.47–6.54) < .001 • Good, fair, or poor Reference Rating of main practice setting with regard to infrastructure support‡ • Very good or excellent 1.86 (1.23–2.80) .003 • Good, fair, or poor Reference Frequency with which mentoring was received • Monthly or more often 2.78 (1.59–4.89) < .001 • Less than monthly Reference Length of time licensed for independent practice, y§ • 0–5 1.93 (1.19–3.12) .007 • ≥ 6 Reference Work in family practice teaching unit • Yes 1.51 (1.01–2.27) .040 • No Reference ↵* Odds ratios after adjustment for all other variables in the model. An odds ratio > 1 indicates increased likelihood of faculty rating the quality of mentorship as being very good or excellent. For example, faculty who were licensed for ≤ 5 y were almost twice as likely to report that they had received very good or excellent mentorship than faculty who were licensed for ≥ 6 y were, after adjusting for all of the other variables in the model.
↵† An overall composite rating of their local department by faculty. It includes the 12 individual composite constructs from Table 3, such as ratings of support, recognition, communication, etc.
↵‡ A composite variable that included the quality of information systems; process for space allocation; up-to-date equipment; support from other family physicians; support from consultants; quality of nursing support; quality of clinical administrative support; and quality of academic administrative support.
↵§ Junior faculty member was defined in the questionnaire as licensed to practise for 0–5 y, in contrast to ≥ 6 y.
