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.
