Group peer mentoring is effective for different demographic groups of biomedical research faculty: A controlled trial

Introduction Improved mentoring of midcareer researchers in medical schools has been identified as an important potential avenue for addressing low vitality and high burnout rates in faculty, and the scarcity of both underrepresented minority (URM) faculty and women in biomedical research. To address the need for widescale effective mentoring, we sought to determine whether a group peer mentoring intervention (C-Change Mentoring and Leadership Institute) for early midcareer research faculty was effective for different demographic groups in a controlled trial. Methods and materials Thirty-five diverse early midcareer faculty and 70 propensity-matched (PM) control subjects matched to intervention subjects on a) study inclusion criteria; b) gender, race, and ethnicity, degree, rank, years of experience, publications, grants; and c) pretest survey outcome variables, participated in the intervention. The C-Change Participant Survey assessed vitality, self-efficacy in career advancement, research success, mentoring others, valuing diversity, cognitive empathy, and anti-sexism/anti-racism skills at pretest and intervention completion. Analysis using multiple regression models included outcome pretest values and indicator variables for intervention, gender, URM status, and MD vs. PhD. Hypotheses regarding differential effectiveness of the intervention by demographic group were tested by including cross-product terms between the demographic indicator variables and the intervention indicator. Missing data were addressed using chained equations to create 100 data sets. Results and discussion The intervention participants had significantly higher (favorable) scores than PM controls for: self-assessed change in vitality; self-efficacy for career advancement, research, and mentoring others; cognitive empathy; and anti-sexism/racism skills. The benefits of the intervention were nearly identical across: gender, URM vs non-URM faculty, and degree MD/PhD, except vitality significantly increased for non-URM subjects, and not for URM faculty. Self-assessed change in vitality increased for URM and non-URM. Conclusion The intervention worked successfully for enhancing vitality, self-efficacy and cross-cultural engagement across different demographic groups of biomedical research faculty.