Abstract Title

Assessment of a Faculty Mentoring Program Implemented at the UNT System College of Pharmacy

Presenter Name

Katura C. Bullock

RAD Assignment Number

1905

Abstract

Objectives: As new pharmacy schools continue to be established, design and structure of faculty mentoring programs continues to receive increased attention. Effective mentoring can lead to increased faculty productivity and retention, and enhanced career satisfaction and achievement. Few studies have evaluated pharmacy faculty mentoring programs. The objective of this study was to (1) describe the nature and extent of mentoring relationships established at a new college of pharmacy and (2) compare those relationships based on whether the mentor involved was an on-site or off-site mentor.

Methods: In 2016, a QualtricsTM survey was developed by members of the College Faculty Mentoring Study Group and the Assessment Committee and sent to faculty members with(1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree) and open ended questions. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize responses to both surveys. This study was approved by the IRB.

Results: Of the 13 survey responses, the majority of mentees were female (69%), non tenure track (54%) and had one (38%) or two (54%) mentors. The preferred mentoring type was unstructured but in person (69%) and optimal duration for more than 1 year (54%). Time commitment to partnership was 1-2 hours per month (85%). General attitude towards mentoring was positive (85%). Respondents agreed or strongly agreed that their mentoring partnership increased their confidence in teaching (38%), research (69%) and service (69%). Mean scores were: My mentor was readily available (4.23), My mentor was a good match for me (4.00), I benefited from my mentoring partnership in terms of my personal growth (4.00), I am better prepared to advance my career (4.00) and overall satisfaction with the mentoring process (4.08). A comparison of on-site (77%) vs. off-site (23%) mentors showed a significant difference in responses to the items ‘I benefited from my mentoring partnership in terms of my personal growth’ (on-site mean 4.00 vs. off-site mean 5.00) and ‘My mentoring partnership has increased my work productivity’ (on-site mean 3.44 vs. off-site mean 5.00) (p<.05).

Conclusions: Findings from the faculty mentoring program may assist other health disciplines in planning similar programs. Future research includes aims to compare views on mentoring by clinical vs. non clinical faculty.

Research Area

Other

Presentation Type

Poster

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS
 

Assessment of a Faculty Mentoring Program Implemented at the UNT System College of Pharmacy

Objectives: As new pharmacy schools continue to be established, design and structure of faculty mentoring programs continues to receive increased attention. Effective mentoring can lead to increased faculty productivity and retention, and enhanced career satisfaction and achievement. Few studies have evaluated pharmacy faculty mentoring programs. The objective of this study was to (1) describe the nature and extent of mentoring relationships established at a new college of pharmacy and (2) compare those relationships based on whether the mentor involved was an on-site or off-site mentor.

Methods: In 2016, a QualtricsTM survey was developed by members of the College Faculty Mentoring Study Group and the Assessment Committee and sent to faculty members with(1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree) and open ended questions. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize responses to both surveys. This study was approved by the IRB.

Results: Of the 13 survey responses, the majority of mentees were female (69%), non tenure track (54%) and had one (38%) or two (54%) mentors. The preferred mentoring type was unstructured but in person (69%) and optimal duration for more than 1 year (54%). Time commitment to partnership was 1-2 hours per month (85%). General attitude towards mentoring was positive (85%). Respondents agreed or strongly agreed that their mentoring partnership increased their confidence in teaching (38%), research (69%) and service (69%). Mean scores were: My mentor was readily available (4.23), My mentor was a good match for me (4.00), I benefited from my mentoring partnership in terms of my personal growth (4.00), I am better prepared to advance my career (4.00) and overall satisfaction with the mentoring process (4.08). A comparison of on-site (77%) vs. off-site (23%) mentors showed a significant difference in responses to the items ‘I benefited from my mentoring partnership in terms of my personal growth’ (on-site mean 4.00 vs. off-site mean 5.00) and ‘My mentoring partnership has increased my work productivity’ (on-site mean 3.44 vs. off-site mean 5.00) (p<.05).

Conclusions: Findings from the faculty mentoring program may assist other health disciplines in planning similar programs. Future research includes aims to compare views on mentoring by clinical vs. non clinical faculty.