Article type
Abstract
Background: Mentorship in research is an integral part of nurturing research capacity, professional development, and improving research effectiveness and health equity. With pervasive health inequity, several health research mentorship programs have developed equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) initiatives to ultimately improve patient outcomes with more representative researchers, but much is still not known about how EDI is integrated into the mentorship programming.
Objective: This scoping review aimed to understand the recent landscape of health research mentorship programs for healthcare professionals (HCP) that were designed to improve EDI.
Methods: We performed a scoping review in accordance with JBI methodology for scoping reviews and we registered the protocol via Figshare. We searched Ovid Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE, LILACS, and Scopus for publications without language restrictions from the last 10 years. We included experimental, quasi-experimental, observational, and qualitative designs, and included program reports on formal mentoring programs for HCPs or HCPs in training that were specific to healthcare research. Two reviewers independently screened all titles and abstracts and full-text articles against eligibility criteria. From each report, we extracted attributes of the mentoring programs, including details about recruitment, the pairing process, program outcomes, and the elements of the program that aligned with the PROGRESS-Plus equity framework.
Results: See Figure 1 for our PRISMA Diagram. Our search identified 65 reports of 53 programs. Most programs were in medical and nursing research, were sponsored by universities or professional organizations, and lasted 1-2 years. Most programs used race, gender, or broad definitions of under-represented groups or those in low- and middle-income countries, but not many used other facets of equity named in PROGRESS-Plus such as disability. Clear gaps identified in this review were that EDI theoretical frameworks were not used to support the design of the mentorship programs, and the consideration of EDI aspects when selecting mentors.
Conclusions: We identified several recent health research mentorship programs centered on EDI. There were several key lessons learned about approaches, including how to expand research capacity while supporting mentees and mentors. Future work can evaluate strategies that are most effective for long-term outcomes.
Objective: This scoping review aimed to understand the recent landscape of health research mentorship programs for healthcare professionals (HCP) that were designed to improve EDI.
Methods: We performed a scoping review in accordance with JBI methodology for scoping reviews and we registered the protocol via Figshare. We searched Ovid Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE, LILACS, and Scopus for publications without language restrictions from the last 10 years. We included experimental, quasi-experimental, observational, and qualitative designs, and included program reports on formal mentoring programs for HCPs or HCPs in training that were specific to healthcare research. Two reviewers independently screened all titles and abstracts and full-text articles against eligibility criteria. From each report, we extracted attributes of the mentoring programs, including details about recruitment, the pairing process, program outcomes, and the elements of the program that aligned with the PROGRESS-Plus equity framework.
Results: See Figure 1 for our PRISMA Diagram. Our search identified 65 reports of 53 programs. Most programs were in medical and nursing research, were sponsored by universities or professional organizations, and lasted 1-2 years. Most programs used race, gender, or broad definitions of under-represented groups or those in low- and middle-income countries, but not many used other facets of equity named in PROGRESS-Plus such as disability. Clear gaps identified in this review were that EDI theoretical frameworks were not used to support the design of the mentorship programs, and the consideration of EDI aspects when selecting mentors.
Conclusions: We identified several recent health research mentorship programs centered on EDI. There were several key lessons learned about approaches, including how to expand research capacity while supporting mentees and mentors. Future work can evaluate strategies that are most effective for long-term outcomes.