医疗保健研究人员之间的指导关系:社会网络分析。

IF 2.7 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Frontiers in health services Pub Date : 2025-07-17 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.3389/frhs.2025.1514379
Bo Kim, Erin A Pleasants, Jennifer L Sullivan, Amy M Linsky
{"title":"医疗保健研究人员之间的指导关系:社会网络分析。","authors":"Bo Kim, Erin A Pleasants, Jennifer L Sullivan, Amy M Linsky","doi":"10.3389/frhs.2025.1514379","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Mentorship is an active workplace relationship between a mentor and a mentee, aimed at mutual career advancement, which is vital for both employee growth and organizational success. To improve their mentorship structures and processes, organizations must first assess their current practices. Thus, we developed and conducted a cross-sectional survey to evaluate mentorship among employees at a two-site federally funded health services research center.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We surveyed Center investigators and other employees (henceforth \"staff\"), gathering data on mentors, mentees, mentoring relationships, and satisfaction with the Center's mentoring infrastructure. We used social network analysis to examine both formal and informal mentoring relationships and assessed the association of employee connectedness in these networks with reported satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 120 respondents (62.2% response rate). A greater percentage of investigators, compared to staff, had at least one formal mentor (55.8% vs. 25.0%) and one formal mentee (57.7% vs. 10.3%), and investigators had more informal mentors within the Center than staff (4.94 vs. 3.59, <i>p</i> = 0.0485). Investigators reported higher satisfaction with mentorship compared to staff (6.63 vs. 5.25, <i>p</i> = 0.002) and had more formal mentoring relationships with other investigators than staff had with other staff (0.06 vs. 0.01 degree centrality, <i>p</i> < 0.0001). Combining formal and informal mentorship across both investigators and staff, compared to formal mentorship alone, showed fewer degrees of separation (1.32 vs. 3.41 mean distance, <i>p</i> < 0.0001). For the combined formal and informal mentorship network across both investigators and staff, satisfaction with mentoring was associated with having more connections with network members who were connected with each other (<i>r</i> = 0.998, <i>p</i> < 0.0001).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>To foster connections among employees, research organizations may create opportunities for open communication and collaborative problem-solving. Our survey and findings are timely given the growing emphasis on mentorship's importance for successful careers, motivated employees, and workplace productivity.</p>","PeriodicalId":73088,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in health services","volume":"5 ","pages":"1514379"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12310661/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mentorship among healthcare researchers: a social network analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Bo Kim, Erin A Pleasants, Jennifer L Sullivan, Amy M Linsky\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/frhs.2025.1514379\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Mentorship is an active workplace relationship between a mentor and a mentee, aimed at mutual career advancement, which is vital for both employee growth and organizational success. To improve their mentorship structures and processes, organizations must first assess their current practices. Thus, we developed and conducted a cross-sectional survey to evaluate mentorship among employees at a two-site federally funded health services research center.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We surveyed Center investigators and other employees (henceforth \\\"staff\\\"), gathering data on mentors, mentees, mentoring relationships, and satisfaction with the Center's mentoring infrastructure. We used social network analysis to examine both formal and informal mentoring relationships and assessed the association of employee connectedness in these networks with reported satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 120 respondents (62.2% response rate). A greater percentage of investigators, compared to staff, had at least one formal mentor (55.8% vs. 25.0%) and one formal mentee (57.7% vs. 10.3%), and investigators had more informal mentors within the Center than staff (4.94 vs. 3.59, <i>p</i> = 0.0485). Investigators reported higher satisfaction with mentorship compared to staff (6.63 vs. 5.25, <i>p</i> = 0.002) and had more formal mentoring relationships with other investigators than staff had with other staff (0.06 vs. 0.01 degree centrality, <i>p</i> < 0.0001). Combining formal and informal mentorship across both investigators and staff, compared to formal mentorship alone, showed fewer degrees of separation (1.32 vs. 3.41 mean distance, <i>p</i> < 0.0001). For the combined formal and informal mentorship network across both investigators and staff, satisfaction with mentoring was associated with having more connections with network members who were connected with each other (<i>r</i> = 0.998, <i>p</i> < 0.0001).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>To foster connections among employees, research organizations may create opportunities for open communication and collaborative problem-solving. Our survey and findings are timely given the growing emphasis on mentorship's importance for successful careers, motivated employees, and workplace productivity.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73088,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in health services\",\"volume\":\"5 \",\"pages\":\"1514379\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12310661/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in health services\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/frhs.2025.1514379\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in health services","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/frhs.2025.1514379","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导读:师徒关系是指导者和被指导者之间的一种积极的职场关系,旨在共同的职业发展,这对员工成长和组织成功都至关重要。为了改进他们的指导结构和过程,组织必须首先评估他们当前的实践。因此,我们开发并进行了一项横断面调查,以评估联邦资助的两个地点的卫生服务研究中心的员工之间的师友关系。方法:我们调查了中心调查员和其他员工(以下简称“员工”),收集了关于导师、被徒弟、指导关系以及对中心指导基础设施满意度的数据。我们使用社会网络分析来检查正式和非正式的师徒关系,并评估这些网络中的员工连通性与报告满意度的关联。结果:调查对象120人,回复率62.2%。与工作人员相比,调查人员至少有一名正式导师(55.8% vs. 25.0%)和一名正式指导者(57.7% vs. 10.3%)的比例更高,调查人员在中心内的非正式导师比工作人员多(4.94 vs. 3.59, p = 0.0485)。调查人员对师徒关系的满意度高于员工(6.63 vs. 5.25, p = 0.002),与其他调查人员的师徒关系比员工与其他员工的师徒关系更正式(0.06 vs. 0.01度中心性,pp r = 0.998, p)。讨论:为了培养员工之间的联系,研究机构可能会创造开放沟通和合作解决问题的机会。我们的调查和发现是及时的,因为人们越来越强调导师对成功的职业、积极的员工和工作效率的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Mentorship among healthcare researchers: a social network analysis.

Mentorship among healthcare researchers: a social network analysis.

Mentorship among healthcare researchers: a social network analysis.

Introduction: Mentorship is an active workplace relationship between a mentor and a mentee, aimed at mutual career advancement, which is vital for both employee growth and organizational success. To improve their mentorship structures and processes, organizations must first assess their current practices. Thus, we developed and conducted a cross-sectional survey to evaluate mentorship among employees at a two-site federally funded health services research center.

Methods: We surveyed Center investigators and other employees (henceforth "staff"), gathering data on mentors, mentees, mentoring relationships, and satisfaction with the Center's mentoring infrastructure. We used social network analysis to examine both formal and informal mentoring relationships and assessed the association of employee connectedness in these networks with reported satisfaction.

Results: There were 120 respondents (62.2% response rate). A greater percentage of investigators, compared to staff, had at least one formal mentor (55.8% vs. 25.0%) and one formal mentee (57.7% vs. 10.3%), and investigators had more informal mentors within the Center than staff (4.94 vs. 3.59, p = 0.0485). Investigators reported higher satisfaction with mentorship compared to staff (6.63 vs. 5.25, p = 0.002) and had more formal mentoring relationships with other investigators than staff had with other staff (0.06 vs. 0.01 degree centrality, p < 0.0001). Combining formal and informal mentorship across both investigators and staff, compared to formal mentorship alone, showed fewer degrees of separation (1.32 vs. 3.41 mean distance, p < 0.0001). For the combined formal and informal mentorship network across both investigators and staff, satisfaction with mentoring was associated with having more connections with network members who were connected with each other (r = 0.998, p < 0.0001).

Discussion: To foster connections among employees, research organizations may create opportunities for open communication and collaborative problem-solving. Our survey and findings are timely given the growing emphasis on mentorship's importance for successful careers, motivated employees, and workplace productivity.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信