Prevalence of faculty mentoring programs in anesthesiology and medical schools in the US and their association with federal research funding.

BACKGROUND: While mentoring programs have demonstrated success for faculty development, reported rates of formal mentoring programs vary for specific programs as well as academic medical institutions overall. The aim of this paper was to evaluate the overall prevalence of faculty mentoring programs and faculty development offices in anesthesiology departments and at academic medical schools and assess the association between those with mentoring programs and faculty development support and NIH funding.

METHODS: This study used publicly available data from program and institutional websites to record the presence of faculty mentoring programs and faculty development offices in anesthesiology departments as well as both formal and informal mentoring activities and whether there were offices and deans specifically related to faculty development at the institutional level. Data on NIH funding of anesthesiology departments were recorded from the Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research rankings of medical schools and their departments. Cramer's V was used to evaluate the association between NIH funding and the presence of mentoring programs offered by the department and/or institution. Logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between total NIH funding of ranked programs (categorized as above or below median of funding) and presence of mentoring programs.

RESULTS: The study included 164 US anesthesiology programs, of which 33% had NIH funding. Only 10% of anesthesiology programs had faculty mentoring programs and 29% had offices or leadership positions related to faculty development. At the institutional level, 59% had formal mentoring programs, 73% offered informal mentoring activities, and 77% had offices or deans related to faculty development. Seventy-four percent (74%) of anesthesiology departments offering mentoring resources had NIH funding, compared to only 26% of departments without such resources. For anesthesiology departments with NIH funding, departments in the upper median of funded programs were much more likely to have departmental mentoring resources (OR = 1.429.08; 95% CI: 1.721.03-1.9748.99). Departmental NIH funding was not significantly associated with institutional level presence of formal mentoring programs (OR = 0.91; 95% CI: 0.0.23-3.65).

CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest an association between the presence of faculty mentoring programs and faculty development support with departmental NIH funding, with the amount of funding associated primarily with department-specific mentoring and faculty development initiatives. Our findings support efforts to create formal mentoring programs and establish offices and other support systems for faculty development and suggest, at least in terms of academic productivity, that efforts should be more focused on department-specific initiatives.