No abstract

This integrative literature review synthesizes the primary research evidence on mentoring female health academics published from 2000 to 2018, to identify the benefits, enablers and barriers to mentoring women. The need for this review is underpinned by the magnitude of change in higher education, the high number of women in health disciplines, limited progress in advancing women’s academic careers, escalating role expectations, faculty shortages and staff turnover. Data were sourced from Scopus, PubMed, EMBASE and Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature. Twenty-seven studies were included. Although effective mentoring facilitates personal and career development, academic craftsmanship, psychosocial support and job satisfaction, it is complicated by organizational factors and personal and relational dynamics. Enablers of mentoring are mentor availability and expertise, supportive relationships, mutuality and responsiveness. Lack of, or inadequate mentoring compromise women’s job satisfaction, career development and academic productivity. Providing female health academics access to experienced, well-connected mentors with common interests who are committed to advancing their career, is an investment in optimizing potential, promoting supportive work environments and increasing productivity and retention. Realizing the institutional potential that mentoring female health academics offers, is contingent on academic leaders valuing mentorship as faculty business and understanding the role that the contemporary academic environment plays in achieving mentoring outcomes. Further empirical and longitudinal research is needed to evaluate effective approaches for mentoring women in the contemporary academic environment.

Issue addressed Physical inactivity is a leading risk factor for disease burden and premature mortality. Interventions to increase physical activity are common, though few examples of multi‐strategy, wide‐scale community programs exist. Active Launceston is a community‐wide program aimed at improving health and well‐being through physical activity. We report on the process evaluation of Active Launceston and changes in community physical activity participation between 2008 and 2015, as a measure of program effectiveness. Methods Mixed‐method evaluation of Active Launceston combined process evaluation—consisting of participant numbers, socio‐demographic characteristics, campaign awareness, focus groups and stakeholder interviews—with impact evaluation consisting of a random‐sample cross‐sectional serial telephone survey. Results Active Launceston attracted 11 887 attendees, participating in 30 342 sessions, amounting to 38 088 hours of physical activity between 2008 and 2015. Participant focus groups highlighted benefits including increased engagement in exercise, better health and social connectedness. While telephone surveys found the proportion of people participating in any physical activity in the last 12 months to be similar between the 3 years (2008, 77.7%; 2012, 77.1%; 2015, 73.6%), a higher proportion participated in vigorous physical activity in 2012 and 2015 compared to 2008 (P < 0.01), when adjusting for age and gender differences. A higher proportion also achieved sufficient activity for health in 2015 compared to 2008 (P = 0.01). Conclusions Mixed‐method evaluation suggests Active Launceston is an effective community‐wide program supporting community members to engage in regular physical activity and increase levels of social engagement. So what? This work provides a model for implementing high‐reach, community‐wide interventions that improve physical activity outcomes.

No abstract

No abstract