Mentoring in Global Health: Formative Evaluation of Tuberculosis Research Training Programs in Ethiopia and Georgia

Abstract

Mentoring is a critical component of career development for research scientists and is related to mentee success both in terms of career selection and advancement. However, there are limited data on the role of mentoring in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Cross-cultural mentorship programs have the potential to foster the transfer of knowledge and the development of capacity to resource-poor settings. This formative evaluation explores the cultural context of mentoring in the countries of Georgia and Ethiopia. Results were used to build culturally relevant mentor training programs for two Global Infectious Disease Research Training Programs focused on tuberculosis funded by the Fogarty International Center at the US National Institutes of Health. Four focus group discussions were conducted with research trainees and mentors to explore the perceptions of mentorship, identify obstacles for successful mentoring, and generate recommendations to strengthen mentoring in each program situated in a LMIC. Data revealed the barriers to mentoring in Ethiopia and Georgia included gaps in knowledge about mentoring roles and responsibilities, lack of knowledge about the responsibilities of the trainee in a mentoring relationship, and the need to set clear expectations between mentors and trainees. All of the focus group participants desired formal mentor training. These data informed six key components of the development and implementation of the mentor training programs in both countries. The topics included the following: a foundation in mentoring, establishing expectations between mentees and mentors, increasing interactions between mentees and mentors, additional mentor training, a case study curriculum, and methods of evaluating mentoring relationships.

Championing women working in health across regional and rural Australia – a new dual-mentorship model

“…mentee is matched with an academic expert and a corporate mentor). However, there is strong evidence for the benefits of interdisciplinary perspective and cross-cultural mentorship [ 39 – 42 ]. Hence, choosing a mentorship program which emphasizes the reciprocity and co-learning of a mentoring experiences [ 27 ] adapted to local context was the model that we found most suitable.…”

Emergency medicine doctoral education in Africa: a scoping review of the published literature

“…Supervision concerns and recommendations were directed to both capacity constraints and opportunities to re-think the practice within the African continent [ 16 , 17 , 20 – 24 ]. Common concerns were related to the observation that African universities have limited resources to mimic the doctoral supervision practices of higher-income countries.…”

“…In addition, the inability to prescribe a role definition for supervision leads to the situation where doctoral supervision “excellence” cannot be well described nor replicated [ 22 ]. While the article by Comeau et al described issues relating to mentoring, there are a lot of similarities to supervision [ 20 ]. The authors noted that barriers to mentoring related to the gaps in knowledge about the roles and responsibilities of the mentor and mentee in the formal relationship and a need was outlined to set clear expectations in the relationship [ 20 ].…”

“…While the article by Comeau et al described issues relating to mentoring, there are a lot of similarities to supervision [ 20 ]. The authors noted that barriers to mentoring related to the gaps in knowledge about the roles and responsibilities of the mentor and mentee in the formal relationship and a need was outlined to set clear expectations in the relationship [ 20 ]. The literature suggests that formal training in supervision and mentoring is desired [ 16 , 17 , 20 ].…”

“…The authors noted that barriers to mentoring related to the gaps in knowledge about the roles and responsibilities of the mentor and mentee in the formal relationship and a need was outlined to set clear expectations in the relationship [ 20 ]. The literature suggests that formal training in supervision and mentoring is desired [ 16 , 17 , 20 ]. With the current focus on interdisciplinary approaches to address supervision capacity restraints, a mention was made to be cognizant of the importance of co-supervision [ 17 ] and out-of-departmental expertise [ 27 ].…”