Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34203753›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021

A Model for Strengthening Mentors: Frames and Practices.

Stacy Blake-Beard, Mary Shapiro, Cynthia Ingols

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Stacy Blake-BeardTuck School of Business, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 30755, USA.
Mary ShapiroSchool of Business, Simmons University, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Cynthia IngolsInstitute for Inclusive Leadership, Simmons University, Boston, MA 02155, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The extensive body of literature on mentoring has largely ignored the developmental needs of mentors themselves. This conceptual and practice-oriented paper asks mentors and others to consider the needs of mentors who may or may not arrive ready to deal with the challenges of being effective mentors. The authors ask: how should mentors think about their own growth and development? Drawing on a broad spectrum of academic literatures, three frames are proposed for guiding mentors' thinking about themselves and four practices to spur their continuous improvement. The three frames are a simultaneous dual focus on people and tasks as mentors exercise leadership; an inclusive mind-set that works across the multidimensionality of identities in others and themselves; and a keen sense of the threats and rewards of managing the perceptions of others. We recommend the use of four practices for self-examination: engage in structured self-reflection; participate in standardized assessments to see others and one's self differently; build peer support among colleagues; and ask for feedback in concrete terms. We conclude by offering the benefits and challenges as mentors engage in the difficult work of acquiring in-depth self-awareness.

Indexed as

MentoringMentorsFeedbackHumansLeadershipPerceptiondevelopmentleadershipmentoring

Identifiers

PMID34203753
PMCPMC8296284

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.