ArticleThe American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene2024
Partnering to Improve Mentorship Capacity for Ugandan Reproductive Health Researchers: Program Description and Evaluation.
Article in The American journal of tropical medicine and hygiene, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interdisciplinary collaborative skill development in a health research training program in Zambia.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Impact of a comprehensive two-year research capacity intervention with sexual and reproductive health researchers in Sub-Saharan Africa.Reproductive health · 2025Article
- Strengthening research capacity in Cameroon: qualitative insights on the impact of mentorship, training and funding on receiving seed grants.BMJ public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mentorship is essential to health researchers in achieving their full potential and advancing public health. In most low-resource settings, there is a paucity of training on how to be a successful mentor. The Center for International Reproductive Health Training at the University of Michigan conducted and evaluated a workshop at two universities in Uganda for mentors of new reproductive health research grant awardees. The program aimed to strengthen mentors' mentorship skills and to identify ways to foster institutional support for mentoring. Mentors rated their post-training skills using a 5-point Likert scale (not skilled to extremely skilled) immediately and 3 months after the training. Ten of 19 mentors who participated in the training completed the evaluation. The majority were 41 to 50 years old, male, midcareer faculty. Immediately after the training, mentors rated themselves (mean ± SD) highest in knowledge of research ethics (4.4 ± 0.5), fostering independence in mentees (4.3 ± 0.9), and understanding the benefits of mentoring (3.9 ± 1.1). Mentors felt least confident in fostering institutional change to support mentorship (3.3 ± 0.8), communication (3.5 ± 0.5), and overcoming adversity (3.5 ± 0.8). The two most important things the mentors learned were how to appreciate and manage diversity and how they can benefit from mentorship. Barriers to mentoring that persisted after the program ended included lack of time and institutional resources. Enhancing mentorship training opportunities will foster a generation of scientists who are more supported, skilled, and productive in research, leading to better reproductive and public health outcomes in their communities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.