ArticleJAMA network open2026
Research Mentoring During Times of Crisis.
Article in JAMA network open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Mentorship is foundational to the career development of academic physicians. During challenging times, mentees often look to their mentors for additional support and guidance; however, there are few empirical data on best practices for mentoring during times of crisis. Objective: To describe the best practices of award-winning research mentors during challenging times. Design, Setting, and Participants: Our exploratory qualitative study included in-depth interviews with mentors who were internal medicine faculty members and had received a clinical and translational research mentoring award between 2016 and 2024 at the University of Michigan Medical School. A semistructured interview guide was used, and interviews were conducted between July 14 and October 1, 2025, audio recorded, transcribed, and deidentified. Transcripts were analyzed through a descriptive content analysis approach and included both inductive and deductive coding. Main Outcomes and Measures: With the use of audio-recorded interviews, participant views were obtained on effective mentoring strategies in academic medicine focused on mentoring during the current climate of uncertainty related to research funding. Results: In this qualitative study of 15 physician mentors (7 [46.7%] females; 8 [53.3%] males), key themes emerged from the qualitative data, organized into 3 domains: (1) tactical strategies mentors used during challenging times (eg, help mentees identify diverse funding sources, encourage consideration of alternative career options or areas of research focus), (2) psychological strategies used during challenging times (eg, provide emotional support, coach mentees' mindsets), and (3) overall mentoring philosophies and strategies for effective mentoring (eg, provide support and honest feedback, network on behalf of the mentee). Conclusions and Relevance: This qualitative study of notable research mentors identified several strategies and philosophies that may be used to guide mentees during uncertain times. These approaches may transcend a specific crisis and be widely applicable during future challenging times in academic medicine.
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.