DOI: 10.1161/circ.148.suppl_1.18771 ISSN: 0009-7322

Abstract 18771: Gender, Geographic and Subspeciality Differences in Mentorship in Cardiology: Results of the Global Mentorship Survey

Aaysha Cader, Martha Gulati, Sonya Burgess, Estefania Oliveros, Kristy Robledo, Mirvat Alasnag, Ki Park, Silvia Castelletti, sarita Y rao, Marie-Claude Morice, Rebecca Ortega, Roxana Mehran, Shrilla Banerjee
  • Physiology (medical)
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Introduction: Mentorship is valued among cardiologists for career advancement globally.

Hypothesis: We investigated differences in mentorship characteristics, trends and needs based on gender, continent of practice and cardiology subspeciality.

Methods: An anonymous online survey was distributed globally to cardiologists, current and prospective cardiology trainees, collecting demographic data, mentoring experiences and best mentorship practice. Categorical variables were compared by Pearson's Chi-squared test.

Results: A total 1210 responses, 51% women, 49% men, 0.3% non-binary, with most (33%) from Europe. 57% received mentorship, with no gender differences. Australians (82%) and North Americans (68%) were most likely to receive mentorship, South Americans (43%) and Africans (42%) least likely. Access to mentorship was the most common challenge (70%). Most valued mentor characteristics were trustworthiness, supportiveness and constructive feedback. Mentor ethnicity was deemed irrelevant by majority. More women than men considered their mentors’ gender relevant and placed more importance on work-life balance (p=0.03) and mentoring in pregnancy (p<0.001). Among mentee objectives, professional networking & resource-sharing were most important goals for both genders. Skill development via mentorship was important for both genders but more proceduralists valued this compared to non-proceduralists (53% vs 47% p=0.03). Lack of dedicated time, lack of training/understanding of mentorship and poor communication were key barriers to effective mentorship in both genders. More women than men considered gender differences as a barrier to good mentorship (10% vs 4.4%, p<0.001), Australians and Europeans perceived lack of time, North Americans perceived lack of goal-setting and failure to sponsor as barriers. There was global interest in a mentorship training programme, more among women than men (95% vs 89%, p<0.001).

Conclusions: Mentorship is a valued for career and professional development, despite global variations in access to mentors. Most female cardiologists felt mentorship was beneficial to advise work life balance and during pregnancy. Mentoring training needs to be made available globally within cardiology.

More from our Archive