4.6 Review

The Art and Science of Mentorship in Cardiothoracic Surgery: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Journal

ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY
Volume 113, Issue 4, Pages 1093-1100

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2020.06.051

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. So-ciety of Thoracic Surgeons [K07CA216330]
  2. National Cancer Institute

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This review explores the benefits, qualities, and features of mentorship in cardiothoracic surgery and provides a framework for improving the quality of mentorship.
Background. As academic cardiothoracic surgeons focus on producing a new generation of successful surgeon leaders, mentorship has emerged as one of the most important variables influencing professional and personal success and satisfaction. This review explores the literature to determine the benefits, qualities, and features of the mentor relationship. Methods. A comprehensive review was performed in Register of Controlled Trials, and the SCOPUS Database using 'mentor ' as a primary search term. The titles and abstracts of these publications were then reviewed by 2 of the authors to identify relevant sources addressing topics related to mentorship in cardiothoracic surgery and also to identify 4 specific areas of focus: (1) the value of mentorship, (2) the skills needed to be an effective mentor, (3) effective approaches for identifying and receiving mentorship, and (4) the unique considerations associated with mentor ship for traditionally underrepresented populations in surgery. Results. Of 16,469 articles reviewed, 167 relevant manuscripts were identified, and 62 were included. Conclusions. There is undeniable value in mentorship when navigating a career in cardiothoracic surgery. By sharing the most significant features and skills of both ideal mentors and mentees, this review hoped to provide a framework to improve the quality of mentorship from both sides. (c) 2022 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available