Accepted Manuscript

A literature review of mentorship programs in academic nursing

Lorelli Nowell, Jill M. Norris, Kelly Mrklas, Deborah E. White

PII: S8755-7223(16)30044-8
DOI: doi: 10.1016/j.profnurs.2017.02.007
Reference: YJPNU 1041
To appear in: Journal of Professional Nursing
Received date: 20 June 2016
Revised date: 20 January 2017
Accepted date: 22 February 2017

Please cite this article as: Lorelli Nowell, Jill M. Norris, Kelly Mrklas, Deborah E.
White , A literature review of mentorship programs in academic nursing. The address
for the corresponding author was captured as affiliation for all authors. Please check if
appropriate. Yjpnu(2017), doi: 10.1016/j.profnurs.2017.02.007

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As
a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The
manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before
it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may
be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the
journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

A literature review of mentorship programs in academic nursing

Correspondence to L. Nowell:
E-mail: lnowell@ucalgary.ca
Phone: 1(403)282-8626
Faculty of Nursing, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, AB, Canada,
T2N 1N4

Lorelli Nowell, MN, RN

T
Doctoral candidate

IP
Faculty of Nursing, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada

Jill M. Norris, MSc, ACC

CR
Scientific Writer
Faculty of Nursing, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada,

US
Kelly Mrklas, MSc
Knowledge Translation Implementation Scientist
Research Priorities and Implementation, Research Innovation and Analytics, Alberta Health
AN
Services, Calgary, AB, Canada
Doctoral student
Department of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of
M

Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada

Deborah E. White, PhD, RN

ED

Associate Professor, Associate Dean (Research)

Faculty of Nursing, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada,
PT
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Abstract

Background: Nursing education institutions have issued recurring, global calls for mentorship;

however, evidence-based program development guidance is scarce. To date, there are no

comprehensive syntheses of current mentorship models, objectives, and program components to

inform mentorship program development in nursing academia. The purpose of this review is to

T
IP
identify published articles that (1) described models for mentoring programs for academic

nurses, and (2) described the objectives and core components of these programs.

CR
Method: A systematic search of five databases (Medline, CINAHL, Embase, ERIC, and

US
PsycINFO) was conducted to identify articles describing mentorship programs for academic

nurses. Program objectives and components were extracted and narratively synthesized to
AN
identify important patterns and themes across mentorship programs.
M

Results: A total of 34 articles describing 30 mentorship programs were identified. Mentoring

models included dyad, peer, group, online, distance, learning partnerships, highly relevant, and
ED

constellation mentorship models. Key mentoring program components included: (a) having a
PT

program coordinator; (b) orientation to the program; (c) selectively matching dyads; (d)

developing clear purpose and goals; (e) frequent communication between mentors and mentees;
CE

(f) faculty development workshops; (g) mentee reflective journaling; (h) facilitation of
AC

socialization and networking opportunities; and (i) administrative support.

Conclusions: In synthesizing the mentorship literature in academic nursing it is apparent that

mentorship models and mentorship components look different in every setting with no empirical

evidence that one mentorship model is more effective than another. Given the significant

resources required to support mentorship innovations, understanding the benefits and

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

shortcomings of various mentorship components can help ensure scarce resources are invested in

the most effective mentorship strategies.

Keywords

Mentorship, Nursing, Academia, Faculty, Literature review, Evidence-based mentorship

T
Introduction

IP
Mentorship in nursing academia has been identified as a potential way to help address the global

CR
shortage of nursing faculty (World Health Organization, 2006). Mentorship provides structured

US
guidance to new nursing faculty and may prevent the premature departure of those with nursing

leadership potential (Dunham-Taylor, Lynn, Moore, McDaniel, & Walker, 2008). Several
AN
studies have identified the need for mentoring programs to facilitate recruitment and retention of
M

nursing faculty (Huybrecht, Loeckx, Quaeyhaegens, De Tobel, & Mistiaen, 2011; Kanaskie,

2006; Nick et al., 2012; Ronsten, Andersson, & Gustafsson, 2005; Sawatzky & Enns, 2009).
ED

Recommendations arising from a systematic review on strategies to address the nursing faculty
PT

shortage advised implementing mentorship programs for new nursing faculty to improve

retention (Wyte-Lake, Tran, Bowman, Needleman, & Dobalian, 2013).

CE
AC

Confusion exists regarding the nature, definitions, and role of mentorship within nursing and

across the broader literature. For the purpose of this literature review mentorship is defined as a

developmental, empowering, and nurturing relationship that extends over a period of time in

which mutual sharing, learning, and growth occur in an atmosphere of respect, collegiality, and

affirmation (Vance & Olson, 1998).

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

To date, there is a lack of high-quality, synthesis-level evidence describing current mentorship

models, objectives, and program components in nursing academia, despite recurrent calls for

mentorship programs. Given the potential importance of mentoring in nursing academia, our

aims were to identify published articles that (1) described models for mentoring programs for

T
academic nurses, and (2) described the objectives and core components of these programs. The

IP
synthesis of this literature may be useful to institutions initiating mentorship programming.

CR
US
Methods AN
Aim

The study aim was to identify peer reviewed and non-peer reviewed works describing the
M

objectives and core components of mentoring programs for academic nurses.

ED

Design
PT

This literature review was developed according to the guidance for narrative syntheses (Popay et
CE

al., 2006), Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)

(Moher, 2009) and the Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative
AC

Research (ENTREQ) (Tong, Flemming, McInnes, Oliver, & Craig, 2012) reporting guidelines.

Search methods

Electronic searches were conducted in Medline, CINAHL, Embase, ERIC, and PsycINFO

databases from inception of each database to November 2015, without limitation on study

design, publication year, status, or language. A search to identify grey literature (non-peer
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

reviewed works) was undertaken by scanning ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Index to

Theses, and mentorship conference proceedings. A structured search strategy was used in

Medline and modified according to the indexing systems of the other databases: mentor* AND

(nursing OR nurs*) AND (nursing faculty OR faculty OR University OR instructor OR college

OR academic OR educator). The bibliographies of retrieved articles were reviewed for relevant

T
citations.

IP
CR
The initial search yielded 3001 articles, screened independently and in duplicate by two

reviewers using the title and abstract to assess inclusion. No non-English literature was

US
identified in our search. Articles were excluded if they focused on mentorship of non-nursing
AN
academics, mentorship of students, or mentorship of professionals outside of academia. A total

of 415 articles were identified as potentially relevant and retrieved in full text for comprehensive
M

review. Articles were included if the authors (a) described a mentoring program, defined as a
ED

formal activity or series of activities supporting the personal and/or professional development of

nursing faculty members, and (b) the mentorship program was for nursing faculty. A total of 34
PT

articles describing 30 mentorship programs met the inclusion criteria and were submitted to
CE

systematic data extraction and narrative synthesis (Popay et al., 2006).

AC

Results

Figure 1 illustrates the flow of literature throughout the review. For each included article, the

stated objectives and components of the mentorship programs were extracted. When more than

one article described the same mentorship program, reports were combined to represent one

mentorship program.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

T
IP
CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC

Figure 1. Flow chart of articles included in the review

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Settings and Participants

The majority of articles described mentoring programs implemented in US-based schools (n =

27). Literature on mentorship programs in Canada (n = 4), Australia (n = 1) and the United

Kingdom (n = 1) was also identified. A single article described a mentorship program with US

T
mentors supporting nursing faculty based in Israel (Medoff-Cooper & Dekeyser, 1998). The

IP
participants in all articles were nursing faculty, with the exception of nine articles, in which the

CR
number or type of mentorship participants were not reported (Alteen, Didham, & Stratton, 2009;

Brannagan & Oriol, 2014; Cangelosi, 2004; Gilbert & Womack, 2012; Medoff-Cooper &

US
Dekeyser, 1998; Records & Emerson, 2003; Slimmer, 2012; Suplee & Gardner, 2009). Only one
AN
article included a detailed description of mentorship participant demographics (Heinrich &

Oberleitner, 2012).
M
ED

Mentoring Models

Several mentoring models were described in the reviewed articles, including dyad mentorship,
PT

peer mentorship, group mentorship, distance mentorship, learning partnership mentorship, highly
CE

relevant mentorship, and constellation mentorship.

AC

Dyad mentorship model

The traditional dyad model of mentorship, where mentees are paired with more experienced

mentors, was the most frequently mentioned mentoring model. Successful mentoring dyads

required active participation in the mentoring relationship, with equal responsibility between the

mentor and mentee, as well as institutional and collegial support (Owens, Herrick, & Kelley,
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1998). Snelson et al. (2002) reported that mentoring dyads unanimously endorsed continuation

of the mentoring program and suggested that mentor/mentee pairing based on similar clinical

specialties was appropriate. White, Brannan, and Wilson (2010) and Wilson, Brannan, and

White (2010) concluded that developing reciprocal relationship with open communication was

essential for successful dyad mentorship; however, ‘success’ was neither defined nor measured.

T
IP
Peer mentorship model

CR
In seven articles, the use of a peer mentorship model was described. Peer mentoring models

consisted of two or more faculty members, similar in experience or rank, interacting as equal

US
partners and mentors to achieve mutually determined goals. Colling, Grabo, Rowe, and Straneva
AN
(1998) distinguished peer mentoring as being a collaborative process in which each member

mentors the others by providing guidance, expertise, support, counsel, and advice. Peer
M

mentoring was reported to bring out each members’ finest skills, provide opportunities to pool
ED

members’ knowledge, and strengthen their relationships (Colling et al., 1998; Jacelon, Zucker,

Staccarini, & Henneman, 2003), but these findings were not empirically measured. Lewallen,
PT

Crane, Letvak, Jones, and Hu (2003) suggested that peer mentorship provided a safe
CE

environment for expressing feelings of stress and helped decrease stress by allowing members to

complete scholarly work in a supportive group setting, while considering specific strategies to
AC

ensure the success of all members; however, ‘success’ was neither defined nor quantified.

Group mentorship model

Group mentoring was described in five of the articles. The group mentoring model involved one

mentor supporting a group of interdependent people (mentees) who held themselves individually
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

and collectively accountable to a common purpose of learning and development (Mathew-Maich

et al., 2007). Blauvelt and Spath (2008) reported that group mentoring provided opportunities

for discussion and socialization, encouragement and support, and mentees found benefit in

having a consistent and identified person to access for questions and concerns. Group mentoring

was found to optimize resource use by providing training and a supportive network for a diverse

T
group of clinical faculty.

IP
CR
Constellation mentoring model

Five articles described constellation mentoring models. Constellation mentoring models are

US
comprised of one mentee who has more than one mentor, where the multiple mentors take active
AN
interest and action to advance the mentees career by assisting with both personal and

professional development (Higgins & Thomas, 2001). Anecdotally, Hadidi, Lindquist, and
M

Buckwalter (2013) discuss constellation mentoring as allowing the chance for mentees to
ED

experience mentors with different styles of mentoring and leadership, which provided for a rich

and in-depth understanding of the multiple ways of enacting nursing leadership. Furthermore,
PT

mentees with both local and national mentors provided the mentee with greater opportunities to
CE

expand their networks (Conn, 2013). Anecdotally constellation mentoring appears to have

positive impact; however, outcomes or successes for the constellation mentoring model were not
AC

measured.

Distance mentoring model

Online distance mentoring models were described in four of the articles. In one mentorship

program, mentors and mentees were introduced to each other in an online virtual meeting and
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

were encouraged to maintain communication via email, telephone, or online video conferencing

(Brannagan & Oriol, 2014). In other programs, mentors and mentees first met face-to-face, then

communicated using technology to overcome the distance (Lasater et al., 2014; Mahara et al.,

2005; Nick et al., 2012). Lasater et al. (2014) hypothesized that online mentoring could be used

to support faculty in under-resourced nursing programs, and could support mid-career nursing

T
faculty who may benefit more from a mentoring relationship with a distance mentor than a local

IP
one. Mahara et al. (2005) suggested that mentoring through technology provided the opportunity

CR
for frequent access and allowed mentoring participants to contact each other at any time.

Although technology provided opportunities for mentors and mentees to overcome distance,

US
none of the articles specifically evaluated the distance mentorship model.
AN
Learning partnerships model
M

A learning partnership mentorship model was discussed in a single article (Penman & Willsher,
ED

2007). Learning partnerships are one form of mentorship based on shared ownership, equal

control of learning, and mutual respect (Young & Paterson, 2007). Learning partnership are
PT

focused on building community (Varcoe & McCormick, 2007) and have specific emphasis
CE

placed on learning processes (Penman & Willsher, 2007). A learning partnership mentorship

model was described by Penman and Willsher (2007) in which nursing faculty engaged with one
AC

another in learning through spending time with each other, getting to know each other as

individuals, and being open to learning. However, there was little description of what type of

learning was involved and the learning objectives were not clearly defined. Although this model

may have provided opportunities for developing community, there was no specific evaluation to

demonstrate the overall impact of the learning partnerships.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Highly relevant mentoring model

A single article described the use of a highly relevant mentoring model (Carter et al., 2012),

which builds on concepts of faculty development, just-in-time-teaching (Novak & Middendorf,

2002), immediacy, and social presence (Kim & Bonk, 2010). Highly relevant mentoring is a

T
mentorship model where faculty engage in professional development, as-needed, to accomplish

IP
tasks that hold the greatest relevance for faculty members (Carter et al., 2012). In this

CR
mentorship model, faculty members learn as they work while being provided with practical

opportunities to build skills, rather learning through formal training or participating in learning

US
communities that may not provide the same skills building opportunities (Carter et al., 2012).
AN
Mentors help mentees identify their limitations and areas for skill development while actively

coaching to help mentees achieve skill autonomy (Carter et al., 2012). Having buy in from both
M

mentors and mentees, and selecting mentors with superior interpersonal, mentoring,
ED

communication, and analytical skills were identified as contributing to the effectiveness of the

highly relevant mentorship model (Carter et al., 2012).

PT
CE

Program Objectives

Mentorship program objectives, the comprehensiveness and completeness of reports, and the
AC

inclusion of actionable recommendations within the articles varied widely. Some program

objectives were designed to meet specific needs, while others were designed to be more

comprehensive; most program descriptions were generally vague and lacked key details. This

was exemplified in two papers describing one particular program with a broad and undefined
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

goal to “prepare nursing leaders to transform the future of nursing education” (Lasater et al.,

2014; Nick et al., 2012).

The most common objectives for mentoring programs were (a) to increase the research

productivity of nursing faculty (n = 6); (b) to nurture and develop new nursing faculty, foster

T
retention, and maximize faculty achieving tenure (n = 16); (c) to enhance collegiality and

IP
promote socialization within the faculty (n = 6); and, (d) to facilitate the transition from nurse

CR
clinician to nurse educator (n = 7). The majority of mentorship programs were focused on

mentoring new and junior faculty and four programs specifically focused on supporting faculty

US
through the tenure process (Cangelosi, 2006; Colling et al., 1998; Jacelon et al., 2003; Records &
AN
Emerson, 2003). Although all of the programs had clear objectives, it remains unclear whether

these objectives were accomplished. A summary of the 34 articles included in this literature
M

review is provided in Table 1. Articles are ordered by types of mentoring models.

ED
PT
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
13

Table 1. Summary of Included Articles

Author Country and Institution Mentoring model Mentorship Objectives
(year) participants
Baker US Dyad 11 mentees To provide orientation to the philosophies, goals and general policies
2010 and procedures of the college and nursing department; support novice
Riverside City College faculty into the development of instructional skills; establish a
School of Nursing,
CA

P T
learning community in which novice faculty are supported and
socialized into their role of nurse educator; and retain new educators

Brown
1999
US Dyad 44 mentors
47 mentees
in the nursing program
I
To assist new faculty in adjusting to a new environment and a new

R
position and to support new faculty in developing personally and
University of North
Carolina at Greensboro,
NC
professionally

S C
Byrne et al.
2014
UK

6 healthcare research
Dyad 20 mentees who
were post-doctoral
fellows
U
To provide high quality mentorship to support the next generation of
clinical academic leaders

N
Gilbert
organizations
US Dyad A
( n not mentioned) To support novice educator survival within faculty role expectations,
et al. 2012
University of Arkansas, M retention, and the hope of providing a foundation for future self-
fulfillment within the educator role

Mundt
AR
US Dyad
E D
9 mentees To establish targeted

T
2001 8 mentors mentoring relationships with productive researchers
The University of from institutions outside the home institution to assist

Owens et al.
1998
Louisville, KY
US
E
Dyad P Mentees= 24 nurse
educators
faculty with research program development
Graduate faculty development

Southern Council of

C
Collegiate Education in
Nursing
C representing 10
southern states
Mentors= 24

A
(Loyola University, IL;
University of North
Carolina, NC; University
doctoral-prepared
faculty members

of Alabama, AL)
Records et US Dyad (n not mentioned) To facilitate new faculty’s attainment of tenure, while expediting the
al. 2003 development of a satisfying career in academia.
Washington State
University College of
Nursing, WA
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
14

Slimmer, US Dyad (n not mentioned) To facilitate new faculty members transition from nurse clinician to
2012 nurse educator
Department of To support the implementation of evidence based teaching practices
Biobehavioral Health To encourage the development of teaching scholarship
Science, University of
Illinois at Chicago

Snelson et
College of Nursing, IL
US Dyad 11 mentees
T
To link experienced faculty with new or less experienced teachers to

P
al. 2002
Kent State University
College of Nursing, OH
15 mentors
For a total of 11
mentoring dyads I
provide assistance in adapting to the role of educator and to promote
socialization to the university environment

R
Wilson
2010; White
2010
US Dyad 15 mentors
33 mentees
C
To create and maintain an effective mentoring culture for nurse
educators to enhance faculty and student learning

S
Cangelosi,
2004 and
2006
US

College of Nursing and

Dyad (n not mentioned)

Short term: new U

To help retain and prepare tenure-track faculty in obtaining tenure

N
Health Science at George
Mason University. VA
faculty were paired
with an
A
M
experienced faculty
member who

E D
taught similar
classes
Long term: tenure-

P T track faculty were

assigned to tenured
faculty
Suplee et al.
2009
US

Rutgers University,
E
Dyad and

C
constellation
Mentees = New
nursing faculty
Mentors =
To provide the initial structure for mentorship during the early
transition to the program by providing support, answering questions,
assisting in problem solving, directing mentees to the authoritative

Medoff-
Camden, NJ

US, Israel A C Dyad and group

experienced faculty
members
(n not mentioned)
sources of information, and facilitating networking and then allowing
for the natural evolution of mentoring relationships to occur
To increase the expertise of Israeli nursing faculty in the development
Cooper et al. of grant applications, publications, and abstracts and to develop a
1998 University of National Institutes of Health-supported research project with an
Pennsylvania School of Israeli nursing faculty as principle investigator
Nursing, PA; Henrietta
Szold Hadassah/Hebrew
University, Israel
Bryant et al. US Dyad and peer 31 peer mentor To enhance the experience and professional development of newly
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
15

2015 mentorship matches selected scholars and fellows

Hartford Gerontological
Nursing Leaders and
National Hartford Centers
of Gerontological
Nursing Excellence
Alteen et al.
2009
Canada
Western Regional School
Group mentoring (n not mentioned)
T
To facilitate the establishment of relationships among experienced
and novice faculty; assist novice faculty in the transition to a nursing

P
of Nursing in Corner
Brook , NL
I
education role; provide advice, consultation, and expertise to faculty
as needed; and, provide a nurturing learning environment for

R
professional and personal development.
Blauvelt et
al. 2008
US

University of Saint
Group mentoring 9 new nursing
faculty
members (mentees) C
To nurture and develop new faculty and foster faculty retention

S
Mathew-
Maich et al.
Francis, IN
Canada Group mentoring
1 faculty mentor
33 mentees
U
To provide less experienced faculty the opportunity to co-teach with

N
more experienced faculty over a semester
2007 McMaster University,
Mohawk College,
A
Reid et al.
Conestoga College, ON
US Group mentoring 12 mentees M To prepare experienced
2013
Collaboration among 3
nursing programs, MD
E D registered nurses for new roles as part-time clinical teachers

Colling et al.
1998
US

Decker School of Nursing

P T
Peer mentoring 7 nursing faculty
members
To increase the research productivity of faculty
To develop more sophisticated programs of research
Enhance collegiality and comradeship
at Binghamton
University, NY
C E Create an opportunity to mentor less-experienced members in the
research process
Maximize the chances of junior faculty achieving tenure
Cumbie et
al. 2005
US

A C
5 western university
Peer mentoring 21 faculty from
five western
university
To facilitate faculty scholarly productivity through multidisciplinary
and interinstitutional ongoing support, critique, mentoring, and
scholarly exchange.
campuses, 3 academic campuses and three
disciplines academic
disciplines
Heinrich et US Peer mentoring 31 master’s- To increase scholarly output by:
al. prepared clinicians enhancing individuals scholarly skills, cultivating scholarly
2012 University of Louisiana, with research- partnerships among faculty, and building infrastructure that supported
Department of Nursing, focused doctorate and sustained scholarly development
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
16

LA nursing faculty
members
Jacelon et al. US Peer mentoring 4 tenure-track PhD To help each other learn the role of faculty scholar and to provide
2003 prepared nursing discipline, critique, and collegiality for each other with the goals of
University of faculty members at building research careers
Massachusetts School of a large research

Lewallen et
Nursing, MA
US Peer mentoring
intensive university
5 new faculty
T
To create a non-competitive arena where new faculty could discuss

P
al. 2003
University of North
Carolina, NC
members from a
range of ethnic
groups in tenure
R I
their feelings of stress and discover ways to become successful in the
university’s environment.

Mahara et
al. 2005
Canada Distance peer
mentoring
track positions
3 mentors
(mentee n not C
In preparation for the implementation of a new curriculum a

S
mentorship program was set of involving faculty who would be
Aurora College, NT;
North Island College,
University College of the
mentioned)
U
teaching the new curriculum and 3 faculty who had been teaching the
same curriculum at two other Colleges

N
Hadidi et el.
Cariboo, BC
US Constellation Mentee = assistant
A To support the career and leadership development of new faculty in
2013
Hartford Building
professor
M
Mentors = one at
their roles as geriatric faculty and beginning nurse researchers.

Academic Geriatric
Nursing Capacity
postdoctoral scholar
D
the same

E
institution, and the
other was from a

Conn, 2013;
Hickey et el.
program
US
P T
Constellation
different institution
12 mentee
36 mentors
To accelerate the development of the next generation of
academic nurse leaders
2014 The Robert
Wood Johnson
Foundation’s Nurse
C E
Nick et al.
2012;
US
A C
Faculty Scholar Program
Formal distance
mentoring
5 experienced
nurse leaders
To prepare leaders to transform the future of nursing education

Lasater et al. (mentors)

2014 5 emerging nurse
leaders (mentees)
(1 year of the
program)

20 experiences
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
17

nurse leaders
(mentors)
20 emerging nurse
leaders (mentees)
(over 4 years of the
program
Brannagan
2014
US Online mentoring Adjunct nursing
faculty
T
To facilitate involvement in the teaching community, allowing
adjunct nursing faculty to interact with colleagues.

P
Loyola University, New
Orleans School of
Nursing, LA
(n not mentioned)

R I
Carter et al.
2012
Canada

A four campus
Highly relevant
mentoring model
4 mentors with
experience in
instructional design C
To meet the professional development needs of faculty who teach
web-based courses

S
Penman et
al. 2007
University, BC
Australia Learning
partnership
2 nursing lecturers
U
To assist the smooth transition into a university academic role by:

N
discussing personal and academic issues and foster a cooperative
University of South
Australia, SA
A network; boosting morale and increasing motivation; gaining more
insight into teaching approaches and ways to improve the practice of

M teaching.

E D
P T
C E
A C
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Mentorship Program Components

Articles were included if they identified the mentorship components that are currently

incorporated into mentoring programs in nursing academia. Although the articles varied in the

degree to which they described mentorship components, several key components were identified

across multiple programs as detailed below. Table 2 offers a synthesis of the mentorship

T
program components.

IP
CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
19

Table 2. Overview of Mentorship Program Components

matching dyads

communication

Administrative
Clear purpose
Orientation to

Socialization,
development
the program
coordinator

networking
workshops

journaling
Selectively

and goals

Frequent

reflective
Program

support
Faculty

Mentee
Author (year)
Baker 2010
Mentoring model
Dyad x x x

P T x
Brown 1999
Byrne et al. 2014
Cangelosi, 2004, 2006
Dyad
Dyad
Dyad
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

x
R I x

C
Gilbert et al. 2012 Dyad x x x x
Mundt 2001 Dyad x x x x x
Owens et al. 1998
Records et al. 2003
Slimmer, 2012
Dyad
Dyad
Dyad x x
x
x

U
x
x
x
S x
x
x

Snelson et al. 2002

Wilson 2010; White 2010
Suplee et al. 2009
Dyad
Dyad
Dyad, constellation
x

x
A
x
x
x N x x
x x x x x

M
Medoff-Cooper et al. 1998 Dyad, group x x
Bryant et al. 2015 Dyad, peer x x x
Colling et al. 1998 Peer x
Cumbie et al. 2005
Heinrich et al.2012
Jacelon et al. 2003
Peer
Peer
Peer
E D x x

x
x
x
x
Lewallen et al. 2003
Mahara et al. 2005
Alteen et al. 2009
Peer
Distance peer
Group
P T x
x
x
x
x

x x
Blauvelt et al. 2008
Mathew-Maich et al. 2007
Reid et al. 2013
Group

C
Group
Group
E x

x
x
x
x
x
x
x

Conn, 2013; Hickey et el. 2014

Hadidi et el. 2013
Brannagan 2014
A
Nick et al. 2012; Lasater et al. 2014
C Constellation
Constellation
Online
Formal distance
x x
x
x
x
x
x
x

x
x
x
x
x

x
x

x
x
x
Carter et al. 2012 Highly relevant x
Penman et al. 2007 Learning partnership x x x x
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Program coordinator

Brannagan and Oriol (2014) highlighted the use of a mentorship coordinator to direct each step

of the mentorship process and work with assigned mentors. They proposed that no new faculty

positions were required to implement mentoring programs, rather one experienced faculty

member was designated as the coordinator. Slimmer (2012) emphasized that a hallmark of their

T
mentoring program was having a department head whose principle role was to implement the

IP
mentorship program and serve as a primary mentor. In another article a mentorship chairperson

CR
was briefly mentioned, however, no details were provided as to what this role entailed (Snelson

et al., 2002). None of the articles assessed or reported on the effectiveness of the mentorship

coordinator role.
US
AN
Orientation to the mentorship program
M

Slimmer (2012) described individualized orientation as a key component of a mentorship

ED

program, in which mentees engage with their mentors to review the mentorship program, and

identify mentees’ strengths and areas for potential growth. Some mentorship programs (n =3)
PT

were initiated with mentors and mentees meeting for a 2-day orientation to the mentorship
CE

program (details on orientation content, activities and evaluation were not reported) (Gilbert &

Womack, 2012; Lasater et al., 2014; Mahara et al., 2005). Other programs included mentorship
AC

orientation as part of a larger orientation to the university and nursing faculty, where the purpose

of the mentorship program was presented (Blauvelt & Spath, 2008; Penman & Willsher, 2007;

Suplee & Gardner, 2009). To prepare mentors for their role, Brannagan and Oriol (2014) and

Byrne, Topping, Kendall, and Golding (2014) described how mentors attended an education

session focused on mentorship qualities, university expectations of mentors, communication

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

skills necessary for effective mentoring, mentoring resources, and stages of the mentoring

relationship. Regardless of the mentorship model implemented, most programs had some form

of mentorship orientation. None of the articles described mentorship orientation in detail or

included specific comments on if/how the orientation contributed to mentoring program success.

T
Selectively matching dyads

IP
Nick et al. (2012) suggested that appropriate fit between mentors and mentees is an important

CR
aspect for creating a successful mentoring relationship. In some mentorship programs (n =5),

mentors and mentee were paired based on similar educational backgrounds, professional

US
experiences, and teaching assignments (Baker, 2010; Brannagan & Oriol, 2014; Brown, 1999;
AN
Snelson et al., 2002; Suplee & Gardner, 2009). In others, mentees and mentors were matched

based on professional interests, mentee career goals (Hadidi et al., 2013; Mundt, 2001; Records
M

& Emerson, 2003) or on personal requests (Byrne et al., 2014; Conn, 2013; Gilbert & Womack,
ED

2012; Hickey et al., 2014; White et al., 2010; Wilson et al., 2010), allowing mentees to choose

mentors based on specific skills and expertise. Bryant et al. (2015) described a matching process
PT

for a peer mentorship program where mentees were matched based on specific preferences
CE

related to content, methodological expertise, or career trajectory as well as similar expectations

for time commitment and engagement. Owens et al. (1998) did not describe the mentoring
AC

matching process; however, they identified that mentoring relationships were assigned rather

than naturally evolving, resulting in mentors who did not have the required expertise and/or

skills to meet the mentees goals.

Clear mentorship purpose and goals

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

In some mentorship programs (n = 5) the goals and expectations of the mentoring relationships

were predetermined by those who developed the mentorship program (Alteen et al., 2009;

Blauvelt & Spath, 2008; Brown, 1999; Medoff-Cooper & Dekeyser, 1998; Snelson et al., 2002).

In other programs, mentorship participants were encouraged to work together to articulate the

purpose of the mentorship relationship, roles of the participants, and set mentoring goals (Baker,

T
2010; Bryant et al., 2015; Byrne et al., 2014; Hadidi et al., 2013; Lasater et al., 2014; Nick et al.,

IP
2012; Penman & Willsher, 2007; Records & Emerson, 2003; Reid, Hinderer, Jarosinski, Mister,

CR
& Seldomridge, 2013; Slimmer, 2012). As part of mentoring relationship initiation, Owens et al.

(1998) described mentors exploring mentees interests to determine how to meet mentees needs.

US
Together the mentors and mentees co-developed goals and objectives, and created an action plan
AN
for meeting the goals. In a peer mentorship program described by Cumbie, Weinert, Luparell,

Conley, and Smith (2005), its members focused on establishing realistic goals for their individual
M

scholarly development and the group interaction helped members learn to set realistic goals.
ED

Cangelosi (2006) described how mentees, in concert with their mentors, set realistic weekly

scholarship objectives to work towards writing and publishing manuscripts. Authors

PT

recommended that three expectations be addressed early in the mentoring relationship: (a)
CE

reciprocity, (b) time commitments, and (c) planning growth activities (Lasater et al., 2014; Nick

et al., 2012).
AC

Frequent communication between mentors and mentees

Blauvelt and Spath (2008) identified frequent opportunities for mentors and mentee to

communicate, provide ongoing feedback, and evaluation as critical components of the mentoring

process. Participants involved in distance mentoring were encouraged to maintain weekly

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

communication via email, telephone, or online video conferencing to develop stronger

relationships and increase satisfaction with the mentoring process (Brannagan & Oriol, 2014;

Carter et al., 2012; Cumbie et al., 2005; Hadidi et al., 2013; Mahara et al., 2005; Mundt, 2001).

Cangelosi (2004) described how mentors and mentees engaged in frequent communication

through lunch meetings, telephone calls, and emails. These relationships helped mentees feel

T
more comfortable asking questions, engendered a sense of teamwork, and provided more

IP
opportunities for mentees and mentors to learn from each other. In some peer mentoring

CR
programs, the participants firmly committed to biweekly meetings, which helped foster collegial

relationships and created a sense of accountability to mentoring goals (Cumbie et al., 2005;

US
Jacelon et al., 2003). In a mentorship program described by Brown (1999) it was suggested that
AN
dyads meet weekly for a few weeks, then monthly, and then continue to meet periodically to

discuss the mentoring relationship and identify what was or was not working for them.
M

Matthew-Maich et al. (2007) described weekly mentorship meetings throughout the year to
ED

provide opportunities to offer support, share ideas, and plan for future mentorship. In another

mentorship program, mentors and mentees involved in the mentorship program met monthly
PT

throughout the academic year (Gilbert & Womack, 2012). Establishing regular communication
CE

and exchanging frequent feedback was found to help build a supportive mentoring relationship

(Lasater et al., 2014; Nick et al., 2012). Some articles (n =7) did not identify how often mentors
AC

and mentees actually met, but individual dyads were strongly encouraged to meet frequently in

several articles (Baker, 2010; Lewallen et al., 2003; Records & Emerson, 2003; Reid et al., 2013;

Snelson et al., 2002; White et al., 2010; Wilson et al., 2010).

Faculty development workshops

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

In 13 of the 30 included articles, faculty development workshops were identified as an important

component of the mentoring program (Alteen et al., 2009; Cangelosi, 2006; Heinrich &

Oberleitner, 2012; Matthew-Maich et al., 2007; Penman & Willsher, 2007; Slimmer, 2012;

White et al., 2010; Wilson et al., 2010). Cangelosi (2006) described faculty development

workshops aimed at assisting tenure-track faculty in developing programs of scholarship and

T
research and to foster excellence in teaching. Heinrich and Oberleitner (2012) wrote about

IP
faculty development workshops that provided hands-on experiences with scholarly practices.

CR
Mentors also guided mentees to participate in faculty development activities related to their own

self-identified areas of growth including internal workshops, external conferences, or

US
individualized development modules designed by the mentor (Hadidi et al., 2013; Lewallen et
AN
al., 2003; Mundt, 2001; Slimmer, 2012). Others described how a mentee needs assessment was

used to identify workshop topics, including teaching and learning strategies, assessing and
M

evaluating learning outcomes, grant writing seminars, identifying research funding opportunities,
ED

and tenure and promotion procedures (Bryant et al., 2015; Cumbie et al., 2005; Medoff-Cooper

& Dekeyser, 1998; White et al., 2010; Wilson et al., 2010). Reid et al. (2013) mentioned a
PT

formal annual mentoring workshop to assist the faculty members with their first teaching
CE

assignments, however, no details about the workshop were provided. None of the articles

identified the specific contributions that faculty development workshops added to mentoring
AC

programs, nor did they provide any evaluative data assessing the workshops or their outcomes

and/or impacts.

Mentee reflective journaling about their development

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Three mentoring programs were described in five articles involving reflective journaling, which

was a required activity for mentees to identify areas of strength and further growth opportunities

(Lasater et al., 2014; Nick et al., 2012; Penman & Willsher, 2007; White et al., 2010; Wilson et

al., 2010). In one mentoring program, mentees were required to submit reflective journals to

their mentors on a monthly basis (White et al., 2010; Wilson et al., 2010). Mentees in a formal

T
distance mentoring program identified journaling as a significant facilitator in developing a

IP
personal connection with their mentor (Lasater et al., 2014). Journaling was used to help

CR
mentoring relationships evolve, clarify thinking, and as a means for giving and receiving

feedback (Lasater et al., 2014; Nick et al., 2012).

US
AN
Facilitating socialization and networking opportunities

In nine articles, networking and socialization were identified as key components of mentorship
M

programs (Alteen et al., 2009; Conn, 2013; Gilbert & Womack, 2012; Jacelon et al., 2003;
ED

Mundt, 2001; Nick et al., 2012; Records & Emerson, 2003; White et al., 2010; Wilson et al.,

2010). Mentees acknowledged the need for socialization into an academic role, including an
PT

orientation to the teaching role as well as the university environment (White et al., 2010). Peer
CE

mentoring was seen as one way to provide opportunities for collegiality within the faculty and

across the profession (Jacelon et al., 2003). Integration into the culture of an academic setting
AC

can be facilitated through mentorship, providing opportunities to become familiar with unwritten

social norms and expectations (Nick et al., 2012). Wilson et al. (2010) identified that mentors

appreciated the opportunities for connecting and forming collegial relationships with other

faculty members through planned activities that might not have occurred if not for the

mentorship program. Furthermore, these networking opportunities may be helpful in recruiting

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

faculty to serve as mentors in future mentoring programs (Wilson et al., 2010). Conn (2013)

described how constellation mentorship provided mentees the opportunity to greatly expand their

personal networks through working with other scholars and mentors. Mentorship program

meetings, national conferences, and alumni events provided opportunities for mentees to interact

with established leaders in the fields of nursing. The authors implied that mentees would

T
continue to reap benefits of these networking opportunities throughout their careers (Conn,

IP
2013).

CR
Administrative support

US
Administrative support was perceived as a formal acknowledgement of time, workload, and
AN
support of people to coordinate mentorship programs. Colling et al. (1998) acknowledged that

administrative support was critical to mentoring program success, including aspects such as the
M

consideration of mentoring program participation as part of workload and scheduling of

ED

mentorship activities on the school’s master calendar to ensure priority status of the group’s

mentoring efforts. Others have also identified administrative support and commitment as being a
PT

primary component of an effective mentoring program, suggesting that without authentic support
CE

from administration, mentoring programs are likely to struggle (Nick et al., 2012). In four

mentorship programs, faculty received acknowledgment and credit for time spent mentoring, as
AC

demonstrated by promotion and tenure, salary merit criteria, as well as workload calculations

(Nick et al., 2012), honorariums and stipends (Baker, 2010; Mundt, 2001) or books and journals

(Blauvelt & Spath, 2008) .White et al. (2010) reported that given mentorship time commitments,

the mentor role was considered part of the teaching load. Similarly, Brannagan and Oriol (2014)

conveyed that faculty were provided with 50 percent release time from teaching responsibilities
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

to develop the mentorship program, and faculty who regularly served as mentors were provided

with a 20 percent reduction in classes they were teaching to compensate their time investment in

mentorship.

Discussion

T
IP
This review was undertaken to synthesize the evidence for mentorship program models for

academic nurses and to describe the objectives and core components of these programs. Our

CR
findings show that current literature describing nursing mentorship programs is limited when

US
compared to other professional disciplines such as medicine, education, and business. There is a

prominent gap in literature describing mentorship processes, outcome measures, and formal
AN
evaluations of mentorship components. The lack of component evaluation may exist because
M

nursing faculties lack evidence-based guidance about where to begin in developing and

implementing mentorship programs and have not yet contemplated the potential and desired
ED

impacts of program components.

PT

In synthesizing the mentorship literature it is apparent that mentorship models in academic

CE

nursing look different in every setting and, to the best of our knowledge, there is no empirical
AC

evidence that one mentorship model is more effective than another. In a review of mentorship

programs in academic medicine, Kashiwagi, Varkey, and Cook (2013) also found several types

of mentorship models, with the dyad model being the most frequently described. Although the

traditional dyad was most commonly cited, it may not always be a feasible model to

operationalize. The findings from this review indicate that peer mentorship may be a useable

model for mentees who are in a similar career trajectory and are looking for a safe environment
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

to express concerns. In light of the nursing faculty shortage (Benner, Sutphen, Leonard, & Day,

2010; Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, 2011; World Health Organization, 2006),

group mentoring models may help to maximize resources and benefit more mentees than would

be possible with the traditional dyad model. Furthermore, constellation and distance mentoring

models may allow mentees to experience mentors with various skills sets and provide mentees

T
with greater opportunities to expand their networks.

IP
CR
The goals for mentorship programs were most commonly related to nurturing and developing

new faculty and socializing them into the role of educator. Other goals included the

US
development of teaching scholarship and increasing research output and development. Although
AN
all of the mentorship programs had clear objectives, without empirical measurement, it remains

unclear whether the objectives were accomplished. Similarly, the goals and expectations of the
M

individual mentoring relationships, whether predetermined by those who developed the

ED

mentorship program or co-developed between mentors and mentees, were only descriptively and

anecdotally assessed. No conclusive statements were made about the achievement of individual
PT

mentorship goals. There was also a notable absence of discussion regarding the impact of
CE

mentorship on career advancement, despite this being frequently identified as an important

mentorship goal. Before adopting an innovation, it is important to be clear about the expectations
AC

for what the innovation aims to achieve (Brach, Lenfestey, Roussel, Amoozegar, & Sorenson,

2008; Damschroder et al., 2009). Careful thought and consideration needs to be given to the

desired outcomes of mentorship in order to develop appropriate indicators to measure the

achievement of goals and outcomes.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Several key mentorship components were identified from included articles; however, none of the

individual mentorship components were described with a clear purpose or measurable outcome.

Details pertaining to the purpose and desired outcomes of individual mentorship components is

needed, as is the need to develop relevant and appropriate indicators to measure mentorship

programs and their components with validity and reliability. The majority of mentorship

T
programs had some form of mentorship orientation, either at the university, faculty, or individual

IP
mentorship dyad level. There is a lack in description of mentorship orientation details or how

CR
the orientation contributed to the overall mentoring program. Similarly, faculty development

workshops were often incorporated into mentorship programs, without detailed description of the

US
workshop goals and outcomes. Mentorship orientation and training has been recommended by
AN
others (Allen, Eby, & Lentz, 2006; Kram, 1988), but research has yet to examine the impact of

orientation and training on mentorship outcomes.

M
ED

Appropriate fit between mentors and mentees is an important aspect for creating a successful

mentoring relationship, yet there is no consensus in the nursing literature on how and why
PT

mentors and mentees should be matched. Others who have explored mentorship matching across
CE

disciplines found that mentorship matching based on deep-level similarity (attitudes, values,

beliefs, personality), experiential similarity (academic, discipline, rank, location), and interaction
AC

frequency were found to be predictive of quality mentoring relationships, while matching based

on demographics, skill and ability (experience, training, education), and whether the relationship

is formal or informal, were not predictive of successful matching (Allen & Eby, 2003; Allen,

Eby, Poteet, Lentz, & Lima, 2004; Allen et al., 2006; Eby, Allen, Evans, Ng, & DuBois, 2008).

Relationship quality may have significant effects on mentorship outcomes so thoughtful

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

matching, networking opportunities, and including mentors and mentees in the matching process

is recommended.

Creating opportunities for mentors and mentee to interact was identified as a critical component

of the mentoring process. Mentors and mentees are often encouraged to maintain frequent

T
communication to develop stronger relationships, increase satisfaction with the mentoring

IP
process, and create a sense of accountability to mentoring goals. Frequent interaction has been

CR
identified by others as essential to building high quality mentoring relationships (Allen et al.,

2006; Noe, 1988). The frequency, diversity, and pattern of interactions have been identified in

US
several relationship theories as key to creating interdependency among relationship partners
AN
(Hinde, 1995; Milardo, Johnson, & Huston, 1983). Best practice for the frequency, intensity,

time, and duration of mentorship interactions has yet to be empirically explored, but developing
M

mentorship programs that allow for mentors and mentee to easily interact with each other may
ED

result in greater mentorship and mentorship quality.

PT

Several mentorship programs included administrative support, which was perceived as necessary
CE

for program success. As reported in the systematic review conducted by Kashiwagi et al. (2013)

without support from administration, mentoring programs are likely to struggle. The chances for
AC

innovation success in nursing education are much greater if organizational leaders embrace the

innovation and work towards cultivating and sustaining an innovative environment (Melnyk &

Davidson, 2009). A clear vision for the mentorship innovation is essential to direct, align, and

inspire motivation and action for great numbers of faculty members (Melnyk & Davidson, 2009).
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Similar to our findings, evaluation is a well-documented gap and weakness in academic

mentorship literature as noted by Sambunjak, Straus, and Marušić (2006) and further noted in a

later review by Kashiwagi et al. (2013). To date mentorship literature in nursing and medicine

remains mostly descriptive, anecdotal, and lacking common evaluative metrics. Without

rigorous evaluation of mentorship programs and components, it is challenging to draw

T
conclusions regarding the achievement of specified goals.

IP
CR
Measuring the impact of mentorship is the only way to know if the desired improvements have

been made. The heterogeneity of nursing programs including variability in faculty size, types of

US
program, and hiring requirements makes it difficult to compare of types of mentoring across
AN
programs. To begin to measure the impact of the mentorship for faculties, mentors, and mentees,

qualitative and quantitative data could be collected by means of questionnaires, interviews,

M

review of CVs, and number of participants engaged in mentorship. Measures of short-term

ED

outcomes could include career satisfaction, productivity, recruitment, work-life balance, and

organizational climate. Measures of longer-term outcomes could include promotion, retention,

PT

and organizational culture.

CE

Mentorship programs typically have implementation costs and require expenditures for their
AC

continued operation. In order for a mentorship program in nursing academia to succeed there

must be faculty members who have an interest in mentorship and support of the faculty

administration. The cost of implementation is primarily associated with energy and time. Man-

power is required to train faculty to acquire the necessary mentoring skills, monitor the

implementation, and evaluate the impact of the innovation over time. Although implementing a
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

mentorship program would have some upfront and continuing costs, it may also has the potential

to generate savings. One potential cost offset is increasing staff retention, thereby reducing

recruitment, hiring, and training costs. A further cost offset could be increasing scholarship

productivity and achieving more research funding. If a mentorship program is successfully

implemented, the possibility of exporting it to other institutions may be another long range cost

T
offset.

IP
CR
Limitations

Although we conducted a comprehensive and systematic search of published and grey literature,

US
it is possible that not all relevant articles were captured. Second, limiting the search to articles
AN
describing mentoring programs for nursing faculty allowed for a detailed review of program

components, but may have narrowed the scope of the literature review. Third, all included
M

articles were from North America, Australia, and the United Kingdom. While this reflects the
ED

current state of mentorship literature, the disproportionate geographical representation may not

accurately reflect the nature of mentorship in other countries. Fourth, the limited depth to which
PT

mentorship programs and components were described within the articles reduced our ability to
CE

provide rich descriptions and details of mentorship innovations. Finally, the mentoring models

and components varied across all articles making comparison challenging, yet at the same time,
AC

revealing valuable knowledge about the relative breadth and depth of approaches taken, benefits

and challenges associated with each, and their component intervention parts.

Implications for Nursing Education

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

A major limitation of the current literature is the sparse description of mentorship components

and the absence of formal evaluations of components and/or the mentorship programs

themselves. This gap in the literature presents a dilemma for nursing faculties who wish to

implement evidence-based mentorship innovations. Although empirical data to support the

effectiveness of specific mentorship program components and/or the programs themselves is

T
lacking, the articles summarized in this review suggest that these components may be important.

IP
The various mentoring models and components identified in this review may be used to inform

CR
the development of future mentorship strategies. Consulting mentoring programs in other

disciplines may help to further advise mentorship development in nursing academia.

US
Furthermore, the development of interprofessional mentorship may be utilized to better meet the
AN
expectations of collaborative scholarship, while providing opportunities to learn about each

disciplines best mentorship practices. A stronger evidence base, including stronger study designs
M

and outcomes reporting, along with rich descriptions of mentorship programs could better inform
ED

decision makers and academic leaders about how to most effectively design and enhance

mentorship components and programs.

PT
CE

Conclusion
AC

Our review supports and adds to previous literature on mentorship by synthesizing the current

state of mentorship program models and components in nursing academia and highlighting their

perceived benefits, where possible. Given the significant resources required to support

mentorship programs, future research might be aimed at understanding the effectiveness of

mentoring models and specific program components in order that scarce resources are applied to

the most effective mentorship strategies.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Acknowledgements
The authors express their gratitude to the excellent assistance of Dr. Alix Hayden, librarian at the

University of Calgary for assisting in developing the database searches.

Funding

T
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial,

IP
or not-for-profit sectors. Lorelli Nowell is supported by a University of Calgary Graduate

CR
Student Entrance Scholarship. Kelly Mrklas is supported by an Alberta Health Services Post-

Secondary Education Tuition Award.

US
AN
References

Allen, T., & Eby, L. (2003). Relationship effectiveness for mentors: Factors associated with
M

learning and quality. Journal of Mangement, 29, 469-486.

ED

Allen, T., Eby, L., Poteet, M., Lentz, E., & Lima, L. (2004). Career benefits associated with

mentoring for protégés: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(1), 127-136.

PT

doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.1.127
CE

Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., & Lentz, E. (2006). Mentorship Behaviors and Mentorship Quality

Associated With Formal Mentoring Programs: Closing the Gap Between Research and
AC

Practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 567-578.

Alteen, A. M., Didham, P., & Stratton, C. (2009). Reflecting, refueling, and reframing: a 10-year

retrospective model for faculty development and its implications for nursing scholarship.

Journal of continuing education in nursing, 40(6), 267-272.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Baker, S. L. (2010). Nurse educator orientation: professional development that promotes

retention. Journal of continuing education in nursing, 41(9), 413-417.

Benner, P., Sutphen, M., Leonard, V., & Day, L. (2010). Educating nurses: a call for radical

transformation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Blauvelt, M. J., & Spath, M. L. (2008). Passing the torch: a faculty mentoring program at one

T
school of nursing. Nursing Education Perspectives, 29(1), 29-33.

IP
Brach, C., Lenfestey, N., Roussel, A., Amoozegar, J., & Sorenson, A. (2008). Will It Work

CR
Here? A Decisionmaker's Guide to Adopting Innovations. Rockville, MD: Agency for

Healthcare Research and Quality.

US
Brannagan, K. B., & Oriol, M. (2014). A model for orientation and mentoring of online adjunct
AN
faculty in nursing. Nursing Education Perspectives, 35(2), 128-130.

Brown, H. (1999). Mentoring new faculty. Nurse educator, 24(1), 48-51.

M

Bryant, A. L., Aizer Brody, A., Perez, A., Shillam, C., Edelman, L. S., Bond, S. M., . . . Siegel,
ED

E. O. (2015). Development and implementation of a peer mentoring program for early

career gerontological faculty. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 47(3), 258-266.

PT

Byrne, G., Topping, A., Kendall, S., & Golding, B. (2014). Developing a national mentorship
CE

scheme to enhance the contribution of clinical academics to health care. Nurse

Researcher, 22(2), 23-28.

AC

Cangelosi, P. R. (2004). A lack of qualified faculty: one school's solution. Nurse educator, 29(5),

186-188.

Cangelosi, P. R. (2006). Mentoring program for tenure-track faculty: One school's experience.

Annual Review of Nursing Education, 4, 375-391. doi:

http://www.springerpub.com/annual-review-of-nursing-education-volume-4-2006.html
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Carter, L., Salyers, V., Page, A., Williams, L., Albl, L., & Hofsink, C. (2012). Highly Relevant

Mentoring (HRM) as a Faculty Development Model for Web-Based Instruction.

Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 38(1).

Colling, K., Grabo, T., Rowe, M., & Straneva, J. (1998). How to develop and sustain a peer-

mentored research work group. Journal of Professional Nursing, 14(5), 298-304. doi:

T
10.1016/S8755-7223(98)80051-3

IP
Conn, V. S. (2013). Preparing academic nursing's future leaders: The Robert Wood Johnson

CR
Foundation's nurse Faculty Scholar Program. Western Journal of Nursing Research,

35(9), 1104-1106.

US
Cumbie, S., Weinert, C., Luparell, S., Conley, V., & Smith, J. (2005). Developing a scholarship
AN
community. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 37(3), 289-293.

Damschroder, L., Aron, D., Keith, R., Kirsh, S., Alexander, J., & Lowery, J. (2009). Fostering
M

implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated

ED

framework for advancing implementation science. Implementation Science, 4(50). doi:

10.1186/1748-5908-4-50
PT

Dunham-Taylor, J., Lynn, C. W., Moore, P., McDaniel, S., & Walker, J. K. (2008). What goes
CE

around comes around: improving faculty retention through more effective mentoring.

Journal of Professional Nursing, 24(6), 337-346.

AC

Eby, L. T., Allen, T. D., Evans, S. C., Ng, T., & DuBois, D. L. (2008). Does mentoring matter?

A multidisciplinary meta-analysis comparing mentored and non-mentored individuals.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 72(2), 254-267. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2007.04.005

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Gilbert, C., & Womack, B. (2012). Successful transition from expert nurse to novice educator?

Expert educator: it's about you! Teaching & Learning in Nursing, 7(3), 100-102. doi:

10.1016/j.teln.2012.01.004

Hadidi, N. N., Lindquist, R., & Buckwalter, K. (2013). Lighting the fire with mentoring

relationships. Nurse educator, 38(4), 157-163.

T
Heinrich, K. T., & Oberleitner, M. G. (2012). How a faculty group's peer mentoring of each

IP
other's scholarship can enhance retention and recruitment. Journal of Professional

CR
Nursing, 28(1), 5-12. doi: 10.1016/j.profnurs.2011.06.002

Hickey, K. T., Hodges, E. A., Thomas, T. L., Coffman, M. J., Taylor-Piliae, R. E., Johnson-

US
Mallard, V. M., . . . Casida, J. M. (2014). Initial evaluation of the Robert Wood Johnson
AN
Foundation Nurse Faculty Scholars program. Nursing Outlook, 62(6), 394-401.

Higgins, M., & Thomas, D. (2001). Constellations and Careers: Toward Understanding the
M

Effects of Multiple Developmental Relationships. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

ED

22(3), 223-247.

Hinde, R. A. (1995). A suggested structure for a science of relationships. Personal Relationships,

PT

2(1), 1-15. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6811.1995.tb00074.x

CE

Huybrecht, S., Loeckx, W., Quaeyhaegens, Y., De Tobel, D., & Mistiaen, W. (2011). Mentoring

in nursing education: perceived characteristics of mentors and the consequences of

AC

mentorship. Selected papers from the 3rd International Nurse Education Conference:

Nursing education in a global community 11-14 April, 2010, Sydney, Australia, 31(3),

274-278. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2010.10.022

Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. (2011). The future of nursing: leading change,

advancing health. United States of America: The National Academies Press.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Jacelon, C. S., Zucker, D. M., Staccarini, J., & Henneman, E. A. (2003). Peer mentoring for

tenure-track faculty. Journal of Professional Nursing, 19(6), 335-338. doi:

10.1016/S8755-7223(03)00131-5

Kanaskie, M. L. (2006). Mentoring - A staff retention tool. Critical care nursing quarterly,

29(3), 248-252.

T
Kashiwagi, D. T., Varkey, P., & Cook, D. A. (2013). Mentoring programs for physicians in

IP
academic medicine: A systematic review. Academic Medicine, 88(7), 1029-1037. doi:

CR
10.1097/ACM.0b013e318294f368

Kim, H., & Bonk, C. (2010). Toward best practices in online teaching: Instructional immediacy

US
in online faculty experiences. International Journal of Instructional Technology and
AN
Distance Learning, 7(8).

Kram, K. E. (1988). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organizational life.

M

Boston, MD: University Press of America.

ED

Lasater, K., Young, P. K., Mitchell, C. G., Delahoyde, T. M., Nick, J. M., & Siktberg, L. (2014).

Connecting in distance mentoring: Communication practices that work. Nurse education

PT

today, 34(4), 501-506. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2013.07.009

CE

Lewallen, L. P., Crane, P. B., Letvak, S., Jones, E., & Hu, J. (2003). An innovative strategy to

enhance new faculty success. Nursing Education Perspectives, 24(5), 257-260.

AC

Mahara, M. S., Bowen, D., Brennan, J., Crawford, L., Gomez, L., & Parsons, L. (2005). Sharing

with the land of the dancing lights. Canadian Nurse, 101(4), 22-25.

Matthew-Maich, N., Mines, C., Brown, B., Lunyk-Child, O., Carpio, B., Drummond-Young, M.,

. . . Linton, J. (2007). Evolving as Nurse Educators in Problem-Based Learning Through

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

a Community of Faculty Development. Journal of Professional Nursing, 23(2), 75-82.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.profnurs.2006.07.004

Medoff-Cooper, B., & Dekeyser, F. (1998). Developing a research mentoring partnership in

Israel. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, & Neonatal Nursing, 27(2), 197-202. doi:

10.1111/j.1552-6909.1998.tb02611.x

T
Melnyk, B. M., & Davidson, S. (2009). Creating a culture of innovation in nursing education

IP
through shared vision, leadership, interdisciplinary partnerships, and positive deviance.

CR
Nursing Administration Quarterly Innovation, Leadership, and Organizational

Transition, 33(4), 288-295. doi: 10.1097/NAQ.0b013e3181b9dcf8

US
Milardo, R., Johnson, M., & Huston, T. (1983). Developing Close Relationships: Changing
AN
Patterns of Interaction Between Pair Members and Social Networks. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology,, 44(5), 964-976.

M

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D., and the PRISMA Gourp. (2009). Preferred
ED

reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.

Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(4), 7.

PT

Mundt, M. H. (2001). An external mentor program: stimulus for faculty research development.
CE

Journal of Professional Nursing, 17(1), 40-45.

Nick, J. M., Delahoyde, T. M., Prato, D. D., Mitchell, C., Ortiz, J., Ottley, C., . . . Siktberg, L.
AC

(2012). Best practices in academic mentoring: a model for excellence. Nursing Research

& Practice, 1-9. doi: 10.1155/2012/937906

Noe, R. (1988). An invetigation of the determinants of successful assigned mentoring

relationships. Personnel Psychology, 41, 457-479.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Novak, G., & Middendorf, J. (2002). Just-in-time teaching: Using web technology to increase

student learning. Connexions Online, 14(1).

Owens, B. H., Herrick, C. A., & Kelley, J. A. (1998). A prearranged mentorship program: Can it

work long distance? Journal of Professional Nursing, 14(2), 78-84. doi: 10.1016/S8755-

7223(98)80034-3

T
Penman, J., & Willsher, K. (2007). Academic Partnerships at a Regional University Campus: A

IP
Fresh Look at Faculty Mentoring. Education in Rural Australia, 17(2), 55-65.

CR
Popay, J., Roberts, H., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Rodgers, M., . . . Duffy, S. (2006).

Guidance on the Conduct of Narrative Synthesis in Systematic Reviews. In A. P. f. t. E.

M. Programme (Ed.).
US
AN
Records, K., & Emerson, R. J. (2003). Mentoring for research skill development. Journal of

Nursing Education, 42(12), 553-557.

M

Reid, T. P., Hinderer, K. A., Jarosinski, J. M., Mister, B. J., & Seldomridge, L. A. (2013). Expert
ED

clinician to clinical teacher: Developing a faculty academy and mentoring initiative.

Nurse Education in Practice, 13(4), 288-293. doi:

PT

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2013.03.022
CE

Ronsten, B., Andersson, E., & Gustafsson, B. (2005). Confirming mentorship. Journal of nursing

management, 13(4), 312-321. doi: DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2934.2005.00541.x

AC

Sambunjak, D., Straus, S., & Marušić, A. (2006). Mentoring in academic medicine: a systematic

review. JAMA, 296(9), 1103-1115. doi: 10.1001/jama.296.9.1103

Sawatzky, J. A., & Enns, C. L. (2009). A mentoring needs assessment: validating mentorship in

nursing education. Journal of Professional Nursing, 25(3), 145-150.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Slimmer, L. (2012). A teaching mentorship program to facilitate excellence in teaching and

learning. Journal of Professional Nursing, 28(3), 182-185. doi:

10.1016/j.profnurs.2011.11.006

Snelson, C. M., Martsolf, D. S., Dieckman, B. C., Anaya, E. R., Cartechine, K. A., Miller, B., . . .

Shaffer, J. (2002). Caring as a theoretical perspective for a nursing faculty mentoring

T
program. Nurse education today, 22(8), 654-660.

IP
Suplee, P. D., & Gardner, M. (2009). Fostering a Smooth Transition to the Faculty Role. Journal

CR
of continuing education in nursing, 40(11), 514-520.

Tong, A., Flemming, K., McInnes, E., Oliver, S., & Craig, J. (2012). Enhancing transparency in

US
reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Medical Research
AN
Methodology, 12(181). doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-12-181

Vance, C., & Olson, R. K. (1998). The mentor connection in nursing. New York: Springer
M

Publishing Company.
ED

Varcoe, C., & McCormick, J. (2007). Racing around the classroom margins: Race, racism and

teaching nursing. In L. Young & B. Paterson (Eds.), Teaching nursing: Developing a

PT

student centered learning environment. Sydney: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins.

CE

White, A., Brannan, J., & Wilson, C. B. (2010). A mentor-protege program for new faculty, part

I: stories of proteges. Journal of Nursing Education, 49(11), 601-607.

AC

Wilson, C. B., Brannan, J., & White, A. (2010). A mentor-protege program for new faculty, Part

II: Stories of mentors. Journal of Nursing Education, 49(12), 665-671.

World Health Organization. (2006). Working together for health: The world health report.

Geneva, Switzerland: WHO press Retrieved from

http://www.who.int/whr/2006/whr06_en.pdf?ua=1.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Wyte-Lake, T., Tran, K., Bowman, C., Needleman, J., & Dobalian, A. (2013). A systematic

review of strategies to address the clinical nursing faculty shortage. Journal of Nursing

Education, 52(5), 245-252. doi: 10.3928/01484834-20130213-02

Young, L., & Paterson, B. (2007). Teaching nursing: Developing a student centred learning

environment. Sydney: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins.

T
IP
CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Highlights

 This review is a state-of-science synthesis of articles written about mentorship programs

for nursing faculty

 Current literature is limited, with gaps in formal mentorship evaluation

 Further research exploring the various mentorship models and components is needed

T
IP
CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC