Mentoring in general surgery in Switzerland

Figures & data

Table 1 Questionnaire to evaluate subjective support for career advancement for the respondents (17, 18)

Characteristic
Networking scale ^a
There are individuals in my professional environment who …
1. promote contact with important superiors.
2. promote contact with individuals who have a positive effect on my career.
3. help me prepare for a promotion.
4. help me promote my career using their influence.
Career planning scale ^a
There are individuals in my professional environment who …
5. help me with career planning.
6. provide tips for my professional future.
7. encourage me to take charge of my surgical career.
Coaching scale
There are individuals in my professional environment who …
8. help me learn the technical aspects of my work.
9. often provide good technical advice.
Emotional support scale
There are individuals in my professional environment who …
10. listen to me when I talk about my concerns and feelings.
11. support me emotionally and encourage me during stressful times.
12. take a real interest in my personal advancement.
13. are kind to me.
Role model scale
There are individuals in my professional environment who …
14. I emulate with regard to surgical techniques and strategies.
15. are role models to me.
16. have qualities that I would like to adopt for myself.

^aThe ‘mentoring experience scale’ consists of the ‘networking scale’ and ‘career planning scale’.

Table 2 Participants’ characteristics by sex

Characteristic	Overall (n=512)	Women (n=64)	Men (n=448)	p-value
Age, median (range), y	50 (28–71)	43 (29–63)	50 (28–71)	<0.01
Professional status, no. (%)				0.41
Surgeon-in-training	22 (4.3)	4 (6.3)	18 (4.0)
Board-certified surgeon	490 (95.7)	60 (93.8)	430 (96.0)
Hierarchical position, no. (%)				<0.01
Resident	22 (4.3)	3 (4.7)	19 (4.2)
Attending	109 (21.3)	32 (50.0)	77 (17.2)
Consultant	94 (18.4)	9 (14.1)	85 (19.0)
Head of department	123 (24.0)	5 (7.8)	118 (26.3)
Physician in private practice	143 (27.9)	13 (20.3)	130 (29.0)
Other	21 (4.1)	2 (3.1)	19 (4.2)
Hospital category, no. (%)^a (2 missing values)				0.09
Type U	71 (13.9)	7 (11.1)	64 (14.3)
Type A	116 (22.7)	18 (28.6)	98 (21.9)
Type B3	44 (8.6)	4 (6.3)	40 (8.9)
Type B2	67 (13.1)	8 (12.7)	59 (13.2)
Type B1	41 (8.0)	10 (15.9)	31 (6.9)
Private practice	97 (18.9)	6 (9.5)	91 (20.4)
Other	74 (14.5)	10 (15.9)	64 (14.3)
Married or with a partner, no. (%)	422 (82.4)	49 (76.6)	373 (83.3)	0.42
At least one child, no. (%) (1 missing value)	406 (79.3)	27 (42.2)	379 (84.8)	<0.01

^aType U: university hospitals, Type A: large referral centers, Type B3: regional or specialized hospitals, Type B2/B1: small regional surgical departments (classified according to the FMH) (24).

Table 3 Characteristics of mentor–mentee relationships by participants’ sex

Characteristic	Overall (n=344)	Women (n=38)	Men (n=306)	p-value
Age of mentor, median (range), y	55 (35–70)	50 (35–65)	55 (38–70)	<0.01
Mentors’ sex, no. (%) (1 missing value)				<0.01
Female	6 (1.7)	5 (13.2)	1 (0.3)
Male	337 (98.3)	33 (86.8)	304 (99.7)
Mentors’ hierarchical position, no. (%) (1 missing value)				<0.01
Head of department at a university hospital	153 (44.6)	8 (21.1)	145 (47.5)
Head of department at a non-university hospital	127 (37.0)	15 (39.5)	112 (36.7)
Specialist registrar	55 (16.0)	12 (31.6)	43 (14.1)
Specialist in private practice	6 (1.7)	2 (5.3)	4 (1.3)
Other	2 (0.6)	1 (2.6)	1 (0.3)
Structured mentoring program, no. (%) (2 missing values)	23 (6.7)	3 (7.9)	20 (6.6)	0.76
Number of mentors (to date), mean (SD)	1.7 (1.7)	1.4 (1.7)	1.8 (1.7)	0.41

Table 4 Subjective support for career advancement depending on the presence of a mentor

	Overall n=64	With mentor n=38	Without mentor n=25
Female participants	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	p-value	Shift	Lower CI	Upper CI
Networking scale	2.7 (1.1)	2.8 (1.2)	2.5 (1.0)	0.41	0.3	−0.3	0.8
Career planning scale	2.6 (1.3)	2.7 (1.3)	2.4 (1.2)	0.35	0.3	−0.3	1.0
Coaching scale	3.2 (1.1)	3.1 (1.2)	3.4 (0.8)	0.26	−0.5	−1.0	0.5
Emotional support scale	3.0 (1.0)	3.2 (0.9)	2.6 (1.2)	0.06	0.8	−0.0	1.3
Role model scale	3.0 (1.0)	3.2 (1.0)	2.8 (1.0)	0.26	0.3	−0.3	1.0
	Overall n=448	With mentor n=306	Without mentor n=136
Male participants	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	p-value	Shift	Lower CI	Upper CI
Networking scale	2.5 (1.3)	2.7 (1.3)	2.1 (1.1)	<0.01	0.8	0.3	1.0
Career planning scale	2.4 (1.3)	2.6 (1.3)	2.0 (1.1)	<0.01	0.7	0.3	1.0
Coaching scale	3.0 (1.3)	3.1 (1.3)	2.7 (1.2)	<0.01	0.5	0.0	1.0
Emotional support scale	2.8 (1.1)	2.9 (1.1)	2.4 (1.0)	<0.01	0.5	0.3	0.8
Role model scale	2.8 (1.2)	3.0 (1.1)	2.5 (1.2)	<0.01	0.7	0.3	0.7

Table 5 Objective factors for career development depending on the presence of a mentor

			Overall n=64	With mentor n=38	Without mentor n=25
Female participants	Item value for the career development score	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	p-value	OR	Lower CI	Upper CI
Talks at scientific conferences	No talk	0	6 (10)	3 (8)	3 (15)	0.55
	1–3 talks	1	18 (31)	11 (29)	7 (35)
	≥4 talks	2	34 (59)	24 (63)	10 (50)
Number of publications in peer-reviewed journals	No publication	0	18 (31)	11 (29)	7 (35)	0.70
	1 publication	1	4 (7)	2 (5)	2 (10)
	2–3 publications	2	16 (28)	10 (26)	6 (30)
	≥4 publications	3	20 (34)	15 (39)	5 (25)
Participation in research projects	Yes	1	23 (38)	16 (42)	7 (30)	0.42	1.6	0.5	5.9
	No	0	38 (62)	22 (58)	16 (70)
Full-time research activities	None	0	57 (93)	35 (92)	22 (96)	0.72
	≤9 months	1	1 (2)	1 (3)	0 (0)
	>9 months	2	3 (5)	2 (5)	1 (4)
Scholarships awarded	Yes	1	5 (8)	4 (11)	1 (4)	0.64	2.6	0.2	133.1
	No	0	56 (92)	34 (89)	22 (96)
Third-party funds awarded	Yes	1	6 (10)	5 (13)	1 (4)	0.39	3.3	0.3	164.6
	No	0	55 (90)	33 (87)	22 (96)
Research awards obtained	Yes	1	5 (8)	3 (8)	2 (9)	1.00	0.9	0.1	11.6
	No	0	56 (92)	35 (92)	21 (91)
			Overall n=448	With mentor n=306	Without mentor n=136
Male participants		Item value for the career development score	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	p-value	OR	Lower CI	Upper CI
Talks at scientific conferences	No talk	0	35 (8)	16 (6)	19 (15)	0.01
	1–3 talks	1	45 (11)	32 (11)	13 (10)
	≥4 talks	2	333 (81)	240 (83)	93 (74)
Number of publications in peer-reviewed journals	No publication	0	62 (15)	36 (12)	26 (20)	0.17
	1 publication	1	22 (5)	14 (5)	8 (6)
	2–3 publications	2	67 (16)	47 (16)	20 (16)
	≥4 publications	3	266 (64)	192 (66)	74 (58)
Participation in research projects	Yes	1	217 (50)	164 (54)	53 (40)	0.01	1.8	1.1	2.7
	No	0	218 (50)	139 (46)	79 (60)
Full-time research activities	None	0	366 (85)	246 (82)	120 (92)	0.02
			Overall n=448	With mentor n=306	Without mentor n=136
Male participants		Item value for the career development score	n (%)	n (%)	n (%)	p-value	OR	Lower CI	Upper CI
	≤9 months	1	15 (3)	14 (5)	1 (1)
	>9 months	2	51 (12)	41 (14)	10 (8)
Scholarships awarded	Yes	1	67 (15)	55 (18)	12 (9)	0.02	2.2	1.1	4.7
	No	0	368 (85)	248 (82)	120 (91)
Third-party funds awarded	Yes	1	125 (29)	101 (33)	24 (18)	<0.01	2.2	1.3	3.9
	No	0	310 (71)	202 (67)	108 (82)
Research awards obtained	Yes	1	97 (22)	81 (27)	16 (12)	<0.01	2.6	1.4	5.1
	No	0	338 (78)	222 (73)	116 (88)

Noe RA . An investigation of the determinants of successful assigned mentoring relationships. Pers Psychol. 1988; 41: 457–79.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Riley S , Wrench D . Mentoring among women lawyers. J Appl Soc Psychol. 1985; 15: 374–86.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

FMH. Register der zertifizierten Weiterbildungsstätten. 2014. Available from: http://www.siwf-register.ch [cited 01 February 2015].

 Google Scholar