The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene - Volume 100, Issue 1_Suppl, 2019

Mentoring is a proven path to scientific progress, but it is not a common practice in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Existing mentoring approaches and guidelines are geared toward high-income country settings, without considering in detail the differences in resources, culture, and structure of research systems of LMICs. To address this gap, we conducted five Mentoring-the-Mentor workshops in Africa, South America, and Asia, which aimed at strengthening the capacity for evidence-based, LMIC-specific institutional mentoring programs globally. The outcomes of the workshops and two follow-up working meetings are presented in this special edition of the American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene. Seven articles offer recommendations on how to tailor mentoring to the context and culture of LMICs, and provide guidance on how to implement mentoring programs. This introductory article provides both a prelude and executive summary to the seven articles, describing the motivation, cultural context and relevant background, and presenting key findings, conclusions, and recommendations.

Although mentoring is not a common practice in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), there is a strong need for it. Conceptual frameworks provide the structure to design, study, and problem-solve complex phenomena. Following four workshops in South America, Asia, and Africa, and borrowing on theoretical models from higher education, this article proposes two conceptual frameworks of mentoring in LMICs. In the first model, we propose to focus the mentor–mentee relationship and interactions, and in the second, we look at mentoring activities from a mentees’ perspective. Our models emphasize the importance of an ongoing dynamic between the mentor and mentee that is mutually beneficial. It also emphasizes the need for institutions to create enabling environments that encourage mentorship. We expect that these frameworks will help LMIC institutions to design new mentoring programs, clarify expectations, and analyze problems with existing mentoring programs. Our models, while being framed in the context of global health, have the potential for wider application geographically and across disciplines.

Mentoring is beneficial to mentors, mentees, and their institutions, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), that are faced with complex disease burdens, skills shortages, and resource constraints. Mentoring in global health research can be enhanced by defining key competencies, to enable the skill set required for effective mentoring, determine training needs for local research mentors, and facilitate institutional capacity building to support mentors. The latter includes advocating for resources, institutional development of mentoring guidelines, and financial and administrative support for mentoring. Nine core global health research mentoring competencies were identified: maintaining effective communication; aligning expectations with reasonable goals and objectives; assessing and providing skills and knowledge for success; addressing diversity; fostering independence; promoting professional development; promoting professional integrity and ethical conduct; overcoming resource limitations; and fostering institutional change. The competencies described in this article will assist mentors to sharpen their cognitive skills, acquire or generate new knowledge, and enhance professional and personal growth and job satisfaction. Similarly, the proposed competencies will enhance the knowledge and skills of mentees, who can continue and extend the work of their mentors, and advance knowledge for the benefit of the health of populations in LMICs.

A growing body of evidence highlights the importance of competent mentoring in academic research. We describe the development, implementation, and evaluation of four regional 2-day intensive workshops to train mid- and senior-level investigators conducting public health, clinical, and basic science research across multiple academic institutions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) on tools and techniques of effective mentoring. Sponsored by the Fogarty International Center, workshops included didactic presentations, interactive discussions, and small-group problem-based learning and were conducted in Lima, Peru; Mombasa, Kenya; Bangalore, India; and Johannesburg, South Africa, from 2013 to 2016. Mid- or senior-level faculty from multiple academic institutions within each region applied and were selected. Thirty faculty from 12 South America–based institutions, 29 faculty from eight East Africa–based institutions, 37 faculty from 14 South Asia–based institutions, and 36 faculty from 13 Africa-based institutions participated, with diverse representation across disciplines, gender, and academic rank. Discussions and evaluations revealed important comparisons and contrasts in the practice of mentoring, and specific barriers and facilitators to mentoring within each cultural and regional context. Specific regional issues related to hierarchy, the post-colonial legacy, and diversity arose as challenges to mentoring in different parts of the world. Common barriers included a lack of a culture of mentoring, time constraints, lack of formal training, and a lack of recognition for mentoring. These workshops provided valuable training, were among the first of their kind, were well-attended, rated highly, and provided concepts and a structure for the development and strengthening of formal mentoring programs across LMIC institutions.

Following the Fogarty International Center-supported “Mentoring the Mentors” workshops in South America, Africa, and Asia, approaches and guidelines for mentorship at institutions within these low- and middle-income country (LMIC) contexts, appropriate for the respective regional resources and culture, were implemented. Through the presentation of case studies from these three geographic regions, this article illustrates the institutional mentorship infrastructure before the workshop and the identified gaps used to implement strategies to build mentorship capacity at the Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia (Peru), Kenya Medical Research Institute (Kenya), Saint John’s Research Institute (India), and Eduardo Mondlane University (Mozambique). These case studies illustrate three findings: first, that mentorship programs in LMICs have made uneven progress, and institutions with existing programs have exhibited greater advancement to their mentoring capacity than institutions without formal programs before the workshops. Second, mentoring needs assessments help garner the support of institutional leadership and create local ownership. Third, developing a culture of mentorship that includes group mentoring activities at LMIC institutions can help overcome the shortage of trained mentors. Regardless of the stage of mentoring programs, LMIC institutions can work toward developing sustainable, culturally effective mentorship models that further the partnership of early career scientists and global health.

A growing number of low- and middle-income country (LMIC) institutions have developed and implemented formal programs to support mentorship. Although the individual-level benefits of mentorship are well established, such activities can also sustainably build institutional capacity, bridge inequities in health care, and catalyze scientific advancement. To date, however, evaluation of these programs remains limited, representing an important gap in our understanding about the impact of mentoring. Without rigorous and ongoing evaluation, there may be missed opportunities for identifying best practices, iteratively improving program activities, and demonstrating the returns on investment in mentorship. In this report, we propose a framework for evaluating mentorship programs in LMIC settings where resources may be constrained. We identify six domains: 1) mentor–mentee relationship, 2) career guidance, 3) academic productivity, 4) networking, 5) wellness, and 6) organizational capacity. Within each, we describe specific metrics and how they may be considered as part of evaluation plans. We emphasize the role of measurement and evaluation at the institutional level, so that programs may enhance their mentoring capacity and optimize the management of their resources. Although we advocate for a comprehensive approach to evaluation, we recognize that—depending on stage and relative maturity—some domains may be prioritized to address short- and medium-term program goals.

Addressing ethical issues through mentorship is key to encouraging scientific integrity and increasing research capacity. Across the global health arena, mentorship requires helping mentees understand and negotiate the regulatory aspects of research—which can substantially differ even between countries with similar resources. Mentorship support spans across the research framework from obtaining ethical approval and ensuring scientific integrity, to determining authorship and disseminating study results—providing multiple opportunities to model ethical behavior for mentees. The power imbalances between the global north and south in accessing funding resources produce further challenges in setting the research agenda and for ensuring equity in the dissemination of research findings. Gender further complicates the aspiration for equity; the proportion of women in high administrative or research positions remains low. This study explores four specific mentoring case scenarios commonly encountered in the global health research field in low- and middle-income institutions.

Capacity building in low- and middle-income country (LMIC) institutions hinges on the delivery of effective mentorship. This study presents an overview of mentorship toolkits applicable to LMIC institutions identified through a scoping review. A scoping review approach was used to 1) map the extent, range, and nature of mentorship resources and tools available and 2) to identify knowledge gaps in the current literature. To identify toolkits, we collected and analyzed data provided online that met the following criteria: written in English and from organizations and individuals involved in global health mentoring. We searched electronic databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, and Google search engine. Once toolkits were identified, we extracted the available tools and mapped them to pre-identified global health competencies. Only three of the 18 identified toolkits were developed specifically for the LMIC context. Most toolkits focused on individual mentor–mentee relationships. Most focused on the domains of communication and professional development. Fewer toolkits focused on ethics, overcoming resource limitations, and fostering institutional change. No toolkits discussed strategies for group mentoring or how to adapt existing tools to a local context. There is a paucity of mentoring resources specifically designed for LMIC settings. We identified several toolkits that focus on aspects of individual mentor–mentee relationships that could be adapted to local contexts. Future work should focus on adaptation and the development of tools to support institutional change and capacity building for mentoring.