NIHR Mentoring Programme Case study report Cohort 1 (2022), Cohort 2 (2022) and Cohort 3 (2022)

Introduction

The mentoring programme has been developed and guided by a Steering Group whose membership is representative of Academy Members. The refreshed programme builds on the previous NIHR Mentoring Programme that was delivered by the Academy of Medical Sciences, expanding the programme to support all Academy Members, regardless of professional background. The refreshed programme was launched in February 2021. Each year, NIHR provides the opportunity for 75 matched mentoring pairs, prioritising those from backgrounds or disciplines that may not have previously had access to mentoring. In the second year of the mentoring programme, we delivered three cohorts. This report reflects on the 23 matched pair case studies conducted across cohorts 1-3 2022.

The programme aims to support the academic and career development of NIHR postdoctoral communities by:

• extending the NIHR mentoring programme to postdoctoral award holders from disciplines and professional backgrounds which may not have a strong mentoring tradition or may not have had access to programmes such as this in the past
• promoting interdisciplinarity working; mentees are able to seek a mentor from a cognate or complementary discipline or professional background, where appropriate
• supporting mentoring relationships between individuals from different organisations and institutions
• promoting equality, inclusion, and diversity through engagement with, and learning from, under-represented groups

Case Study methodology

At the end of the programme, participants were invited to complete an in-depth semi-structured interview, providing an opportunity to reflect on their mentoring experience and time on the programme. The interviews focused on their mentoring relationship and programme engagement, including the drivers for joining the mentoring programme, relationship focus and topic areas impact of mentoring, specific outcomes and overall experience.

The one-to-one interviews were conducted by an External Consultant with significant experience in conducting qualitative research and interviews, also an EMCC Global accredited mentor and coach. The interviews were recorded and then transcribed by an approved transcriber. The External Consultant created an in-depth case study, including mentor and mentee profile, relationship focus, reflections on the mentoring relationship and perceived value. A second External Consultant reviewed each cohort matched pair case study, creating summary case studies to appear in this report. All participants were given the opportunity to review and amend their matched pair case study.

For cohort 1, five matched pairs attended semi-structured interviews, this represented 23% of the cohort. Cohort 1 interviews were conducted between May 2023 and July 2023. The approved transcriber produced 96 pages of transcription across five matched pair interviews, ranging between 7 pages and 12 pages per interview.

For cohort 2 , eight matched pairs attended semi-structured interviews, this represented 36% of the cohort. Cohort 2 interviews were conducted between September 2023 and November 2023. The approved transcriber produced 143 pages of transcription across eight matched pair interviews, ranging between 6 pages and 15 pages per interview.

For cohort 3, 10 matched pairs attended semi-structured interviews, this represented 28% of the cohort. Cohort 3 were conducted between November 2023 and January 2024. The approved transcriber produced 184 pages of transcription across 10 matched pair interviews, ranging between 10 pages and 16 pages per interview.

Programme evaluation

The mentoring programme has a robust evaluation framework in place which supports the continuous improvement of the programme, the collation of evidence of achievement against the programme’s aim and objectives. Regular updates are shared with key stakeholders and identification of lessons learned informs the ongoing development of the mentoring programme, potential future programmes and wider audiences. The evaluation consists of two phases, the phase one interim evaluation and phase two summative evaluation.

Phase one - this took place five to six months and comprises a light touch temperature check survey for all participants, providing a feedback opportunity and to address any challenges which may have arisen.

Phase two - At the end of the programme, participants are invited to complete an in-depth survey, focusing on their mentoring relationship experience and outcomes.

Matched pair interviews

Once the formal 12-month programme came to a close, mentees and mentors were invited to take part in matched pair interviews. The interviews were conducted by an External Mentoring Consultant. The purpose of the interview is to understand mentors and mentees experience of the mentoring programme, including reflections on the purpose of the mentoring, benefits of mentoring and the support provided by the NIHR Mentoring Programme team. Each case study summarised the transcript content, including mentor and mentee profile, relationship focus, reflections on the mentoring relationship and perceived value. All participants were given the opportunity to review and amend their matched pair case study. We share summary exemplars in this report.

Cohort 1

Cohort 1 interviews were conducted between May 2023 and July 2023 by an External Mentoring Consultant. The approved transcriber produced 96 pages of transcription across five matched pair interviews, ranging between 7 pages and 12 pages per interview. We prepared initial matched pair case studies. Each case study summarised the transcript content, including mentor and mentee profile, relationship focus, reflections on the mentoring relationship and perceived value. All participants were given the opportunity to review and amend their matched pair case study.

Cohort 2

Cohort 2 interviews were conducted between September 2023 and November 2023 by an External Mentoring Consultant. The approved transcriber produced 143 pages of transcription across eight matched pair interviews, ranging between 6 pages and 15 pages per interview. We followed the same process subsequent to the interviews as outlined for cohort 1.

Cohort 3

Cohort 3 interviews were conducted between November 2023 and January 2024 by an External Mentoring Consultant. The approved transcriber produced 143 pages of transcription across 10 matched pair interviews, ranging between 10 pages and 16 pages per interview. We followed the same process subsequent to the interviews as outlined for cohort 1.

In addition to the two phases outlined, we collect feedback at various touch points, including check-ins with participants at regular intervals and informal feedback via the continuing professional development sessions.

Overall

Our mentoring programme has supported mentees’ personal and professional development, including confidence building, career insight and navigation, network cultivation, work-life balance and boundaries. The formalisation of the mentoring relationships and the accompanying training and continuous professional development interactive webinars were viewed as effective learning and reflective spaces by several mentors . As most of the mentor-mentee matches are across interdisciplinary health research areas, mentors also widened their knowledge and gained further insights into new areas of work and received the opportunity to develop their knowledge and skills in mentoring. The matched pair interview evaluation data highlights that the mentoring programme and the mentoring relationships are having a significant impact on both the mentee and mentor learning and growth and addressing key topics, often at a pivotal time and key transition point in mentees’ careers.

Cohort 1 2022 Matched Pair Interviews

• Pair 1
  • Mentor - Professor Louise Howard
  • Mentee - Dr Ali Abbara
• Pair 2
• • Mentor - Professor Danny McAuley
  • Mentee - Dr Brian Nicholson
• Pair 3
  • Mentor - Professor Jonathan Grigg
  • Mentee - Dr Iain Roy
• Pair 4
  • Mentor - Professor Rory O’Connor
  • Mentee - Dr Jatinder Minhas

Pair 1

Mentor - Professor Louise Howard

Louise is Professor Emerita in Women’s Mental Health at King’s College London. She formed the Women’s Mental Health Research Group at King's in 2008 and has been Professor in Women’s Mental Health since 2010 and an Honorary Consultant Perinatal Psychiatrist at the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust. She was awarded a prestigious NIHR Research Professorship in 2013 and became an NIHR Senior Investigator in

2019.

Mentee - Dr Ali Abbara

Ali is a Clinical Senior Lecturer in Diabetes and Endocrinology at Imperial College London. At the start of his research career, he was awarded an Academic Clinical Fellowship in Endocrinology and more recently he has achieved the Wellcome Trust Clinical Training Fellowship to undertake a PhD in reproductive neuroendocrinology.

Drivers for joining the mentoring programme

Louise was keen to ‘give back’ through the mentoring and share own experience and expertise as a clinical academic. Ali had never worked with a mentor previously and was keen to explore his short-term and long-term career goals with a mentor.

Relationship focus

The mentoring relationship has spanned over a year and during this period Louise and Ali had around 10 online mentoring sessions. They have agreed to continue the relationship informally beyond the one-year NIHR Mentoring programme. The overall relationship focus was career development and progression, the challenges associated with the role and the longer-term career development opportunities.

Key topics

The main topic of the mentoring conversations started with day-to day tasks and challenges of managing these but moved to focused conversation on work-life balance, self-care, prioritisation, time management as well as future career trajectory. The topic of managing the day-to-day combined with the longer-term career strategy in the context of workload and boundaries was a discussion area.

Relationship satisfaction

The interviews highlighted that the relationship worked well as the relationship evolved, Louise and Ali were well matched. Although they did not share similar backgrounds and gender, they built trust in the relationship to explore both personal and professional challenges. Ali highlighted that his mentor was able to help him reflect and think about his work schedule as well as career options. It was evident from the interviews that the mentoring relationship was beneficial. Ali confirmed that the mentoring conversations appropriately challenged him to reflect and take actions. He reflected that, ‘I think one of the things that we addressed was that I do too much’. His mentor also affirmed that the mentoring conversations enabled Ali to set aside his ‘to-do list, think strategically about what he wanted to achieve and what would make him feel better about his career and his work/life balance’. Ali was able to take charge of ‘what he wanted to change and how he might do it’.

Mentoring outcomes

Ali benefitted both personally and professionally from this relationship: he was able to review and make some changes to achieve a better work-life balance as well as explore wider avenues in terms of project and programme grants which he had not previously considered. This has given him a wide choice to explore as next steps in his research career. From a mentor perspective, Louise observed that the relationship worked well as she could share experiences and make relevant suggestions as they were both clinical academics. Ali reflected on a number of key changes that have occurred since embarking on the mentoring relationship with Louise. Ali described how, ‘academia is very competitive so you always feel like you need to do more just to survive and then you get into that mode of basically saying, ‘yes’, to everything and that can be quite overwhelming … I think there was a risk of burn-out potentially carrying on like that’. Ali was able to take steps to protect his well-being, put in place boundaries, have the confidence to say ‘no’ and recognise that saying ‘no’ does not hinder career progression: ‘I think also you need a bit of confidence to say ‘no’ to stuff and assume you will get further opportunities in the future if you say ‘no’ to it now so that if you really don’t have time that you can just say ‘no’ without worrying for having said ‘no’ as it were’. Also, for the first time, with his mentor’s support, at the beginning of the holiday period, Ali has booked all of his annual leave for the year ahead. Previously, Ali would delay booking leave due to ongoing projects and deadlines resulting in missing annual leave.

Overall reflections

Ali highlighted that what he found most helpful was ‘knowing that there’s an hour every few weeks that is protected that I can actually just step back and think’. He has highly valued the compassion and non-judgemental aspect of this mentoring relationship. It was evident that Louise had also benefited from this relationship. She observed that this was a different experience as she had previously mentored women academics; she felt that this mentoring experience was both intellectually stimulating as well as fun. Overall, the mentoring relationship offered both challenge and a nurturing, reflective space enabling mutual learning, sharing of experiences as well as addressing work-life balance, self-care and career outcomes.

Pair 2

Mentor - Professor Danny McAuley

Danny is the Director of the NIHR Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) Programme and serves on the NIHR Board as Scientific Director for NIHR Programmes. He is Professor of Intensive Care Medicine at the Wellcome-Wolfson Institute for Experimental Medicine, Queen's University of Belfast, and Consultant in Intensive Care Medicine at the Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast. Danny's major interest is acute respiratory failure and the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS). A key aim of this research work is to translate early research findings to improve patient outcomes. His other current research interests include sepsis diagnostics, delirium in critical illness and interventions to enhance recovery from critical illness.

Mentee - Dr Brian Nicholson

Brian is a NIHR Academic Clinical Lecturer in General Practice and Clinical Fellow in Primary Care at Oxford University. He is practising General Physician in Oxford City. His academic interests include cancer, global health, and evidence-based diagnosis. His research aims to improve the diagnostic process for patients with symptoms of cancer. He leads the departmental Cancer Theme that conducts research in four main areas: health records data; implementation science; diagnostic reasoning; and clinical trials and prospective studies. He is Early Detection lead for the CRUK Oxford Cancer Centre investigating community-based multi-cancer early detection testing.

Drivers for joining the mentoring programme

Brian joined the NIHR Mentoring Programme as he wanted an independent mentor with experience of the academic world, outside his own institution as a ‘sense checker’ to help him address some areas of his work and career context. He observed that ‘I think I was looking for someone I could be totally honest with about how I was interpreting the research world around me and ... the wider context of life as well’.

In his leadership role within NIHR, Danny is passionate about supporting early career researchers. In his mentoring role he wants to ‘contribute in that capacity but also wants to give something back to the NIHR as they have given me lots of opportunities’.

Relationship focus

Danny and Brian started the mentoring relationship in June 2022, and this is continuing at present. During this period the pair met online approximately 5 to 6 times and there were a few email exchanges as well. There is also a mutual commitment to continue the relationship informally beyond the one-year NIHR Mentoring programme. The overall aim of the mentoring was support with career transition; however, Brian was able to address several current work situations within this space.

Key topics

The main topics of the mentoring conversations included managing relationships in the workplace, building a research team, time management and balancing work with family life. As the relationship progressed the focus of the conversations shifted from problem-based issues to more open-ended discussions around Brian’s career trajectory, including future research funding and external roles.

Relationship satisfaction

Both Danny and Brian agreed that they were well matched. The interviews highlighted that they built trust quickly in the relationship and there was a good personality match as well. Brain confirmed that his mentor provided open and honest responses, shared personal experiences and anecdotes that mirrored some of his current work situations. Danny pointed out the significance of his independent role as the mentor and how this helped to create a safe space for their mentoring conversations.

Mentoring outcomes

It was evident from the interviews that the mentoring was highly effective as a two-way relationship with Brian prioritising the topics for discussion and Danny holding the space for a continued conversation during the year. Brian empathically confirmed that his mentor was able to support him around the challenges he has raised. His mentor asked direct and probing questions which were helpful to examine certain work-related issues and explore multiple perspectives, this supported Brain’s decision-making process. He reflected that ‘now I am in a position where I don’t feel held back by those situations that I was struggling with at the beginning of the relationship’. Danny also affirmed that the mentoring conversations contributed to successfully resolving Brain’s work challenges.

Overall reflections

Danny recognises the importance and impact of mentoring in the context of early-mid careers: ‘I think mentoring is something … that I feel quite strongly about and the need to support early career researchers is important and even your mid-career’. Danny highly valued and was also surprised by the positive impact of the mentoring conversations. He reflected that ‘maybe the fact that we were so diverse in specialities might have allowed more opportunity to focus on the generic’. Danny found the mentoring experience to be personally and professionally rewarding, specifically seeing his mentee succeed. When asked what was most valuable about the relationship, Brian pointed out that the ‘matter-of-fact type of relationship’ with openness and transparency from the start was a very positive experience. Overall, Brian feels that the mentoring relationship has ‘been a really valuable relationship at this point in my career. I’ve learnt a lot about the value of mentoring. So, I can’t be positive enough about it really.’ The commitment in the relationship beyond the one-year period of the NIHR Mentoring Programme is a strong indicator of the success of this mentor-mentee pair.

Pair 3

Mentor - Professor Jonathan Grigg

Jonathan is a Professor of paediatric respiratory and environmental medicine at Queen Mary University of London. He is a former Research lead of the British Paediatric Respiratory Society and was a Vice Chair of the Royal College of Physicians' working party on air pollution and authored the report "Every breath we take, the lifelong impact of air pollution". He was Secretary of the Paediatric Assembly of the European Respiratory Society until 2017.

In 2020 he became a Senior Investigator at the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR). His research includes effects of cigarette and e-cigarette emissions on bacterial/viral infection of airway cells. His research has identified the mechanisms whereby inhalation of particles increases vulnerability to bacterial infection. These studies have informed the public on the risks of air pollution and influenced national policy. He is a member of the UK Department of Health’s Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollution, lead of a NIHR Global Health Research Group, and Chair of the European Respiratory Society’s Tobacco Control Committee.

Mentee - Dr Iain Roy

Iain is a National Institute for Health Research Academic Clinical Clinician in Vascular Surgery at the St George's Vascular Institute, St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. He is currently conducting a programme of research with a NIHR grant.

Drivers for joining the mentoring programme

Jonathan wanted to contribute back to NIHR through this mentoring programme; he was keen to share his ‘skills and experience and work with younger people to help them negotiate the academic career’. In his role, he wanted to offer an active listening and reflective space to his mentee.

Iain joined the mentoring programme as he wanted a mentor to explore his clinical academic career perspectives who was independent of his current institution to bounce ideas on his progression route. He was looking for a mentor who ‘was going to be straight talking, willing to listen and give some advice’.

Relationship focus

Jonathan and Iain’s mentoring relationship started in September 2022 and during this period they met approximately 5 times and were due to meet shortly after the interview for their closing session. Jonathan indicated that the relationship may continue informally after this period if his mentee needed further support. The focus of the mentoring was to help Iain to explore options and actions related to his current role and areas of work within his current institution.

Key topics

Iain’s mentorship needs focused on exploring the status of his current position within his institution. The permanency of the role and balance of clinical work and research focus were the main mentoring topics. They also discussed Iain’s training structure, working relationships, research projects and funding opportunities. He observed that for this, his mentor was ‘unbelievably valuable … as he had a wealth of experience of progressing academics from lectureships through to readers and professors in their own right’.

Relationship satisfaction

It was evident from the research interviews that the mentoring relationship was effective. Iain highly appreciated the practical and pragmatic approach of his mentor as well as the reassurance and validation provided as he explored his work situation. He reflected that there was less of advice and more of ‘you are normal, and your thought processes are correct’. Useful suggestions were also offered, and wider perspectives were considered. Jonathan also agreed that the match worked well as they were both clinicians although he was a ‘medic and Iain was a surgeon the research milieu is broadly the same’.

Mentoring outcomes

Iain concluded that he benefited both personally and professionally from this relationship. Reflecting on the relationship, Iain shared that personally, ‘I’ve definitely had an easier year mentally because I’ve had someone else to talk to’. Professionally, he has a better understanding of his future job perspective and has development management capabilities. Jonathan also reflected that the overall mentoring experience was very stimulating and insightful and has offered wider perspectives of generic issues in teaching hospitals. He proposed that a discussion forum for senior mentors could help to explore generic issues raised through this mentoring programme and feedback institutionally.

Overall reflections

In terms of managing the mentoring relationship, it was a two-way process. Initially, at the early stage of the relationship, Jonathan helped to set the scene by asking a series of questions. As the relationship evolved, Iain continued the communication and arranging the meeting as well as leading the topics and focus of discussion. Jonathan acted as a sounding board, offering a safe space for sense-making and exploration of possible options. He reflected that he ‘could listen and empathise with some of the issues raised … I don’t think I gave him any concrete, new solutions that he hadn’t already thought about … but by talking about it, it may have helped him feel a bit more confident that his approach was entirely reasonable’.

Pair 4

Mentor - Professor Rory O’Connor

Rory is the Charterhouse Professor of Rehabilitation Medicine, Chair of the Academic Department of Rehabilitation Medicine and a Pro-Dean for Research and Innovation at the University of Leeds. He is Lead Clinician and Honorary Consultant Rehabilitation Physician in Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust. He is Deputy Clinical Director and Rehabilitation Technology theme lead for the National Institute for Health Research Devices for Dignity MedTech Co-operative at Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. Rory has received research funding from EPSRC, AHRC, NIHR, the Wellcome Trust and other charities. He leads an interdisciplinary team that delivers game-changing rehabilitation research. He has a track record in designing, developing and testing healthcare technology. His research has been awarded the 2009 Limbless Association Prize, the 2006 Prix from the Académie Européenne de la Médecine Physique et de Réadaptation and the 2003 Philip Nichols Prize from the British Society of Rehabilitation Medicine.

Mentee - Dr Jatinder Minhas

Jatinder is a Clinical Associate Professor of Stroke Medicine at the University of Leicester and an Honorary Consultant Stroke Physician at University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust. His research bridges the gap between technical studies in cerebrovascular physiology (particularly acute intracerebral haemorrhage), and delivery of clinical stroke care and research. Currently, he leads and collaborates on a number of clinical and physiologically focused stroke studies in addition to a number of research-based leadership roles. Towards the end of the mentoring period, Jatinder was successful in achieving a five year Stroke Association Senior Clinical Lectureship.

Drivers for joining the mentoring programme

Rory joined the mentoring programme as he wanted to give back and contribute to NIHR in his mentor role as well as bring along and support the next generation of rehabilitation researchers in the UK.

Jatinder joined the NIHR mentoring programme as he was transitioning from an early career academic to an established researcher and wanted an external mentor as a sounding board to explore his career and research choices. He was looking for somebody ‘with wide-ranging experience that although not immediately aligned to my research area had some appreciation for the speciality and, for example, the patient population, funding, the career trajectory, somebody that had built a team themselves, with some industry collaborative experience and had an idea of some of the challenges around that’.

Relationship focus

Rory and Jatinder started the mentoring relationship in June 2022, and this is continuing at present. During this period, the pair met approximately every 6 to 8 weeks, including a face-to-face meeting at the NIHR Mentoring continuing professional development event in Leeds in February 2023. There have been other interactions during this period involving review and feedback on Fellowship grant applications. Both confirmed that if the application is successful the mentoring relationship will continue throughout the grant period.

The mentoring conversations have been mainly mentee-led. Rory observed that he felt confident with his mentee steering the conversation and bringing relevant topics for discussion. Jatinder observed that the mentoring agenda was ‘fluid and dynamic based sometimes on what I had brought to the table but also sometimes what my mentor felt was relevant for me to be aware of or needed to consider based on prior discussions’. Overall, the focus of the mentoring conversations was to support Jatinder to explore his career trajectory and consider the best routes for consolidation as well as ongoing progression in his current role.

Key topics

Their mentoring conversations included progression to Associate Professor role and its implications, developing the clinical/academic portfolio, research publications, fellowship and wider grant applications, building a research team, creating professional boundaries, prioritisation, building a national and international network as well as work-life balance.

Relationship satisfaction

Both Rory and Jatinder agreed that they were very well matched. Jatinder observed that they had similar personalities; his mentor had a pragmatic approach to address challenges which he appreciated. He benefited from anecdotes and personal experiences shared by his mentor. Rory observed that the match worked well as he was able to assist his mentee with the transition from applied to translational research through this mentoring relationship.

Mentoring outcomes

atinder confirmed that he had gained both personally and professionally from the mentoring relationship. He reflected that from a personal perspective ‘I’ve become a much calmer individual over the 12 months as I have transitioned from a new consultant and senior clinical academic … having had different achievements during the year’. Professionally, he now has a broader perspective of his career. He also noted that the mentoring conversations had become more focused and strategic as time went on: ‘At the beginning it was very much about moving to this Associate Professor role and some of the challenges that I might face and then applying for my first grant and developing the team and getting involved in strategic grants within the institution. Since then, once I got the grant, the next phase was the next fellowship.’ Rory concluded that the outcome of the mentoring relationship was a psychologically positive experience, and he felt a sense of partnership in some of his mentee’s successes.

Overall reflections

It was evident from the research interviews that the mentoring relationship was highly effective and in Jatinder’s words had ‘far reaching benefits’. Alongside receiving pastoral support, Jatinder explored the appropriateness of research projects, strategic funding options, supervision of doctoral students with his mentor. Rory also reflected that, ‘it has been a very good experience as a mentor ... in a sustained mentoring relationship with a fellow clinical academic outside my own institution’. He felt energised by working with his mentee who was committed and enthusiastic about his own work. He found it useful to learn about his mentee’s research and also share his own research experiences. He observed, ‘I hope I’ve been able to give something back to a colleague who will, hopefully, go on and mentor others’.

Jatinder confirmed that his mentor was able to support him fully around the challenges he had raised. He felt that the mentoring relationship had enabled him to achieve a good balance between the clinical and academic components of his job plan, seek independent grant funding as well as build towards a fellowship grant. When asked what was most valuable about the relationship, he pointed out that he benefited from his mentor’s significant experience and his ‘honest and unbiased manner’. He noted that, ‘I think it’s been everything I would have hoped for and more to be honest … the fact that we are able to continue the relationship and I’ve managed to integrate him into some of my future plans has been brilliant’. Rory valued the in-person meeting with his mentor and the free-flowing discussion, personal and professional, which he felt further strengthened the relationship. He is pleased to be a part of his mentee’s journey and continue the relationship beyond the one-year period of the NIHR Mentoring Programme; this is a strong indicator of this successful mentoring relationship.

Cohort 2 2022 Matched Pair Interviews

• Pair 1
  
  • Mentor - Professor Lucy Yardley
  • Mentee - Dr Qizhi Huang
• Pair 2
  • Mentor - Professor John Baker
  • Mentee - Dr June Brown
• Pair 3
  • Mentor - Professor Daniel Perry
  • Mentee - Dr Timothy Robinson
• Pair 4
  
  • Mentor - Professor Gregory Lip
  • Mentee - Dr Karen Suetterlin
• Pair 5
  
  • Mentor - Professor Richard Martin
  • Mentee - Dr Louise Smith
• Pair 6
  
  • Mentor - Professor Steve Cummins
  • Mentee - Dr Monique Tan

Pair 1

Mentor - Professor Lucy Yardley

Lucy is a behavioural scientist and NIHR Senior Investigator with extensive experience of developing and evaluating accessible and effective interventions for patients and healthcare professionals in primary and secondary care. At University of Bristol, she is the behavioural theme lead for the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration-West and the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit and co-Director (Research) for the Centre for Doctoral Training in Digital Health and Care. She also continues in her role at University of Southampton as co-Director of the Digital Interventions Group. Previous roles have included Director of the Behavioural Science theme of the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at University of Southampton, Editor-in-Chief of Psychology & Health (journal of the European Society for Health Psychology), core or expert topic member of NICE (National Institute for Clinical Excellence) panels in public health, behaviour change (technology) and antimicrobial stewardship, and member of research funding panels for NIHR, Medical Research Council (MRC) and medical charities. She was awarded an OBE in the Queen’s Birthday Honours 2020 for her services to the Covid-19 response as SAGE contributor and co-Chair of SPI-B.

Mentee - Dr Qizhi Huang

Qizhi is a GP NIHR Clinical Lecturer at the University of Sheffield, School of Medicine and Population Health. She obtained her medical degree in China and her PhD was laboratory based. She had a long break in clinical practice while involved in laboratory research. Qizhi started a clinical lectureship in 2021. Her research interests are in the field of care for older adults with complex needs. She is particularly interested in improving cancer survivor’s quality of life. She is currently carrying out research around improving bone health for patients with prostate cancer receiving hormone treatment. She is a PCUK Prostate Cancer UK clinical champion. She is also interested in health inequality and inclusive research. She is a member of DERA (Deep End Research Alliance Yorkshire and Humber). Her research in prostate cancer helped set up the 1in4SPSG Sheffield Prostate Cancer Support Group, which is the first support for black men in Yorkshire. As an academic GP, she is also the research lead in the practice and of the SSERG Sheffield South East Research Group, acting as a local site PI for clinical studies adopted by the NIHR.

Drivers for joining the mentoring programme

Qizhi joined the mentoring programme to enhance her leadership and communication skills, and also to increase her knowledge about research funding and project application process. With extensive experience in leading several PhD programmes and large teams of research fellows, Lucy has gained very broad experience of how to support people through the various stages of their career. Lucy is committed to utilising her experience to support colleagues to develop fulfilling careers and leadership capabilities in applied health research.

Relationship focus

Lucy and Qizhi started the mentoring relationship in July 2022 and although the formal relationship was due to conclude in September 2023, they have agreed to keep in contact and continue the relationship informally beyond the one-year NIHR Mentoring Programme. During this period the pair met online approximately 8 to 9 times. At the early stage of the mentoring relationship, Lucy took the lead ‘to structure discussion and agree to set objectives for the meetings’ but within a few sessions it was progressively led by the mentee. Qizhi was keen to explore her career route with her mentor and build confidence to peruse her research career. Here there was a clear alignment, as Lucy is committed to supporting the careers of young researchers.

Key topics

As Qizhi was keen to build her self-confidence through the mentoring support, the main topic of the mentoring conversations was around work-life balance, juggling clinical commitments with the academic work, areas of research and research methodology, prioritisation and time management. Another key topic was around building networks for career progression and collaborative research opportunities.

Relationship satisfaction

Lucy and Qizhi confirmed that the match worked well as they discovered shared themes and issues and challenges, such as communication and cultural barriers, work-life balance and prioritisation. Qizhi highlighted that her mentor actively listened, shared her own experience and provided practical guidance. Although Qizhi was a clinician and her mentor was a non-clinician, they were able to build trust in the relationship and explore both personal and professional challenges.

Mentoring outcomes

Qizhi highlighted that what she found most helpful was the detailed discissions on topics such as effective communication, work-life balance, challenges of building academic networks and the depth of experience shared by her mentor and the detailed guidance and support offered. Qizhi has highly valued the non-judgemental aspect of this mentoring relationship. She gained both personally and professionally from this relationship: she was able to review and make some changes to prioritise her areas of work, explore relevant networks and appreciate the success of her current research. This has helped to build her confidence and consider her career trajectory with more clarity. From a mentor perspective, Lucy observed that she was ‘really surprised how well I could connect with somebody in such a different situation’. It was evident that she had also gained from this relationship. She observed that she found the relationship really rewarding and she would like to do more of the same; she pointed out that ‘it was a bit of an oasis for me as well as her, and a way of connecting with people in different conditions with different cultures and background … and we could laugh about things and enjoy chatting.’

Overall reflections

Both Qizhi and Lucy found the mentoring relationship beneficial. Qizhi felt that the mentoring conversations provided the required guidance and support to address the challenges faced by her. She reflected that, ‘my mentor was really a good listener, so she just listened to you, and you feel like you are talking to somebody who is thinking about you … she is quite kind and caring.’ Her mentor also affirmed that she ‘encouraged her mentee to think about what things she wants to do and feels able to do.’ She confirmed that they built on the things that were working well for her mentee, helping her to focus on the patient and public involvement aspects of research which she enjoyed rather than seeking wider collaborations which did not currently align with her work-life balance.

Overall, the mentoring relationship offered emotional support, a reflective space enabling mutual learning, sharing of experiences and well as addressing work-life balance, building confidence and clarity on areas of research.

Pair 2 

Mentor John Baker

John is a Professor of Mental Health Nursing at the University of Leeds and chairs one of the NIHR DCAF panels. His research focuses on improving the quality and safety of secondary mental health care. He is a registered mental health nurse and nurse teacher with the Nursing, Midwifery Council with over 30 years’ clinical and academic experience. He has a strong international reputation as a leading mental health nurse, researcher and clinical academic. He is keen to support the growth of Nursing/Allied Health Professional research across healthcare.

Mentee - Dr June Brown

June is currently a Reader/Associate Professor in Clinical Psychology at Kings College London. She joined Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London in 1995, having worked in the NHS for several years as a clinician and psychology manager. Her areas of expertise are help-seeking, providing psychological care for difficult to engage groups and sources of informal care (e.g. friends, family, church). She teaches on the topics of depression, insomnia and self-esteem.

Drivers for joining the mentoring programme

June joined the NIHR Mentoring Programme as she was at a pivotal stage in her career, aiming for promotion to professorship. She was keen to receive mentorship support to discuss the areas of her work activities in broad terms and get a ‘steer in terms of papers and grants that she was writing, and whether the things that I was doing were the right things to do.’ John was committed to applying his transferable skill set around leadership within the NHS and academia to promote and give back to his profession through the NIHR Mentoring Programme.

Relationship focus

The mentoring relationship has spanned over a year and during this period John and June had several online mentoring sessions. Beyond this one-year NIHR Mentoring Programme, the relationship is currently open-ended so the pair will meet again for a catch-up in the near future.

Key topics

The main topic of the mentoring conversations was career promotion to professorship; both short-term and long-term objectives are explored to achieve this. There was in-depth discussion on areas of current work and then as next steps to widen networks and actively seek new collaborations as well as reviving previous connections. Other topic areas included development of grant proposals, future publications and work-life balance.

Relationship satisfaction

June and John both confirmed that they were well matched. John observed that ‘we naturally just matched in terms of our personalities and the ability to communicate with each other.’ June benefitted from having her mentor as a sounding board, learning from shared experiences, increasing insights and widening perspectives. She commented that her mentor ‘gave me the time to talk about my situation in a more general way and he understood what I was talking about’ which she found very valuable in the relationship. “Mentoring can sometimes be misunderstood just as specific problem-solving and I am grateful John did not do that”.

Mentoring outcomes

June and John both found the mentoring relationship valuable. June confirmed that she received professional support alongside career guidance. She reflected that the mentoring relationship was most valuable as her mentor could relate to the topics discussed and his perceptiveness in addressing them. It was also evident that there was strong trust and honesty in the relationship. John observed that the ‘relationship we built I would like to think was a useful one, with a purpose that suited her and actually I quite enjoyed it.’

Overall reflections

June and John affirmed that they jointly took responsibility for the mentoring relationship; the mentoring conversations were dynamic and fluid, addressing the mentee’s needs fully. John observed that ‘I would like to think I gave an alternative view of the world that she was inhabiting because there are lots of perspectives around academic life.’ June highlighted that she always felt really encouraged and positive after a meeting with her mentor. She confirmed that she had ‘become much more confident professionally and personally as a result of the mentoring experience.’ This clearly establishes the success of this mentor-mentee relationship.

Pair 3

Mentor - Professor Daniel Perry

Daniel is a NIHR Research Professor with the UK National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR) and a consultant children's orthopaedic surgeon. His clinical focus is in paediatric hip diseases and trauma, and he performs surgery at Alder Hey Children's Hospital in Liverpool. His major research interests are in effectiveness and innovative clinical trials. He has a passion for delivering trials with strong patient engagement and an engaging trial interface with participants. Daniel has published over 150 peer-reviewed papers and has been awarded both the Hunterian Professorship by the Royal College of Surgeons of England, the Robert Jones Gold Medal from the British Orthopaedic Association and an Honorary Fellowship from the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh for his research. He has been a member of the NIHR Health Technologies Assessment (HTA) Commissioning Board and is Specialty Lead for Orthopaedic Trials for the Royal College of Surgeons of England. He is an Associate Editor and member of the research methodology panel of the Bone and Joint Journal. He sits on the research committee of the British Orthopaedic Association (BOA) and the research committee of BSCOS (British Society for Children's Orthopaedic Surgery).

Mentee - Dr Timothy Robinson

Tim is a Consultant Senior Lecturer at the University of Bristol. He is a medical oncologist, and his research is broadly based around the relationship between inherited genetic factors and cancer risk, progression, treatment response and toxicity. He has several publications in academic journals. He is currently a recipient of a NIHR Development and Skills Enhancement award.

Drivers for joining the mentoring programme

Tim joined the NIHR Mentoring Programme as he wanted an independent mentor with experience of the academic world, outside his own institution as a sounding board to help him address some areas of his work and career context. He observed that ‘I am the only academic oncologist here in Bristol and so I don’t have a direct peer network to sound out advice … and it’s quite useful to have somebody out of your area of expertise, who can just give a perspective, both from another institution but also from another speciality.’ In his leadership role within NIHR, Daniel is committed to supporting early and mid-career researchers and is keen to offer mentorship to those whom local support is not easily available or accessible. In his mentoring role he wants to ‘give that back…. also, I like being helpful to NIHR, they are very good to me.’

Relationship focus

Daniel and Tim have completed the one-year formal mentoring period since they were matched and have chosen to continue the relationship informally outside the NIHR Mentoring Programme. The overall aim of the mentoring was support with career guidance and transition; however, Tim was able to address several current work situations within this space. Their mentoring conversations included exploration of fellowships and grants, his current tenureship and challenges of working with distant universities to facilitate own academic career.

Key topics

As the relationship progressed the focus of the conversations shifted from specific career challenges to more open-ended discussions related to his career trajectory, including future research funding and fellowship applications.

Relationship satisfaction

Both Tim and Daniel agreed that it was a good match; Daniel defined it as a ‘completely perfectly imperfectly matched’ – their clinical areas were very different but around clinical trials they were well aligned. Tim pointed out that their views and experience of academia was also similar. The interviews highlighted that they built a fruitful and mutually beneficial relationship.
Daniel and Tim found the mentoring experience to be highly effective as a two-way relationship. Tim referred to this as a ‘two-sided balanced free-flowing conversation’ which was affirmed by his mentor. Daniel reflected that the overall mentoring conversations were about where his mentee currently ‘was in his career, where he was going and how he was going to get there by way of fellowship, grants and other stuff’. Tim confirmed that his mentor provided the ‘encouragement and validation’ around some of the funding choices he had made for his research trials which he found very helpful.

Mentoring outcomes

Tim confirmed that his mentor provided ‘useful advice and good answers’ and he appreciated this open and honest outsider perspective. Daniel reflected that he ‘got stuff back’ from the relationship; they discussed shared problems and difficulties within universities, and it was useful to hear about similar challenges in different institutions.

Overall reflections

During the mentoring relationship, Tim was successful in a large grant application and his tenureship was confirmed at this university; he reflected that the conversations with his mentor may have contributed to his assertive approach in negotiating with institutions and other funders to achieve these outcomes.

When asked what was most valuable about the relationship, Daniel pointed out that ‘making the connection and building the rapport’ with his mentee was a very positive experience. Tim valued the sounding board offered by his mentor to talk through and explore his challenges with somebody who is further along in their research journey than himself. He was also surprised that he ‘got more out of it than I thought I was going to.’ The commitment to the relationship beyond the one-year period of the NIHR Mentoring Programme is a strong indicator of the success of this mentor-mentee pair.

Pair 4

Mentor - Professor Gregory Lip

Gregory, MD, is Price-Evans Chair of Cardiovascular Medicine, at the University of Liverpool, UK – and Director of the Liverpool Centre for Cardiovascular Science at the University of Liverpool, Liverpool John Moores University and Liverpool Heart & Chest Hospital. He is also Distinguished Professor at Aalborg University, Denmark; and Adjunct Professor at Seoul National University and Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea. He is a NIHR Senior Investigator and since 2014 was ranked by Expertscape as the world's leading expert in the understanding and treatment of Artificial Fibrillation (AF). His current group’s research interests are broad, ranging from epidemiology to pathophysiology, translational research, clinical risk assessment and trajectories of risk, patient management pathways, and applied health research. He is passionate about using ‘big data’ and epidemiological observations to generate hypotheses and to inform clinical studies that help improve the management of common cardiovascular conditions, such as atrial fibrillation, hypertension and thrombosis.

Mentee - Dr Karen Suetterlin

Karen is an NIHR Clinical Lecturer in Clinical Neurophysiology at Newcastle University. Her research is interdisciplinary and spans rare neuromuscular diseases, sarcopenia and methods to characterise skeletal muscle function. She is a member of the AGE Research Group, emerging leader for the Ageing, Sarcopenia and Multimorbidity theme of Newcastle NIHR BRC and a member of both basic and clinical strands of the John Walton Muscular Dystrophy Centre. She is currently completing her clinical training as a Clinical Neurophysiology Registrar at the RVI (Royal Victoria Infirmary). Karen moved to Newcastle after having completed a Medical Research Council (MRC) Clinical Research Training Fellowship ‘Progressive Muscular Weakness in Periodic Paralysis and Normal Aging’ under the supervision of Professor Mike Hanna at the Institute of Neurology, University College, London (UCL). Karen is excited about working with, and learning from, the vast expertise of the AGE Research Group and the John Walton Centre for Muscular Dystrophy. During her time in the North-East, Karen hopes to translate some of the research findings from her PhD for the benefit of people with periodic paralysis and sarcopenia.

Drivers for joining the mentoring programme

aren joined the NIHR mentoring programme as it was a great opportunity to access independent, external mentoring to support her transition to becoming an independent researcher. She was looking for a mentor to help her develop skills in effective prioritisation, strategy and time management. She also wanted to learn more about grant application and create synergies, combining preclinical and clinical research with clinical practice to build an international research profile. Gregory was keen to offer her mentorship and the opportunity to explore how to ‘go up the ladder and advance in her academic career.’ Gregory also has significant experience as an Academy of Medical Science (AMS) Mentor and previously offered mentorship for junior peer reviewers at the Publons Academy.

Relationship focus

Gregory and Karen’s mentoring relationship started in June 2022 and concluded in June 2023. Gregory indicated that the relationship may continue informally after this period if his mentee needed further support. Karen confirmed that Gregory was able to provide a high-level perspective of career options and actions to build her career strategy.

Key topics

The main mentoring discussion topics included research programmes and outputs, teaching, administrative roles, grant applications, future collaborations and widening one's own network. Other discussion topics included routes for potential recruitment and funding for PhD students and overall strategy of prioritisation for the next step of career progression.

Relationship satisfaction

Karen and Gregory both found the mentoring relationship to be helpful and insightful. Karen highly appreciated the opportunity to speak to a researcher with such a significant international profile who was completely independent of both her area of work and her institution as it is unlikely you would have this opportunity without a formal introduction. She felt that it was interesting and useful to see how much overlap there was in strategic approach between disciplines and between different institutions. Gregory noted that although they did not share the same clinical speciality, he was able to support her with ‘aspects that are in common with regard to academic expectations such as teaching, research and funding.’

Mentoring outcomes

Karen reflected that she learned more about available funding streams and how to prioritise her research to align with grant-funding bodies and career progression. She confirmed that she ‘got some really helpful advice on this’ which was a clear mentoring outcome. Another outcome was an application to the Academy of Medical Sciences for a clinical lecturer starter grant. This had been recommended by local mentors and its importance was emphasised by Gregory. She is currently awaiting the outcome of this application and is planning future grant/fellowship applications.

Overall reflections

In terms of managing the mentoring relationship, it was a two-way process, which Gregory referred to as the ‘bidirectional approach’ in mentoring – a two-way learning process, enabling the mentor to share experience and expertise and in doing so develop listening and advising skills as well as enable the mentee to ask questions and explore their areas of interest. Gregory noted that the overall mentoring conversation was driven very much by his mentee’s agenda, and he encouraged a two-way discussion to address the issues raised. Gregory also reflected that the overall mentoring relationship provided an insight into how today’s academics career progression experience, offering him a broader perspective of challenges faced by early and mid-career academics.

Pair 5

Mentor - Professor Richard Martin

Richard is a Professor of Clinical Epidemiology, the Deputy Head of Bristol Medical School and Head of Population Health Science (PHS) at the University of Bristol. He has been Director of Graduate Studies in the School of Social and Community Medicine between 2004-2013. His principal areas of research are in cancer aetiology and early detection, the short- and long-term child and adult health effects of breastfeeding and early growth and uncovering unexpected beneficial and adverse effects of commonly prescribed drugs through pharmaco-epidemiological studies. He is engaged in several funded research trials as a lead and co-principal investigator. He co-leads the Diet and Physical Activity Theme of the NIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre and co-leads the CRUK Integrative Epidemiology Programme, focused on cancer aetiology and early-detection. He has significant experience as a mentor and academic supervisor. He has co-led two doctoral training programmes with a total of 72 students between 2008-2025, funded by Wellcome & Cancer Research UK. He has been heavily involved in advising on career development as Head of Clinical Epidemiology and then Head of PHS at Bristol Medical School since 2013. He brings this wealth of experience at all levels in mentoring and career development to the NIHR Mentoring programme.

Mentee - Dr Louise Smith

Louise was postdoctoral researcher at Kings College London (KCL) but since taking part in this interview has transitioned into the role of Behavioral Science Team Leader at the UK Health Security Agency. She joined KCL in 2013 as an MSc Mental Health Studies student, after which she worked in Psychosis studies for one year investigating cross-cultural cognitive biases (2014-15). After having completed her PhD investigating psychological factors affecting uptake of the child influenza vaccine and parental perception of side effects in 2018, she continued working in the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Emergency Preparedness and Response. In her time at the Unit, she helped the behavioural science response to the COVID-19 pandemic, responded to the 2022 mpox outbreak, the ongoing threat of avian influenza as well as contributing to other research investigating emergency preparedness and response within the department. Louise is co-lead of the Response theme for the Unit and lead for Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement for the Response theme. She is keen to further her career in public health and would like to explore career options as a researcher and as a public health professional, and has recently moved to a new role as Behavioural Science Team Leader at the UK Health Security Agency.

Drivers for joining the mentoring programme

Louise joined the NIHR mentoring programme as she wanted to explore her future career options in academia as well as wider opportunities in the public health sector. She pointed out that she wanted to ‘gain confidence in applying for other roles both within and outside of academia…. to be accountable for my own career progression’. Richard joined the mentoring programme as he is really keen to support the next generation of academics and researchers and is committed to contributing to this capacity building in his profession. His offer was to ‘provide independent advice on any issue raised, listen to people’s concerns and hopefully help them to think about how they can address these and…. provide the knowledge to help people to achieve their goals’.

Relationship focus

The mentoring relationship has spanned over a year and during this period Richard and Louise had four online mentoring sessions. Although the relationship has officially ended, Louise pointed out that Richard has offered help with a Fellowship Application if required in the future. Overall, the focus of the mentoring conversations was to support Louise to explore her career trajectory and consider the best routes for consolidation as well as on-going career progression.

Key topics

The mentoring conversations were largely around becoming an independent researcher, applying for a fellowship and supervising PhD students. Other topic areas discussed were around a theme lead role in the biomedical research centre, exploration on managing links with the UK Health Security Agency and reflecting on her own growth and training.

Relationship satisfaction

The match worked well, not only in supporting Louise to explore her career trajectory in the area of academic research but in considering wider opportunities in public health outside of academic institutions. Louise appreciated the external independent support and guidance on transition to the next stage of her academic career. Richard felt that they were well matched as the wider academic area of his mentee was aligned to his broad area of expertise in population health sciences. The mentoring conversations were mainly mentee-led. Richard observed that his mentee steered the conversation, bringing relevant topics for discussion and recordings and sharing notes from the session which he found very helpful. Louise agreed that ‘he let me talk about what I wanted to talk about but then after our first session we agreed on the things that kind of align.’

Mentoring outcomes

When asked what she had gained personally and professionally from the mentoring relationship, Louise observed that she had ended up talking about things that ‘I wasn’t originally looking for but that were actually quite useful, like supporting PhD students and preparing a training plan.’ She also appreciated the formal structure of the mentoring programme, including the training and overall commitment to the mentoring process. Richard reflected that he had gained personally as he finds talking to people very interesting and he has enhanced his active listening skills and open style of questioning to enable his mentee to find relevant solutions.

Overall reflections

It was evident from the research interviews that the topics covered in the four mentoring sessions over the year were beneficial to Louise. She reflected that it was ‘useful having someone else that isn’t on my immediate team providing a different viewpoint.’ Richard also reflected that he was able to offer open and honest feedback and guidance in this relationship. Similar to his mentee, he also noted that ‘it does seem to provide quite valuable, independent support from outside the work area.’

Louise confirmed that her mentor supported her with the challenges in academia and helped her consider solutions that she has not previously contemplated. When asked what was most valuable about the relationship, she repeated that it was the external and independent nature of the relationship as well as proactively building time for reflective practice and personal development. Richard reflected that it is always a rewarding experience to make some difference in a person's outlook and support with finding solutions. He also acknowledged that in his role as Deputy Head of the Medical School at the University of Bristol, making time for the one-hour mentoring sessions has become increasingly more difficult but he is committed to this process as he fully recognises the value of mentoring, having benefited himself.

Pair 6

Mentor - Professor Steve Cummins

Steven is a geographer with training in epidemiology and public health and joined London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) in 2012 after holding posts at Queen Mary, University of London and the Medical Research Council (MRC) Social & Public Health Sciences Unit in Glasgow. AT LSHTM, he is Head of the Department of Public Health, Environments & Society, Co-Director of the Population Health Innovation Lab and Lead/PI of LSHTM's membership of the NIHR School for Public Health Research. He has also been Chair of the LSHTM/MRC Strategic Skills Development Fellowships Scheme, Theme Lead for Complex Public Health Interventions, (LSHTM-SGUL)MRC Doctoral Training Partnership and member of the LSHTM REF2021 Strategic Advisory Group. Externally he currently serves as Panel Chair for the NIHR Doctoral Fellowships Programme, is a member of the Editorial Board of Health & Place, and acts as a Mentor for NIHR and the Society for Social Medicine & Population Health.

Mentee - Dr Monique Tan

Monique is an NIHR Advanced Fellow at Queen Mary’s Centre for Public Health and Policy. She holds degrees in nutrition and dietetics (University of Applied Science, Switzerland) and international health (Uppsala University, Sweden). She also has research and field experience in Europe, Asia, and Africa, notably through my work for the World Health Organization and the European Commission. Monique is interested in policy measures that encourage food reformulation and make it easier for everybody to enjoy healthier diets. Her doctoral research at Queen Mary’s focused on salt reduction in China, which helped identify it as one of the countries with the highest salt intake in the world. Her NIHR Advanced Fellowship is now centred on the salt reduction programme in the UK.

Drivers for joining the mentoring programme

Monique had experience of being mentored previously and she was specifically looking to be matched with somebody outside of her own professional circle with experience of research outside academia through the NIHR Mentoring Programme. She was keen to build a panel of mentors to support her career progression. Steven has mentored many PhD students and early career researchers and has supervised over 30 research students and fellows. Many of these have gone on to successful careers in academia, local government and the civil service. Steven was keen to contribute to NIHR through his mentor role and he is committed to ‘supporting early-career and mid-career researchers to transition to independent roles and help them to make decisions, not telling them what to do.’ His overall philosophy is based on developing and supporting researchers in a collegial and supportive environment and introducing them to wider networks and signposting opportunities. He brings this thinking and experience to the NIHR Mentoring Programme.

Relationship focus

Steven and Monique started the mentoring relationship in September 2022, and this is continuing at present. During this period the pair met approximately four times, including once in-person, and they have agreed to continue the relationship beyond the one-year NIHR Mentoring Programme until the end of Monique’s fellowship. Overall, Monique wanted to get a better understanding of what different career paths in research may look like.

Key topics

The key focus areas were long-term career progression, career options and specific objectives related to academic lectureship, future grants and fellowship. The mentoring conversation also included context-specific topics that needed to be resolved in the short-term, such as managing others, including supervisory relationships.

Relationship satisfaction

Monique acknowledged that although her mentor’s career and experience was in academia and higher institutions, ‘he was still an excellent person and a good mentor … and hugely beneficial for me.’ Steven noted that the match was pretty good as they had relatively similar research interests and his mentee’s career trajectory is following a similar route to his own career; he observed that ‘many of the questions she asked are questions I had asked myself at that point of my career’. The mentoring conversations were mainly mentee-led. Monique reflected that she benefited from her mentor’s wider experience and perspectives; she also observed, ‘I benefited from the fact that he is really frank in his advice, and I found that really refreshing and helpful.’

Mentoring outcomes

Monique received beneficial guidance and support both in terms of signposting and wider the conversation around career progression. Monique reflected that she received advice on networking and future collaborations. She was also able to explore challenges around transition into new roles. Steven adopted a non-directive approach, enabling Monique to ‘make her own decisions and consider both the pros and cons of any particular solution.’ As Steven is in the same area of research, Monique recognised the value of his knowledge and connections in the field and the potential for richer conversations going forward. Steven also shared his advice to Monique ‘not allowing other colleagues career choices to influence her own thinking’; he observed that this may have contributed to a shift in Monique’s mindset about her own career choices.

Overall reflections

Overall, the mentoring relationship offered a space for mutual learning as well as exploration of career progression. Monique concluded that mentoring is a life and career changing experience and that she is inspired to become a mentor herself and give back to her community in the future. Steven reflected that each mentoring relationship is a learning experience and contributes to the continuing development of his capabilities as a mentor; this relationship has further deepened his interest in supporting early-career researchers to make a difference to his profession.

Cohort 3 2022 Matched Pair Interviews

• Pair 1 
  • Mentor - Professor Tim Croudace
  • Mentee - Dr Madeleine Benton
• Pair 2
  • Mentor - Professor Paul Dark
  • Mentee - Dr Celine Lewis
• Pair 3
  
  • Mentor - Professor Mike Crawford
  • Mentee - Dr Howard Ryland
• Pair 4
  • Mentor - Dr Robbie Duschinsky
  • Mentee - Dr Suzanne Li
• Pair 5

• • Mentor - Professor Ian Hall
  • Mentee - Dr David Lo
• Pair 6
  • Mentor - Professor Catherine Smith
  • Mentee - Dr Pamela Bowman
• Pair 7
  • Mentor - Professor Heather Iles-Smith
  • Mentee - Dr Miriam Avery
• Pair 8
  • Mentor - Professor Steven Julious
  • Mentee - Dr Lazaros Andronis
• Pair 9
  • Mentor - Professor Anne Barton
  • Mentee - Dr Ana-Catarina Pinho Gomes

Pair 1

Mentor - Professor Tim Croudace

Tim was appointed as a Professor at the School of Health Sciences at University of Dundee in 2015, when he moved up from a previous Professorship at the Hull York Medical School (HYMS), University of York. He is an expert in applied psychometrics and inter-disciplinary research with extensive experience of collaboration and capacity building in health and health-care evaluation and assessment research.. His focus is often on population health sciences-related research including in epidemiology (social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology), in psychosocial health and behavioural science and cohort studies of adolescents or longitudinal data analysis. He is a NIHR Academy member through panel membership and the research (programme) grants held. Tim is passionate about research capacity building and career mentorship and is a member of the NIHR Leadership Programme Advisory Board and Future Focused Leadership Programme (FFLP) selection committees.

Mentee - Dr Madeleine Benton

Madeleine is a Postdoctoral Research Associate in the Department of Psychological Medicine at King's College London and her research centres on perinatal health. She was awarded her PhD in Psychology at the University of Adelaide in 2020 and later joined King’s College London as a Postdoctoral Research Associate and trial manager for the MalaYsian Gestational Diabetes and Prevention of Diabetes Study (MY GODDESS) (Medical Research Council Newton Fund). She was then awarded a 1-year NIHR Maudsley BRC Career Development Postdoctoral Fellowship to explore aspects of perinatal mental health for women with gestational diabetes mellitus. She is experienced in mixed-methodologies at the physical-mental interface of women’s and children’s wellbeing and has a focus on cross-disciplinary collaborations to reduce health inequalities. Madeleine is passionate about ensuring research in women’s health and perinatal mental health is more accessible to the public. She is proactive in undertaking public engagement activities, works closely with numerous patient and public groups, and presents her work at academic and public events at national and international levels.

Drivers for joining the mentoring programme

Tim recently completed the Future Focussed Leaders programme and contributes to NIHR decision making as a member of commissioning panels and as current co-deputy chair of one of their senior personal award panels (NIHR AF. He is committed to mentoring and links this to the future success of NIHR. He mentors nationally, and for NIHR incubators and other non-NIHR schemes.
Madeleine joined the NIHR Mentoring Programme as she was on the one-year NIHR BRC Career Development Fellowship and wanted support and direction from a mentor with experience of NIHR funding to apply for an NIHR Advanced Fellowship as a next career step.

Relationship focus

Tim and Madeleine’s mentoring relationship spanned over a year and during this period the pair met online approximately 4 to 5 times. Although the formal NIHR mentoring period has ended, Tim has offered to continue to support Madeleine with next steps following her recent NIHR Advanced Fellowship submission.

Madeleine observed that she ‘really wanted someone who was involved in the NIHR to talk to, to have regular contact, to build a relationship with, and to get their insights and advice on my career path, my career trajectory’. She was also looking for objective and independent guidance and wider perspectives from her mentor. As an experienced mentor, Tim wanted to continue offering mentoring support through the NIHR scheme as he thoroughly enjoyed this role; he was keen to use the mentoring space for ‘developmental conversations to provide the stimulus for reflection on and re-framing of scenarios that usually result in better decision making or a wider appraisal of options’ for his mentee.

Key topics

The overall aim of the mentoring was support with career transition, with a specific focus on preparing and applying for an NIHR Advanced Fellowship. Hence, the mentoring conversations mainly focused on the various aspects of the Fellowship application. Other mentoring topics included discussion on appropriate publications and other funding opportunities, and aligning these to Madeleine’s career trajectory.

Relationship satisfaction

Both Tim and Madeleine agreed that they were very well matched. They built rapport quickly in the relationship and were able to have open and transparent conversations which fully addressed Madeleine’s mentoring objectives. Madeleine observed that initially she was both surprised and a little nervous that she had been matched to a male mentor. This was mainly because being in maternal health her previous mentors, as well as her immediate work colleagues, are mainly female. However, Tim and Madeleine’s professional background were psychology and although their research methodology varied, she realised that ‘this made it very valuable as he was slightly removed’ from my research area. Tim also affirmed that this was a perfect match which felt effortless and highly rewarding.

Overall reflections

It was evident that the mentoring was highly effective as a two-way relationship with Madeleine prioritising the topics for discussion and Tim holding the space and steering the conversation towards focused outcomes. Madeleine observed that she always ‘came prepared with four or five points that I wanted to cover with him ... we would always cover them plus additional topics as through conversing there were other things that would come up and we would go in different directions’. Tim also reflected that she was ‘a tremendous mentee to interact with, and it was never vague, it was never unprepared ... she had options, she was reflective, she was always moving forward’. These comments demonstrate effective use of the mentoring process, including establishing clarity of purpose which led to an effective mentoring relationship.

Madeleine confirmed that her mentor was able to support her with the dilemmas and challenges she presented in her mentoring conversations. Over the 12 months she progressed well with her NIHR application with support from her mentor which she has now submitted. She attributes it as a direct mentoring outcome. It was evident that the mentorship offered her a non-judgemental and reflective space to consider a range of perspectives; she affirmed this as follows: ‘ I guess actually I wasn’t entirely sure what the main outcome of the programme would be for me, but as we went, I learnt so much including what makes a great mentoring relationship, which was that listening, someone very calm….he would never give me an answer to a question I had, he would suggest things and make me find the answer myself which was just fantastic’. Tim also affirmed that ‘we discussed things in a way that enabled her to make the decisions’.

Madeleine confirmed that she has gained both personally and professionally from the mentoring relationship. Professionally, she gained wider perspectives about different stages of her career as her mentor offered varied and contrasting options to what she had been exposed to at her own institution. Personally, her mentor has been a role model for her, and she has observed and learnt what makes a good mentor. She has started to implement some strategies and techniques in her academic supervisory role and hopes to follow in her mentor’s footsteps as a mentor in the future. When asked what was most valuable about the relationship, Madeleine felt that it was ‘having someone experienced, knowledgeable, and inspirational, being able to have dedicated time with them and knowing that they care and also want to be there’. This protected time for collective reflections, learning and validation of Madeleine’s current practices were excellent mentoring outcomes for her. Madeleine’s overall reflections were that she was surprised by ‘how fantastic it was … I just can’t speak highly enough about the benefits that I’ve got out of the programme’.

Tim also reflected that the discussions they were having were both helpful as well as enjoyable. For him it was a highly satisfying experience, he said Madeleine was ‘wonderful mentee to have’. Going forward, Time is committed to offering mentorship to those exploring NIHR fellowships to share his experience and expertise in this area to support career progression of early career academics.

Pair 2

Mentor - Professor Paul Dark

Paul is a Professor of Critical Care Medicine at University of Manchester and an Honorary NHS Consultant. In addition, he is Research Professor at the Humanitarian and Conflict Response Institute, providing strategic interdisciplinary leadership in health and social justice. He is also a NIHR Deputy Medical Director at National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR) and in this role he is NIHR's first Faculty of Medical Leadership and Management senior mentor, currently supervising National Medical Director's Clinical Fellows.

Mentee - Dr Celine Lewis

Paul was appointed NIHR Clinical Research Network's National Deputy Medical Director in 2022. He provides strategic leadership for the development, delivery and accessibility of a large portfolio of national clinical research in NHS acute hospital settings and he represents NIHR internationally. As a former NIHR National Specialty Lead for Critical Care, he served on NIHR's Urgent Public Health Research Advisory Group, providing expert advice on research priority for the Department of Health and Social Care and UK's Chief Medical Officers during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Celine is a Principal Research Fellow in the Population, Policy & Practice Department at UCL GOS Institute of Child Health. She is a behavioural scientist working in the field of genetic and genomic medicine. Her work focuses on how patients and families relate to, communicate and make decisions around personal genetic information, and the subsequent behavioural, psychological and social outcomes.

Celine joined the Institute of Child Health (ICH) in 2020. She holds several institutional citizenship roles since joining ICH including chair of the PPP Engagement special interest group (2020-21), faculty member of the UCL-REACH Alliance (2022-23) and is on the organising committee of the UCL Qualitative Health Research Network. Celine currently holds a NIHR advanced fellowship to look at the implementation of whole genome sequencing into the NHS, in particular for paediatric rare diseases.

Drivers for joining the mentoring programme

Through the NIHR mentoring support Celine is keen to raise her profile and establish herself as a leader in her field and become more effective in her role as a line manager and MSc supervisor.
Paul is committed to supporting colleagues working in emergency and acute care patient pathways to help develop their clinical academic practice and towards future national research leadership.

Relationship focus

Paul and Celine started the mentoring relationship in September 2022 and concluded in November 2023. During this period the pair met approximately 4 times, including once in-person when Paul attended a research presentation by his mentee at his university. Celine wanted to be supported by a mentor who was a senior academic researcher with a career trajectory that she was keen to pursue. She was interested to ‘hear their take on their career path, and where they got to, and how they got to that, and what lessons they learned along the way’. Paul was keen to contribute as a NIHR mentor as a social responsibility in his role as a NIHR Senior Investigator and Deputy Medical Director at the Clinical Research Network.

Both confirmed that the mentoring conversations were led by Celine; she put forward the discussion topics prior to each meeting. She acknowledged that her mentor was very accommodating; she reflected that ‘he was very open for me to suggest what topics would be useful for me to talk about’. Paul observed that his aim was to offer a safe space for exploration of topics that were of interest to his mentee; he emphasised the importance of trust and confidentiality within this relationship.

Key topics

The overarching topics were on long-term career progressions, options and specific objectives related to future NIHR grants, including professorship funding streams and the experience required for this. The mentoring conversation also included context-specific topics that need to be resolved in the short-term, such as managing others and dealing with difficult employees. Other long-term career discussions included appropriate areas of NIHR funded research areas over five years, building and widening professional network and relevant reading and presentations to support planned career trajectory.

Relationship satisfaction

Celine acknowledged that although her mentor’s career and experience was in clinical research and she was in the field of academic research, there were some common areas of interests which were relevant to her career development. One such area was Paul’s extensive knowledge and experience of NIHR funding strategies and as Celine was keen to explore these funding opportunities, this was hugely beneficial for her. She observed that her mentor was ‘supportive and encouraging, and as we both agreed that the NIHR was almost like my natural home in terms of the research that I did, so he was able to help me make sense of this … and offer advice’. Paul noted that the match was appealing, and it evolved during the course of the year. He observed that ‘things emerged as they developed a relationship of trust’.

Overall reflections

Celine received beneficial guidance and support both in terms of signposting and wider conversation on career progression. Celine reflected that she received advice on funding, networking and future collaborations and was able to explore some day-to-day challenges of her academic role. Paul reflected that although his mentee was in a specialty area that he may not have ordinarily been involved in, they actually ‘found a lot of commonalities’ which he found appealing.

Celine reflected that although at a professional level, they did not share the same career path, personally she had found a trusted friend in her mentor; she confirmed that ‘I think Paul is definitely now somebody that I can always turn to’. When asked what aspects of the mentoring relationship was most valuable to her, she confirmed that she was able to ‘bounce ideas off, get suggestions and feedback, and directions on thinking more of the things that were important to me’. This highlights that the mentoring offered Celine a reflective space to take the time out to think about and explore her career options and receive appropriate guidance and feedback to support her personal and professional development. Paul observed that he was ‘pleasantly surprised at how well her career developed during the year’. He also acknowledged that he may not have directly influenced this, but he pointed out that as a mentor he was ‘just holding up a mirror to her’.
Overall, the mentoring relationship offered a space for mutual learning as well as exploration of career progression. Celine and Paul are open to re-connecting as appropriate beyond the one-year period of the NIHR Mentoring Programme.

Pair 3

Mentor - Professor Mike Crawford

Mike is a Visiting Professor at the Faculty of Medicine at Imperial College London and a Consultant Psychiatrist at Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust. He is a Director at the Institute of Brain Chemistry and Human Nutrition, Founder Trustee of The Mother and Child Foundation and The Little Foundation and President of the McCarrison Society. He is a community-based psychiatrist researching psychological and pharmacological interventions for people with severe mental health conditions. He has been involved in a number of NIHR funded clinical studies and clinical trials. He has achieved many distinguished awards in his field of research and has published extensively. He has been involved in supporting the careers of colleagues over many years and became a mentor for NIHR 18 months ago. He is keen to support colleagues to develop successful academic careers.

Mentee - Dr Howard Ryland

Howard is an Honorary NIHR Senior Clinical Research Fellow at Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre. He is Consultant Psychiatrist with Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust where he is currently the Responsible Clinician on a Psychiatric Intensive Care ward. He is also a consultant psychiatrist in prison services and delivers a local course in the Thames Valley for psychiatrists for the Royal College of Psychiatrists membership exams as well as CPD e-learning provision. He was an Oxford Policy Engagement Network fellow at the Parliamentary Office for Science and Technology (POST) where he published a briefing for parliamentarians on approaches to improving patient choice in the proposed reforms of the Mental Health. Howard is currently undertaking a research project funded by an NIHR Development and Skills Enhancement Award focussing on clinical trials.

Drivers for the mentoring relationship

Mike observed that clinical academics face multiple challenges when trying to develop successful and productive careers; he is keen to ‘draw on personal experience and experiences of colleagues to provide space and support for others to reflect on the challenges they face and consider steps they can try to take to achieve their career objectives’. Additionally, he was interested in reflecting on his mentoring approach and skills with a view to enhancing his capacity and capabilities to provide effective mentoring.
Howard joined the NIHR Mentoring Programme as he was navigating this post-doctoral career to transit to an independent researcher; he needed support to sustain his role in terms of funding and focus on his personal and professional development.

Relationship focus

The mentoring relationship has spanned over a year and during this period Mike and Howard had approximately 5 to 6 online mentoring sessions. Beyond the one-year NIHR Mentoring period, the relationship is currently open-ended so Howard can contact Mike as and when required. Howard explained that he was ‘looking for somebody in my specific field and somebody who was a clinician to provide guidance around balancing the clinical and academic components of the role’. The overarching aim of the mentoring was Howard’s career progression with a view to achieving independence as a researcher.

Key topics

The mentoring conversations involved in-depth discussion on integration of clinical and research work, grant proposals, managing professional relationships, prioritisation, personal development and work-life balance.

Relationship satisfaction

Mike and Howard built a positive mentoring relationship, and they both confirmed that they were well matched. Howard commented that ‘Mike is obviously a very senior professor with lots of experience, so he was able to provide that kind of guidance that I was hoping for’. Mike also observed that ‘we both work in psychiatry ... we were both interested in applied research rather than basic sciences ... and we were both also quite interested in the broader issues around policy and practice’. It was evident that the mentoring relationship was two-way. Howard took the initiative to arrange the mentoring meetings and initiate the topics for the mentoring conversations while Mike provided the space for exploration, offering appropriate challenges to enable his mentee to consider options and suitable actions. Howard acknowledged that it was ‘useful to have that external questioning to make me reflect further’. Mike explained: ‘I wanted to think with him about the things that were most important to him’.

Overall reflections

The mentoring relationship was highly effective and mutually beneficial. Howard reflected that his mentor’s flexible and responsive approach enabled him to ‘bring whichever concerns I had’ to the mentoring space. Mike also acknowledged that Howard was ‘able to talk about things which I don’t think he would’ve felt as comfortable talking to his immediate colleagues in his institution’. Here, the value of the independent role of the NIHR mentor becomes evident. Mike was also able to reflect on his own practice as a mentor, make comparison with other roles such as an academic supervisor and fully appreciate the distinction between a task-focused and a person-centred approach. He recognised how he had widened his own skill set through his mentoring experience.
Howard confirmed that he received professional and personal support alongside career guidance. He identified that what he valued most about the relationship was the ‘chance to reflect and the ability to connect with someone senior in my field who was not in my institution and not kind of directly invested in me in terms of working on projects or publication together’. Mike too acknowledged that the independence of the mentor role and the trust in their relationship was of most value to him. He was surprised by ‘how quickly the time went’; he would have preferred the relationship to be longer and has therefore offered to continue the connection with his mentee.

Overall, the mentoring relationship offered a reflective space enabling mutual learning, sharing of experiences and addressing work-life balance, and clarity regarding professional priorities for a successful career transition.

Pair 4

Mentor - Dr Robbie Duschinsky

Robbie is Head of the Applied Social Science Group within the Primary Care Unit, and Director of Studies in Sociology at Sidney Sussex College. He is Co-PI of the “Living Assessments” Collaborator Award, funded by Wellcome, exploring the integration of health and social care in assessments of children; and Co-PI of the NIHR- and Foundation-funded COACHES study looking at mental health provision for children with social care involvement. He is the Associate Editor of BMJ Medical Humanities and serves on the Editorial Board of the Journal of Gender Studies. He is a member of the Equality, Diversity & Inclusion Governance Group for the School of Clinical Medicine. Robbie has a particular passion for supporting early career researchers in social care and mental health research. He has been a mentor for NIHR funded fellows e.g. Academic Clinical Fellows, Research Methods Fellow and has served on the ICA Predoctoral Clinical Academic Fellowship Selection Committee as another avenue for supporting early career researchers.

Mentee - Dr Suzanne Li

Suzanne is a Senior Qualitative Researcher of Social Care in the Medical Sociology & Health Experiences Research Group at the University of Oxford. She is currently Chief Investigator and Co-PI on an NIHR School for Social Care Research, Research for Patient Benefit Programme funded research study that explores the experiences of care leavers who are transitioning out of care to a life of independence. She is also currently Co-PI on the NIHR Three Schools Dementia Research Programme funded research study that explores the experiences of people with early-stage dementia and carers of people with dementia. She has previously worked as a Senior Researcher with the Interdisciplinary Research in Health Sciences (IRIHS) group to explore patient engagement in the medicines lifecycle to identify gaps and create tools to improve the patient engagement.

Suzanne is an Editorial Board Member for Health Expectations and an Assembly Member for IMPACT (IMProving Adult Care Together), a UK centre for implementing evidence in adult social care. She is also a member of the NIHR Mentoring Programme Steering Group.

Drivers for joining the mentoring programme

Robbie has significant formal and informal mentorship experience and is particularly committed to supporting social care researchers and researcher-practitioners to navigate the new funding and research opportunities, build confidence and develop research capabilities. In the context of this mentoring programme, Robbie was particularly interested in supporting anyone trying to operate in the space between health and children’s social care, looking to find their way with support from NIHR to advance their career.
Suzanne joined the NIHR mentoring programme as she was transiting from her postdoctoral role to a mid-career independent researcher. She was looking for a mentor who had been through a similar career journey in her field to support her to consider how to ‘step up from her current academic role’.

Relationship focus

Robbie and Suzanne’s mentoring relationship spanned over a year from November 2022 to November 2023 and during this period they met monthly, online. Robbie and Suzanne confirmed that although the structured mentoring relationship has concluded, the relationship will continue informally based on the needs of the mentee.
Within the context of Suzanne’s career progression both long-term and short-term goals and actions were explored, including a fellowship grant. Robbie offered guidance on widening her professional network, including suggested advisory panel members and methods to recruit her research participants.
Suzanne highlighted that she went through a particularly challenging issue within the context for her current research study during the mentorship and Robbie helped to identify key resources for researcher wellbeing support; she specifically pointed out how ‘he was there for me … he looked after me and my wellbeing ... I couldn’t have thanked him enough during that period because it was beyond the call of duty as a mentor’. This demonstrates the pastoral and nurturing aspect of the mentoring relationship.

Key topics

The main mentoring topics included Suzanne’s new role, implications of academic short-term contract, fellowship grants applications, future collaborations and widening her network. Other areas included challenges of working part-time in a senior role and managing research teams in the future.

Relationship satisfaction

Robbie and Suzanne confirmed that the match worked really as they were both in social care, so it was excellent in terms of their subject area match. Suzanne observed that it was ‘was probably the first time I’ve ever had someone who I was able to open up to who had a very similar background … so I felt it was extremely lucky for me’. Robbie affirmed that ‘in terms of the match, it was a grand success from my perspective’. It was evident that the mentoring relationship was highly effective. Suzanne appreciated the opportunity to speak openly to her mentor who was completely independent of her institution. Robbie also suspected that ‘she was able to talk to me in ways that I don’t think would’ve been possible if I’d been an immediate collaborator’.

Overall reflections

In terms of managing the mentoring relationship, Robbie took the lead to structure the mentoring conversations, engaging and supporting Suzanne to ask questions and explore her areas of interests. Robbie noted that the overall mentoring conversation was driven very much by his mentee’s immediate context, and he encouraged a two-way discussion to address the issues raised. Suzanne reflected that Robbie used exploratory questioning which helped her to find solutions to some of the challenges discussed.

Suzanne gained both personally and professionally from this mentoring relationship. She reflected that what she valued most about the relationship was rapport between them and the ease and confidence to speak openly with her mentor. This experience has inspired her to become a mentor herself to support postdoctoral academics within her work context in the future. Robbie reflected that given the nature of some of the challenges that were raised within the mentoring space, he admired Suzanne’s insight, courage and perseverance. He offered support within the opportunities and limits of the mentorship role, and also signposted other sources of help. Robbie noted that an important aspect of his role was to offer validation and acknowledge the difficulties faced by his mentee and help her to explore these issues and resolve them over time. He noted that this offered him the opportunity to implement and enhance his skills in non-directive supportive conversations.

Pair 5

Mentor - Professor Ian Hall

Ian is a Professor of Molecular Medicine and the Director of the NIHR Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre hosted by the Nottingham University Hospital (NUH) Trust and the University of Nottingham. He is an active researcher in the area of respiratory disease and in particular genetics. He completed his clinical studies at the University of Oxford before moving to Nottingham for specialist training and an initial research period. Subsequently he was an Medical Research Council travelling fellow at the University of Pennsylvania and National Asthma Campaign Senior Research Fellow back in Nottingham. His teaching areas include Clinical Pharmacology, Respiratory Medicine, Management of medical school, and Prescribing Safety Assessment. Ian has wide experience of supporting and mentoring clinical academic trainees, in particular those applying to national fellowship schemes. In the past, he has chaired the MRC clinical training fellowship panel. He is also a mentor for the Academy of Medical Sciences.

Mentee - Dr David Lo

David is an Associate Professor at the University of Leicester, and an Honorary NHS Consultant at the Leicester Children’s Hospital. His clinical and research interests are in the treatment of childhood respiratory diseases, with a focus on difficult asthma and preschool wheeze. David currently holds an Advanced Research Fellowship award from the National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR). He is also actively engaged in teaching undergraduates and postgraduate medical students and other allied health professionals. By the end of his 5-year NIHR Advanced Fellowship, David aims to secure further grant funding for a programme of research focussed on child health and health data science and build a research group which is competitive within his specialist area and have the necessary skills to motivate and lead this group effectively.

Drivers for joining the mentoring programme

Ian is committed to providing support to early career researchers and finds it rewarding to watch them progress through their chosen career paths. David joined the NIHR mentoring programme as it offered him a ‘good opportunity to have a bit of support and a bit of guidance outside of my immediate research group and outside of my immediate sphere of influence’. He was looking for a mentor who had gone through a similar training pathway as himself and wanted generic career advice. Ian recognises the role of mentorship in career development and as a ‘relatively senior clinical academic one wants to put something back into the system’.

Relationship focus

The mentoring relationship has spanned over a year and during this period Ian and David had two online mentoring sessions. David confirmed that as he was looking for less-frequent and more long-term mentorship to troubleshoot and talk through barriers and problems as and when they arose, the six monthly arrangement worked well. They have both agreed to continue the relationship and meet once or twice a year as appropriate. Overall, the focus of the mentoring conversations was to support David to build his research and academic profile and consider his professional development.

Key topics

Their mentoring conversations were largely around David’s fellowship research activities and outcomes, seeking promotion, future grants, engagement in additional committee roles, new collaborations and widening networks as well as prioritisation and work-life balance.

Relationship satisfaction

The match worked well as Ian and David were both clinical academics and their career trajectory had some similarities as well. Ian was able to fully relate and support David with some of the challenges raised. David also confirmed that they ‘develop a decent rapport …. he is very supportive and happy to chat about things which aren’t strictly research related, but more the logistics and challenges of going through a research career which I found very helpful’. Ian also pointed out the value of his independent role as the mentor and its benefits to his mentee to engage in open and confidential conversation. Overall, the mentoring conversations were mainly mentee-led. Ian observed that his mentee arranged the meetings and steered the conversation, bringing relevant topics for discussion. David felt he was able to use his mentor as a sounding board and get a sense check on his planned career trajectory.

Overall reflections

It was evident that the topics covered in the two mentoring sessions over the year were beneficial to David. He reflected that his mentor provided proactive and practical guidance on areas of prioritisation in relation to building his CV which was really useful. Another perspective he found useful was balancing career achievements while still maintaining a decent work-life balance. Ian confirmed that from his perspective, the mentoring offered a space to explore his mentee’s overall career progression.

When asked what he had gained personally and professionally from the mentoring relationship, David reflected that he was able to rationalise his current areas of work and the next steps for progression. He also highly valued the reassurance that ‘what I’m doing is the right way, and also that following this career pathway isn’t going to jeopardise my home life and personal life which is very important to me’. Ian reflected that he had thoroughly enjoyed the mentoring conversation and hoped that it added value to his mentee career trajectory.

David confirmed that what was most valuable about the relationship was having that dedicated time to reflect on his progress as well as current issues and challenges; he reflected that ‘in preparing for these meetings ….I sat down and took stock of what’s happened, so that’s been very helpful’. For Ian, being able to contribute to his mentee’s career progression in some way was very worthwhile. He also noted that the timeframe of the mentoring relationship could be increased based on the seniority of the mentee and their individual needs.

Overall, the mentoring relationship offered a reflective space enabling exploration of career progression as well as addressing work-life balance and clarity on next steps. The commitment to continue the relationship beyond the one-year period of the NIHR Mentoring Programme is a strong indicator of the success of the mentoring relationship.

Pair 6

Mentor - Professor Catherine Smith

Catherine is an Adjunct Professor of Dermatology and Therapeutics and a Consultant Dermatologist at St John’s Institute of Dermatology, King's College London and Guys and St Thomas’ Hospital. She co-directs the Skin Therapy Research Unit and is also a lead clinician in national specialised services for adults with severe psoriasis and eczema.

Her clinical and research interests focus on inflammatory skin disease and translational medicine and involves major national and international collaborations working with large interdisciplinary teams to understand disease mechanisms, develop new medicines and optimise the use of current medicine in her field. She also has a major interest in guideline development and implementation in the UK and Europe, with the aim of bringing research findings into clinical practice. She chaired the UK’s NICE guidelines on Psoriasis and the British Association of Dermatologists guidelines on Biologic therapy. She has significant research experience as senior NIHR Investigator and currently leads on research trials both nationally, and internationally.

Mentee - Dr Pamela Bowman

Pamela is an Academic Clinical Lecturer in Clinical Genetics at the University of Exeter Medical School. Her research interest is in neonatal diabetes and precision treatment of monogenic neurodevelopmental disorders. She undertook a Diabetes UK funded PhD and has been training in paediatrics and psychiatry prior to moving to clinical genetics. She was in NIHR academic clinical fellowships roles during this period.

Drivers for joining the mentoring programme

Catherine is keen to attract, retain and develop high quality motivated clinical academics to deliver on the huge opportunities available to improve outcomes in patients through high quality science. She is currently a mentor to two NIHR funded early career researchers and has thoroughly enjoyed seeing individuals move through PhD programmes to successful tenured clinical academic posts. As a female academic she is committed to providing helpful perspectives as well as pragmatic solutions to the challenges (and rewards) of clinical academic medicine.
Pamela joined the NIHR Mentoring Programme as she wanted a mentor to discuss the challenges of balancing research, teaching and clinical work, particularly in the context of having a family and to reflect on possible strategies to address these challenges.

Relationship focus

Catherine and Pamela have completed the one-year NIHR Mentoring period and are likely to continue the relationship informally outside the NIHR scheme. They met for 4 mentoring sessions and were due to arrange the next one after the Christmas break to discuss the continuation of their relationship at the time of the interview in January 2024. Pamela observed that she ‘wanted an opportunity to talk to someone who was outside any organisation that I’m connected with and objective about discussion around career development, career progression, the balance of work and the rest of life’. She was particularly keen to explore this with another female clinical academic with similar experiences. Catherine also observed that mentoring is an effective intervention to support the transition from postdoctoral to becoming an independent researcher and she was keen to offer this support to early career researchers.

Key topics

The overall aim of the mentoring was to support academic career progression and how to manage that alongside finishing clinical training. The mentoring topics included future fellowships and grants, supervisory responsibilities and completing clinical training and work-life balance.

Relationship satisfaction

Both Catherine and Pamela agreed that they were well matched. For Pamela, having a senior female academic as her mentor who was outside of her own immediate area of research and clinical practice worked well. She observed that ‘I think there are nuances about being a woman in that kind of career that are quite unique and that’s been helpful … It has been nice that we’ve got those parallels but we’re not exactly the same’. Catherine affirmed that there was ‘enough complementarity in terms of experience and exposure ... we had the commonality around genetics, around the tension between a clinician and an academic as well bit around the tension about being women, having children, and so I thought we were well matched’.

Overall reflections

It was evident that the mentoring was highly effective as a two-way relationship. Pamela observed that her mentor offered objectivity alongside sharing her experience in a balanced way to support and guide her which opened up alternative options to consider as well as widened insights and perspectives. This was particularly useful in the context of strengthening her CV as well as overall career development. She shared that her mentor ‘has been very good at that facilitatory aspect where she’s not sitting there telling me what to do or what she thinks … she was also very good at making suggestions that I hadn’t thought about myself … that has been helpful’. Catherine reflected that her aim was to support her mentee to understand that each step in her career trajectory is important and to be clear about her next steps towards becoming a clinical academic leader. She therefore encouraged her mentee to prioritise accordingly and to ‘get rid of things that aren’t going to really be essential for her progression at this particular time’.

Pamela confirmed that her mentor was able to support her with the challenges she raised. She reflected that the encouragement and support offered by her mentor enabled her to get validation on her areas of work and interests which significantly enhanced her confidence. This helped her ‘to pursue what I believe in and actually I’ve ended up with a small grant to do a study that I really wanted to do so that’s been a really nice outcome’.

Personally, Pamela has valued the protected time to think and reflect with her mentor who had the relevant experience and at the same time was independent of her own institution and professionally, she observed that the ‘mentoring really focused on the stuff that I want to go for which has given me a strategy and direction which has been good’. Going forward, Pamela will explore opportunities to become a mentor herself and explore training and development opportunities to provide that for other people.

Pair 7

Mentor - Professor Heather Iles-Smith

Heather is a Professor of Nursing and a clinical academic with a joint Chair post of Nursing at the University of Salford and Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust (NCA). She is also Director of the NCA Centre for Clinical and Care Research (CCR), which supports research capacity building for nursing, midwifery and allied health professions. Within the School of Health and Society she is co-lead of the 'Research across the Life Course' research theme within the Centre for Applied Health and Care Research. National leadership roles include membership of CARINS (Clinical Academic Roles Implementation Network), the Royal College of Nursing (RCN) Research Forum steering committee and the Council of Deans for Health Research Specialty Group. Previously Heather was also Chair of the NIHR Nursing and Midwifery Incubator.

Heather is passionate about developing nurses, midwives, allied health professionals and other healthcare professionals to build successful clinical academic careers. Locally she is a member of the HEE (north) research strategy advisory group led by NHS R&D North West. She is also an NIHR mentor and sits on the NIHR Doctoral panel.

Mentee - Dr Miriam Avery

Miriam was a postdoctoral NIHR research fellow at the Applied Research Collaboration, Wessex and University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust. She now works in the Bladder and Bowel Team at the University of Southampton as a Research Fellow on studies focusing on people living at home with dementia and incontinence. She is keen to build networks and collaborations in her field of research and identify relevant funding and other development opportunities.

Drivers for joining the mentoring programme

Heather was committed to promoting and giving back to her profession through the NIHR Mentoring Programme. Miriam joined the NIHR Mentoring Programme as she had successfully achieved an NIHR Applied Research Collaboration (ARC) fellowship and was at the first stage of her research project. She was seeking support and guidance through the mentoring to ‘move towards independence’ as a researcher.

Relationship focus

The mentoring relationship has spanned over 12 months and is still continuing. During this time, Heather and Miriam had several online mentoring conversations and have also briefly met face-to-face at a conference. They confirmed that their clinical and research areas were similar as they were both originally clinical research nurses and were both currently investigating continence. Miriam observed that ‘as my mentor ended up being from a very similar field, she understood the types of research I was doing and then some of the people I was working with, so that was really helpful’. Heather also affirmed that she was able to relate completely with her mentee’s world of research. As she had established networks in the same field, she was able to help her mentee to explore new connections and consider how she might navigate and build suitable collaborations.

Both confirmed that the focus of their mentoring conversation was to explore Miriam’s postdoctoral career progression, her current research projects and widening her networks and professional visibility.

Key topics

Key topics of discussion included day-to-day challenges of work, work-life balance, building research collaborations through effective interactions, exploring future funding opportunities, publications outputs and strengthening her CV.

Relationship satisfaction

It was evident that the relationship was highly effective. Miriam confirmed that she benefited both professionally and personally from the mentoring relationship. She reflected that from a personal point of view she built confidence through the opportunity to explore and reflect within the mentoring space. Professionally, the validation and guidance provided by her mentor helped her take relevant actions to progress her research work. Heather also observed that she saw a change in mentee, she reflected that her mentee ‘seemed to gain more confidence and she increased and used her network more effectively’. Heather reflected that ‘it has been an enjoyable experience working with Miriam ... we’ve had some good conversations, and yes, for me that’s probably enough at this stage of my career’.

Overall reflections

When asked what was most valuable in the relationship, Miriam reflected that the fact that her mentor was within the same field as her and the opportunities for future collaborations was very positive. Heather also noted that the alignment of the research areas was very positive and valuable for her as it provided insights of current practices in these areas of research, reminding her of past career contributions. She also highly valued the opportunity and experience to support someone within her own profession.

Miriam confirmed that her mentor was able to support her on the challenges she had raised. She felt that the mentoring relationship had enabled her to review her current areas of work and also consider future funding and networking opportunities. With her mentor’s guidance and support she was exploring the NIHR Development Skills Enhancement Award as a postdoctoral bridging fund opportunity for her career development. Heather reflected that their relationship evolved as they engaged with each other, and they built a rapport which enabled her to support her mentee to achieve her mentoring outcomes. Heather provided both directive as well as non-directive, nurturing and pastoral support in this relationship.

Overall, the mentoring relationship enabled career progression, networking to expand research opportunities and enhancing confidence to maximise the mentee’s potential. The commitment to the relationship by both of them beyond the one-year period of the NIHR Mentoring Programme is a strong indicator of the success of this mentor-mentee pair.

Pair 8

Mentor - Professor Steven Julious

Steven is a Professor of Medical Statistics at the Sheffield Centre for Health and Related Research (SCHARR), University of Sheffield and NIHR Senior Investigator. His main research focus is clinical trial design and the development of applied methods related to clinical trials. He has a particular interest around adaptive designs and the implementation of adaptive designs into practice. He has also undertaken research on asthma epidemiology and was the Chief Investigator of the PLEASANT trial: Preventing and Lessening Exacerbations of Asthma in School-age children Associated with a New Term. The methodologies around sample size estimation are a particular interest to him and he has published a book and developed a mobile app for the calculations called SampSize. Steven is on the NIHR Advanced Fellowship Section Committee and a number of trial steering and data monitoring committees for clinical trials.

Mentee - Dr Lazaros Andronis

Steven is a Professor of Medical Statistics at the Sheffield Centre for Health and Related Research (SCHARR), University of Sheffield and NIHR Senior Investigator. His main research focus is clinical trial design and the development of applied methods related to clinical trials. He has a particular interest around adaptive designs and the implementation of adaptive designs into practice. He has also undertaken research on asthma epidemiology and was the Chief Investigator of the PLEASANT trial: Preventing and Lessening Exacerbations of Asthma in School-age children Associated with a New Term. The methodologies around sample size estimation are a particular interest to him and he has published a book and developed a mobile app for the calculations called SampSize. Steven is on the NIHR Advanced Fellowship Section Committee and a number of trial steering and data monitoring committees for clinical trials.

Drivers for joining the mentoring programme

Steven has supported doctoral research students to completion and staff to apply for fellowships grants. He currently sits on the NIHR Advanced Fellowship panel and is keen to support colleagues to develop successful academic careers. Based on his own positive experience of being mentored, Steven was keen to support colleagues to progress their careers he explained: ‘I have appreciated this in the past so I should put my hat in the ring now’.

Lazaros joined the mentoring programme to gain support and advice on his career progression with a view to developing a global research profile. He observed that ‘he was looking for someone who knows the academic landscape pretty well and could offer some career advice and how to navigate this landscape to get promoted’

Relationship focus

Steven and Lazaros have been in the mentoring relationship for a year and during this period the pair met online approximately 4 to 5 times. Lazaros was keen to have a mentor who was outside his institution and immediate area of work and research. The focus of the mentoring was on Lazaros’s career trajectory and progression.

Lazaros highlighted that Steven was able to support him with the issues and challenges he raised by offering guidance and sharing experience which widened his perspective. He confirmed that the overall goal of guidance relating to his career progression was fully addressed during the mentoring relationship. He was able to ‘think about all this advice which I would not otherwise have from someone who I don’t work with … and especially being able to ask questions that I wouldn’t necessarily ask someone in my immediate team’. Steven reflected that he was able to offer independent and honest feedback and guidance as there was no conflict of interests in this relationship. He also pointed out that the mentoring provided a space for validation; he reflected that he was able to give assurance to his mentee ‘that his problem is not unique … doesn’t mean it’s any less of a problem, but it’s a common problem across institutes’.

Key topics

Steven and Lazaros discussed a range of topics such as personal effectiveness, time management, balancing priorities, work-life balance and how to avoid overload and also about promotions and navigation of the academic landscape as next steps in his career.

Relationship satisfaction

Steven and Lazaros both felt they were well matched. Overall, the mentoring conversations were a two-way process. Steven observed that his mentee arranged the meetings and steered the conversation, bringing relevant topics for discussion which they explored together. Lazaros reflected: ‘I would ask a question and I would get answers and if I wanted to change the topic I could perhaps, ask a different question, so it was both ways’. Lazaros noted that as he had experience of being a mentor himself, he was able to make the most of his mentoring sessions, having prepared the topics for discussion.

Overall reflections

It was evident that the mentoring relationship was beneficial; Lazaros benefited personally and professionally from the mentoring relationship. Lazaros reflected he has received ‘advice on how to navigate transition and promotion’ and also explored the challenges of work-life balance and how to make sure he ring-fences his time to achieve this balance. He valued Steven’s advice as he was ‘knowledgeable and not in my immediate circle’. He emphatically confirmed that it was a very successful mentoring relationship.

Steven observed that his mentee was highly successful and motivated and, in his role as a mentor, he had been a sounding board and offered strategic overview on the academic landscape and ways of addressing some challenges to maintain focus and clear direction for Lazaros’s career progression. Although this was not specifically discussed at their last meeting, Steven is open to Lazaros contacting him in the future for guidance and advice as appropriate.

Pair 9

Mentor - Professor Anne Barton

Steven is a Professor of Medical Statistics at the Sheffield Centre for Health and Related Research (SCHARR), University of Sheffield and NIHR Senior Investigator. His main research focus is clinical trial design and the development of applied methods related to clinical trials. He has a particular interest around adaptive designs and the implementation of adaptive designs into practice. He has also undertaken research on asthma epidemiology and was the Chief Investigator of the PLEASANT trial: Preventing and Lessening Exacerbations of Asthma in School-age children Associated with a New Term. The methodologies around sample size estimation are a particular interest to him and he has published a book and developed a mobile app for the calculations called SampSize. Steven is on the NIHR Advanced Fellowship Section Committee and a number of trial steering and data monitoring committees for clinical trials.

Mentee - Dr Ana-Catarina Pinho Gomes

Steven is a Professor of Medical Statistics at the Sheffield Centre for Health and Related Research (SCHARR), University of Sheffield and NIHR Senior Investigator. His main research focus is clinical trial design and the development of applied methods related to clinical trials. He has a particular interest around adaptive designs and the implementation of adaptive designs into practice. He has also undertaken research on asthma epidemiology and was the Chief Investigator of the PLEASANT trial: Preventing and Lessening Exacerbations of Asthma in School-age children Associated with a New Term. The methodologies around sample size estimation are a particular interest to him and he has published a book and developed a mobile app for the calculations called SampSize. Steven is on the NIHR Advanced Fellowship Section Committee and a number of trial steering and data monitoring committees for clinical trials.

Drivers for joining the mentoring programme

Steven has supported doctoral research students to completion and staff to apply for fellowships grants. He currently sits on the NIHR Advanced Fellowship panel and is keen to support colleagues to develop successful academic careers. Based on his own positive experience of being mentored, Steven was keen to support colleagues to progress their careers he explained: ‘I have appreciated this in the past so I should put my hat in the ring now’.

Lazaros joined the mentoring programme to gain support and advice on his career progression with a view to developing a global research profile. He observed that ‘he was looking for someone who knows the academic landscape pretty well and could offer some career advice and how to navigate this landscape to get promoted’

Relationship focus

Steven and Lazaros have been in the mentoring relationship for a year and during this period the pair met online approximately 4 to 5 times. Lazaros was keen to have a mentor who was outside his institution and immediate area of work and research. The focus of the mentoring was on Lazaros’s career trajectory and progression.

Lazaros highlighted that Steven was able to support him with the issues and challenges he raised by offering guidance and sharing experience which widened his perspective. He confirmed that the overall goal of guidance relating to his career progression was fully addressed during the mentoring relationship. He was able to ‘think about all this advice which I would not otherwise have from someone who I don’t work with … and especially being able to ask questions that I wouldn’t necessarily ask someone in my immediate team’. Steven reflected that he was able to offer independent and honest feedback and guidance as there was no conflict of interests in this relationship. He also pointed out that the mentoring provided a space for validation; he reflected that he was able to give assurance to his mentee ‘that his problem is not unique … doesn’t mean it’s any less of a problem, but it’s a common problem across institutes’.

Key topics

Steven and Lazaros discussed a range of topics such as personal effectiveness, time management, balancing priorities, work-life balance and how to avoid overload and also about promotions and navigation of the academic landscape as next steps in his career.

Relationship satisfaction

Steven and Lazaros both felt they were well matched. Overall, the mentoring conversations were a two-way process. Steven observed that his mentee arranged the meetings and steered the conversation, bringing relevant topics for discussion which they explored together. Lazaros reflected: ‘I would ask a question and I would get answers and if I wanted to change the topic I could perhaps, ask a different question, so it was both ways’. Lazaros noted that as he had experience of being a mentor himself, he was able to make the most of his mentoring sessions, having prepared the topics for discussion.

Overall reflections

It was evident that the mentoring relationship was beneficial; Lazaros benefited personally and professionally from the mentoring relationship. Lazaros reflected he has received ‘advice on how to navigate transition and promotion’ and also explored the challenges of work-life balance and how to make sure he ring-fences his time to achieve this balance. He valued Steven’s advice as he was ‘knowledgeable and not in my immediate circle’. He emphatically confirmed that it was a very successful mentoring relationship.

Steven observed that his mentee was highly successful and motivated and, in his role as a mentor, he had been a sounding board and offered strategic overview on the academic landscape and ways of addressing some challenges to maintain focus and clear direction for Lazaros’s career progression. Although this was not specifically discussed at their last meeting, Steven is open to Lazaros contacting him in the future for guidance and advice as appropriate.

Summary

At the beginning of the report, we set out four programme objectives. We are delighted to share that we have:

• extended the NIHR mentoring programme to postdoctoral award holders from disciplines and professional backgrounds which may not have a strong mentoring tradition or may not have had access to programmes such as this in the past
• promoted interdisciplinarity working; mentees are able to seek a mentor from a cognate or complementary discipline or professional background, where appropriate
• supported mentoring relationships between individuals from different organisations and institutions
• promoted equality, inclusion, and diversity through engagement with, and learning from, under-represented groups

The three cohorts of the mentoring programme have been a huge success, fostering a nurturing and supportive environment at a crucial and challenging time in many colleagues’ lives.

Our cohort programme evaluation demonstrates that at a personal level, the mentoring experience has increased mentees’ self-confidence, awareness of self-care, managing work-life balance practices including boundaries and specifically, the confidence to say ‘no’. As early career professionals, the mentoring conversation with experienced senior practitioners have enabled mentees to explore career options and seek guidance on the next stage of their career. Some mentees expressed that they felt hugely supported in their career transition, achieving greater clarity and developing their networking skills, building collaborative relationships, applying for, and securing research grants and navigating the work environment.

Overall, mentees and mentors spent time cultivating knowledge and skills in career planning and progression, building capacity for fellowship applications, research funding and outputs, networking and building relationships, managing the academic environment, negotiating work-life balance and including achieving greater clarity and managing boundaries.

One year on from the first NIHR Mentoring Programme case study reports, our research continues to show us that the most enriching mentoring relationships are those where there is reciprocity and mutual learning. Mentors experience a real sense of personal satisfaction from giving back and supporting mentees from diverse backgrounds, external to their organisation and from different professional backgrounds. Our programme illustrates the power of mentoring to cultivate mutually beneficial mentoring relationships where the positive impact reverberates beyond the mentoring relationships and programme.

So many mentoring programmes are reliant on goodwill and volunteerism, our programme is supported by the voluntary contribution of mentors and many active Steering Group members who willingly give their time in service of others – thank you.