IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0295577.html

Support, networks, and relationships: Findings from a mixed-methods evaluation of a mentorship programme for early career women researchers in sexual and reproductive health and rights

Author

Listed:
  • Muhammad Asim
  • Peter Muriuki Gatheru
  • Joy J Chebet
  • Mehr G Shah
  • Anna Thorson
  • Vanessa Brizuela

Abstract

Low research output among women researchers in health research has been linked to inadequate mentorship opportunities for early career women researchers and particularly in sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) field. Mentorship has been recognized as a contributor to strengthening research capacity and as beneficial for both mentors and mentees. Women researchers oftentimes experience negative impacts of organizational and structural gender inequities related to formal and informal mentoring. In 2020, the UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction at WHO launched a mentorship programme for early career SRHR women researchers from low- and middle-income countries. The programme sought to provide professional skill-building, promote and share networking opportunities, and offer support in navigating personal and professional life. We conducted a convergent parallel mixed-methods evaluation of the 2020 pilot programme, which included 26 participants, through an online survey and semi-structured in-depth interviews (IDIs). Data collection occurred between March and May 2022. Nineteen responded to the online survey (12 mentees, 7 mentors) and 11 IDIs (7 mentees, 4 mentors) were completed. Based on a preliminary framework, we used deductive and inductive methods to identify six themes: views on mentorship; reasons for applying and expectations of participation in the programme; preferred aspects of programme implementation; challenges with the programme implementation; perceived lasting benefits of the programme; and recommendations for improvement. All participants found the initial training useful, most discussed work-life prioritization throughout the mentorship relationship, and most planned to continue with the relationship. There appear to be ample benefits to mentorship, especially when planned and implemented in a structured manner. These attributes can be particularly beneficial when they are conceived as a two-way relationship of mutual learning and support, and especially for women at the start of their research careers as they navigate structural gender inequities.

Suggested Citation

  • Muhammad Asim & Peter Muriuki Gatheru & Joy J Chebet & Mehr G Shah & Anna Thorson & Vanessa Brizuela, 2023. "Support, networks, and relationships: Findings from a mixed-methods evaluation of a mentorship programme for early career women researchers in sexual and reproductive health and rights," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(12), pages 1-20, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0295577
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0295577
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0295577
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0295577&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0295577?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Matthew B. Ross & Britta M. Glennon & Raviv Murciano-Goroff & Enrico G. Berkes & Bruce A. Weinberg & Julia I. Lane, 2023. "Author Correction: Women are credited less in science than men," Nature, Nature, vol. 621(7979), pages 41-41, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Manuel Goyanes & Luis de-Marcos & Adrián Domínguez-Díaz, 2024. "Automatic gender detection: a methodological procedure and recommendations to computationally infer the gender from names with ChatGPT and gender APIs," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(11), pages 6867-6888, November.
    2. Gavin Cook, 2026. "Towards a Sociology of Sociology: Inequality, Elitism, and Prestige in the Sociological Enterprise From 1970 to the Present," Papers 2601.04579, arXiv.org.
    3. Wenxuan Shi & Renli Wu, 2024. "Women’s strength in science: exploring the influence of female participation on research impact and innovation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(7), pages 4529-4551, July.
    4. María Rosario Román Gálvez & Blanca Riquelme-Gallego & María del Carmen Segovia-García & Daniel Gavilán-Cabello & Khalid Saeed Khan & Aurora Bueno-Cavanillas, 2022. "Variations in Author Gender in Obstetrics Disease Prevalence Literature: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-11, December.
    5. Hoekman, Jarno & Rake, Bastian, 2024. "Geography of authorship: How geography shapes authorship attribution in big team science," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(2).
    6. Francisca M. Antman & Kirk B. Doran & Xuechao Qian & Bruce A. Weinberg, 2024. "Half Empty and Half Full? Women in Economics and the Rise in Gender-Related Research," AEA Papers and Proceedings, American Economic Association, vol. 114, pages 226-231, May.
    7. Tal Seidel Malkinson & Devin B Terhune & Mathew Kollamkulam & Maria J Guerreiro & Dani S Bassett & Tamar R Makin, 2023. "Gender imbalances in the editorial activities of a selective journal run by academic editors," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(12), pages 1-23, December.
    8. Gabriela Fontanarrosa & Lucía Zarbá & Valeria Aschero & Daniel Andrés Dos Santos & María Gabriela Nuñez Montellano & Maia C Plaza Behr & Natalia Schroeder & Silvia Beatriz Lomáscolo & María Elisa Fanj, 2024. "Over twenty years of publications in Ecology: Over-contribution of women reveals a new dimension of gender bias," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(9), pages 1-18, September.
    9. Rusconi, Alessandra & Solga, Heike, 2023. "Fairer als gedacht: Keine Nachteile für Frauen in Berufungsverfahren," WZB-Mitteilungen: Quartalsheft für Sozialforschung, WZB Berlin Social Science Center, issue 182 (4/23, pages 38-41.
    10. Kwiek, Marek & Szymula, Łukasz, 2024. "Growth of Science and Women: Methodological Challenges of Using Structured Big Data," SocArXiv w34pr, Center for Open Science.
    11. Amirali Karimi & Catherine Beaudry & Vincent Larivière, 2026. "Scientists on the move: The impact of collaboration with different mobility groups on the performance of Canadian scientists," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 1-63, April.
    12. Chauvin, Juan Pablo & Tricaud, Clemence, 2022. "Gender and Electoral Incentives: Evidence from Crisis Response," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 12411, Inter-American Development Bank.
    13. Solga, Heike & Rusconi, Alessandra & Hofmeister, Sophie, 2025. "Gender biases in assistant professor recruitment: Does discipline matter?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 54(3).
    14. Kahn, Shulamit & MacGarvie, Megan, 2024. "New evidence on international postdocs in the US: Less pay, different experiences," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(9).
    15. repec:osf:socarx:w34pr_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    16. repec:osf:osfxxx:yr8me_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Yining Wang & Qiang Wu & Liangyu Li, 2024. "Examining the influence of women scientists on scientific impact and novelty: insights from top business journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(6), pages 3517-3542, June.
    18. Hartog, Matte & Gomez-Lievano, Andres & Hausmann, Ricardo & Neffke, Frank, 2026. "Inventing modern invention: The professionalization of technological progress in the US," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(3).
    19. Chunfa Zhou & Beile Jin, 2025. "Empowered or constrained? Gender narratives in Cyberpunk-style microfilm advertisements," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 12(1), pages 1-10, December.
    20. Yang, Alex J. & Zhang, Yiqin & Wang, Zuorong & Wang, Hao & Deng, Sanhong, 2025. "Quantifying delayed recognition of scientists," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3).
    21. Letki, Natalia & Biały, Grzegorz & Sankowski, Piotr & Walentek, Dawid, 2022. "Streamlining for excellence discriminates against women: A study of research productivity of 2.7 mln scientists in 45 countries," OSF Preprints yr8me, Center for Open Science.
    22. Zhou, Sifan & Chai, Sen & Freeman, Richard B., 2024. "Gender homophily: In-group citation preferences and the gender disadvantage," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(1).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0295577. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.