Formal mentoring programmes for medical students and doctors - A review of the Medline literature

University of Zurich, Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland
Medical Teacher (Impact Factor: 1.68). 06/2006; 28(3):248-57. DOI: 10.1080/01421590500313043
Source: PubMed


Mentoring programmes have been implemented as a specific career-advancement tool in the training and further education of various groups in the medical profession. The main focus of our investigation was to examine what types of structured mentoring programmes exist for doctors as well as for medical students, what short- and long-term goals these projects pursue, and whether statements can be made on the effectiveness and efficiency of these programmes. A literature-search strategy was applied to Medline for 1966-2002 using the keyword combinations: (a) mentor* [AND] program* [AND] medical students, and (b) mentor* [AND] program* [AND] physicians. Although a total of 162 publications were identified, only 16 papers (nine for medical students and seven for doctors) met the selected methodological criteria. The majority of the programmes lack a concrete structure as well as a short- and long-term evaluation. Main goals are to increase professional competence in research and in further specialization and to build up a professional network for the mentees; no statements are to be found on the advantages for the mentors. Programme evaluation is for the most part presented descriptively in terms of great interest and high level of satisfaction. No publication contains statements on the effectiveness or the efficiency of the programme. Although the results of mentoring are promising, more formal programmes with clear setup goals and a short- and long-term evaluation of the individual successes of the participants as well as the cost-benefit analysis are needed.

  • Source
    • "Previous attempts to define mentoring success have been criticized for lack of adequate control groups and for relying on self-report and participant satisfaction—essentially testimonials and opinions (Sheets & Schwenk, 1990; Jacobi, 1991; Morzinski & Fisher, 1996; Buddeberg-Fischer & Herta, 2006; Sambunjak, Straus & Marusi´c, 2006; Thorndyke, Gusic & Milner, 2008; Bruce et al., 2011). One major novel feature of our study is the comparison with a near optimal control group—junior faculty who were deemed sufficiently competitive to be included in a COBRE grant proposal as project leaders. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Measuring and predicting the success of junior faculty is of considerable interest to faculty, academic institutions, funding agencies and faculty development and mentoring programs. Various metrics have been proposed to evaluate and predict research success and impact, such as the h-index, and modifications of this index, but they have not been evaluated and validated side-by-side in a rigorous empirical study. Our study provides a retrospective analysis of how well bibliographic metrics and formulas (numbers of total, first- and co-authored papers in the PubMed database, numbers of papers in high-impact journals) would have predicted the success of biomedical investigators ( n = 40) affiliated with the University of Nevada, Reno, prior to, and after completion of significant mentoring and research support (through funded Centers of Biomedical Research Excellence, COBREs), or lack thereof (unfunded COBREs), in 2000–2014. The h-index and similar indices had little prognostic value. Publishing as mid- or even first author in only one high-impact journal was poorly correlated with future success. Remarkably, junior investigators with >6 first-author papers within 10 years were significantly ( p < 0.0001) more likely (93%) to succeed than those with ≤6 first-author papers (4%), regardless of the journal’s impact factor. The benefit of COBRE-support increased the success rate of junior faculty approximately 3-fold, from 15% to 47%. Our work defines a previously neglected set of metrics that predicted the success of junior faculty with high fidelity—thus defining the pool of faculty that will benefit the most from faculty development programs such as COBREs.
    Full-text · Article · Sep 2015 · PeerJ
  • Source
    • "There is some evidence that gender issues in nurse mentoring may have been overlooked, but changes in the demography of the nursing workforce may increase its impact. Currently, it is not known how these personal characteristics influence the choice of mentor by post-registration nurses or whether mentor matching using specified criteria would be helpful in ensuring effective partnerships (Buddeberg-Fischer & Herta 2006). Students often experience anticipatory fear associated with their first practical placement and students view their mentor as someone who will support, guide, assess and supervise them (Gray & Smith 2000, Nablsi et al. 2012). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Aims and Objectives: In 1995, students in the UK identified five characteristics of a good mentor. After 14 years, the author repeated the study to investigate whether students still identify the same characteristics of a good mentor. Design: Cross-sectional descriptive study. Methods: The study was conducted in the UK, USA and Jordan to validate the previous study in countries with different cultures and different mentorship systems. After ethical approval was granted, a structured questionnaire was distributed to a convenience sample of nursing students from one university in each country. Results: A total of 336 students participated in the study: 38.7% from the UK, 10.7% from the USA and 50.6% from Jordan. Comparing the mean and median scores for each of the five qualities for the three countries, the highest means and medians were for the quality “has relevant knowledge and skills”. For the four other qualities, there were similarities between UK and the USA, while the Jordanian nursing students had different mean and median scores. Key words: clinical teaching, mentors, nursing education, preceptorship
    Full-text · Article · Mar 2014
  • Source
    • "Mentoring is used in different health care educational programmes to facilitate students' professional development (Sambunjak et al. 2006; Buddeberg-Fischer and Herta 2006; Markakis et al. 2000; Yusoff et al. 2009; Suen and Chow 2001; Nettleton and Bray 2008; Pitney and Ehlers 2004; Woessner et al. 2000; Kalet et al. 2002). Published reviews regarding formal mentorship have shown that most studies on undergraduate medical students specify whether such a programme exists, different designs, goals and durations and sometimes also the role of the mentor (Sambunjak et al. 2006; Buddeberg-Fischer and Herta 2006). This paper focuses on medical students' experiences of one-to-one mentoring. "

    Full-text · Dataset · Dec 2012
Show more