Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31485967›Full record

SynthesisJournal of general internal medicine2019

Mentorship of US Medical Students: a Systematic Review.

Amy H Farkas, Jill Allenbaugh, Eliana Bonifacino, Rose Turner, Jennifer A Corbelli

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of general internal medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed
16.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

48 citing papers in PubMed, 114 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Amy H FarkasDivision of General Internal Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee VA Medical Center, 5000 W National Ave, Milwaukee, WI, 53295, USA. ahfarkas@mcw.edu.
Jill AllenbaughDivision of General Internal Medicine, Lewis Katz School of Medicine at Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Eliana BonifacinoDivision of General Internal Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Rose TurnerFalk Health Science Library University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Jennifer A CorbelliDivision of General Internal Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
University of Pittsburgh · USMilwaukee VA Medical Center · USTemple University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMentoring of medical students remains a core pillar of medical education, yet the changing landscape of medicine has called for new and innovative mentoring models to guide students in professional development, career placement, and overall student well-being. The objective of this review is to identify and describe models of mentorship for US medical students.

methodsWe searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Education Resources Information Center, and Cochrane Databases of Systematic Reviews following PRISMA guidelines. We included original, English-language studies of any research design including descriptive studies that described a mentorship program at a US medical school designed for medical students.

resultsOur search yielded 3743 unique citations. Thirty articles met our inclusion criteria. There was significant diversity of the identified programs with regard to program objectives and size. The traditional dyad model of mentorship was the most frequently cited model, with a combination of models (dyad and group mentorship) cited as the second most common. Outcome measures of the programs were largely survey based, with satisfaction being the most measured outcome. Overall, satisfaction was highly rated throughout all the measured mentoring programs. Seven programs provided objective outcomes measures, including improved residency match data and increased scholarly productivity. The programs with objective outcomes measures were smaller, and 6/7 of them focused on a specific clinical area. Five of these programs relied on the traditional dyad model of mentorship. Cost and faculty time were the most frequently cited barriers to these programs. DISCUSSION: Our review demonstrates that mentoring programs for medical students can positively improve medical school satisfaction and career development. These results underscore the need for continued innovative mentoring programs to foster optimal student development in the setting of the increasingly competitive residency match process, growing expectations about student research productivity, and the national focus for overall student wellness.

Indexed as

MentorsStudents, MedicalCurriculumEducation, MedicalFaculty, MedicalHumansmedicalmentoringreviewstudents

Identifiers

PMID31485967
PMCPMC6848625
OpenAlexW2971668569

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.