Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32502180›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Combined novice, near-peer, e-mentoring palliative medicine program: A mixed method study in Singapore.

Lalit Krishna, Kuang Teck Tay, Hong Wei Yap, Zachary Yong Keat Koh, Yong Xiang Ng, Yun Ting Ong, Sushma Shivananda, Scott Compton, Stephen Mason, Ravindran Kanesvaran and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

11 authors.

Lalit KrishnaAcademic Palliative & End of Life Care Centre, Palliative Care Institute Liverpool, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Kuang Teck TayDivision of Supportive and Palliative Care, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-2703-7052
Hong Wei YapDivision of Supportive and Palliative Care, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Zachary Yong Keat KohDivision of Supportive and Palliative Care, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Yong Xiang NgDivision of Supportive and Palliative Care, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Yun Ting OngDivision of Supportive and Palliative Care, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0001-9657-2369
Sushma ShivanandaDivision of Supportive and Palliative Care, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Scott ComptonDuke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore.
Stephen MasonAcademic Palliative & End of Life Care Centre, Palliative Care Institute Liverpool, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4020-6869
Ravindran KanesvaranYong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-2351-881X
Ying Pin TohDepartment of Family Medicine, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionAn acute shortage of senior mentors saw the Palliative Medicine Initiative (PMI) combine its novice mentoring program with electronic and peer mentoring to overcome insufficient mentoring support of medical students and junior doctors by senior clinicians. A three-phased evaluation was carried out to evaluate mentees' experiences within the new CNEP mentoring program.

methodsPhase 1 saw use of a Delphi process to create a content-valid questionnaire from data drawn from 9 systematic reviews of key aspects of novice mentoring. In Phase 2 Cognitive Interviews were used to evaluate the tool. The tool was then piloted amongst mentees in the CNEP program. Phase 3 compared mentee's experiences in the CNEP program with those from the PMI's novice mentoring program.

resultsThematic analysis of open-ended responses revealed three themes-the CNEP mentoring process, its benefits and challenges that expound on the descriptive statistical analysis of specific close-ended and Likert scale responses of the survey. The results show mentee experiences in the PMI's novice mentoring program and the CNEP program to be similar and that the addition of near peer and e-mentoring processes enhance communications and support of mentees.

conclusionCNEP mentoring is an evolved form of novice mentoring built on a consistent mentoring approach supported by an effective host organization. The host organization marshals assessment, support and oversight of the program and allows flexibility within the approach to meet the particular needs of mentees, mentors and senior mentors. Whilst near-peer mentors and e-mentoring can make up for the lack of senior mentor availability, their effectiveness hinges upon a common mentoring approach. To better support the CNEP program deeper understanding of the mentoring dynamics, policing and mentor and mentee training processes are required. The CNEP mentoring tool too needs to be validated.

Indexed as

AdultCommunicationEducation, MedicalFemaleHumansInterprofessional RelationsMaleMedical Staff, HospitalMentoringMentorsPalliative MedicineProgram EvaluationSingaporeStudents, MedicalSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID32502180
PMCPMC7274408

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.