Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33478476›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2021

An evaluation of cascading mentorship as advocacy training in undergraduate medical education.

Mitesh Patel, Devon Aitken, Yunlin Xue, Sanjeev Sockalingam, Alexander Simpson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. A Framework to Support Medical Students' Professional Development During Large-Scale Societal Events.Academic psychiatry : the journal of the American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training and the Association for Academic Psychiatry · 2023
    Article
  3. The Impact of the Transition to Virtual Environments on Medical Students Mentoring At-Risk Youth.Academic psychiatry : the journal of the American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training and the Association for Academic Psychiatry · 2023
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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.

Mitesh PatelDepartment of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. mitesh.patel@camh.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4457-0577
Devon AitkenFaculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Yunlin XueDepartment of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Sanjeev SockalingamDepartment of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Alexander SimpsonDepartment of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPhysicians are in a position of great influence to advocate for health equity. As such, it is important for physicians-in-training to develop the knowledge and skills necessary to fulfil this role. Although various undergraduate medical programs have implemented health advocacy training, they often lack experiential learning and physician involvement. These aspects are foundational to the Advocacy Mentorship Initiative (AMI) which utilizes cascading mentorship as a novel approach to advocacy training. Medical students develop advocacy competency as peer mentors to youth raised in at-risk environments, while also being mentored themselves by physician residents. We aim to determine whether there are specific advantages to utilizing cascading mentorship to facilitate the attainment of advocacy competencies in undergraduate medical education.

methodsMedical students participating in AMI between 2017 to 2020 completed pre- and post-exposure questionnaires. Questionnaires assessed confidence in advocacy-related skills and knowledge of youth advocacy concepts, as well as learning goals, skills gained, benefits of AMI and resident mentors, and impact on future career. Sign tests were utilized to analyze quantitative results, and content analysis was used for open-ended responses. A triangulation protocol was also utilized.

resultsFifty mentors participated, 24 (48%) of which completed both pre- and post-exposure questionnaires. Participants gained confidence in advocacy-related skills (p < 0.05) such as working with vulnerable populations and advocating for medical and non-medical needs. They also reported significant improvements (p < 0.01) in their understanding of social determinants of health and concepts related to children's health and development. Content analysis showed that participants built meaningful relationships with mentees in which they learned about social determinants of health, youth advocacy, and developed various advocacy-related skills. Participants greatly valued mentorship by residents, identifying benefits such as support and advice regarding relations with at-risk youth, and career mentorship. AMI impacted participants' career trajectories in terms of interest in working with youth, psychiatry, and advocacy.

conclusionsAMI offers a unique method of advocacy training through cascading mentorship that engages medical students both as mentors to at-risk youth and mentees to resident physicians. Through cascading mentorship, medical students advance in their advocacy-related skills and understanding of social determinants of health.

Indexed as

Education, Medical, UndergraduatePhysiciansAdolescentChildHumansMentorsPeer GroupSurveys and QuestionnairesAdvocacyCascading mentorshipSocial determinants of healthUndergraduate medical education

Identifiers

PMID33478476
PMCPMC7818733

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.