ArticleBMJ open2021
Mentors' perspectives on strengths and weaknesses of a novel clinical mentorship programme in Rwanda: a qualitative study.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development of an entry-level physiotherapy program in a low-resource setting: an innovative model in Tajikistan.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Steps initiated for sustainability of faculty mentorship program at Aga Khan University Medical College: A mixed method study.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2025Article
- Design and Evaluation of Peer Supervision for Community Mental Health Workers: A Task-Shifting Strategy in Low-Resource Settings.Community mental health journal · 2024Article
- Incidence, mortality, and factors associated with primary postpartum haemorrhage following in-hospital births in northwest Ethiopia.PloS one · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo identify mentors' perspectives on strengths and weaknesses of the Training, Support and Access Model for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health (TSAM-MNCH) clinical mentorship programme in Rwandan district hospitals. Understanding the perspectives of mentors involved in this programme can aid in the improvement of its implementation.
designThe study used a qualitative approach with in-depth interviews.
settingMentors of TSAM-MNCH clinical mentorship programme mentoring health professionals at district hospitals of Rwanda.
participants14 TSAM mentors who had at least completed six mentorship visits on a regular basis in three selected district hospitals.
resultsMentors' accounts demonstrated an appreciation of the two mentoring structures which are interprofessional collaboration and training. These structures are highlighted as the strengths of the mentoring programme and they play a significant role in the successful implementation of the mentorship model. Inconsistency of mentoring activities and lack of resources emerged as major weaknesses of the clinical mentorship programme which could hinder the effectiveness of the mentoring scheme.
conclusionThe findings of this study highlight the strengths and weaknesses perceived by mentors of the TSAM-MNCH clinical mentorship programme, providing insights that can be used to improve its implementation. The study represents unique TSAM-MNCH structural settings, but its findings shed light on Rwandan health system issues that need to be further addressed to ensure better quality of care for mothers, newborns and children.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.