ArticleCanadian medical education journal2021
Towards a better understanding of medical students' mentorship needs: a self-determination theory perspective.
Article in Canadian medical education journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Promoting motivation and reducing stress in medical students by utilizing self-determination theory - a randomized controlled trial in practical psychiatry courses.BMC medical education · 2024Trial
- Peer Mentoring by Medical Students for Medical Students: A Scoping Review.Medical science educator · 2024Article
- When medical students are autonomously motivated to mentor: a pilot study on confidence in clinical teaching and psychological well-being.Canadian medical education journal · 2024Article
- Taking the PULSE mentorship program "virtual": reflections by the program coordinators.Canadian medical education journal · 2023Article
- "Grabbing" Autonomy When the Learning Environment Doesn't Support it: An Evidence-based Guide for Medical Learners.MedEdPublish (2016) · 2022Article
- Education decision making at medical schools: there must be a better way.Canadian medical education journal · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMentorship programs are ubiquitous in medical education. However, few emphasize equal development for learners and mentors, or incorporate clinical skills, which may be important for promoting medical students' self-determination. Central to this consideration are the three basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, described by Self-Determination Theory (SDT). Grounded in SDT, this study assesses the extent that meeting these needs, in a near-peer mentoring program, impacts learners' and mentors' motivation and perceived competence about learning and teaching of clinical knowledge, respectively.
methodsMedical students from the University of Saskatchewan, who participated in its near-peer mentoring program (PULSE: Peers United in Leadership & Skills Enhancement), were invited to complete an anonymous survey. Regression was used to determine how the program's learning climate impacted learners' and mentors' psychological need satisfaction and perceived competence within their mentorship role.
resultsLearners and mentors both rated PULSE as highly needs-satisfying. In turn, this was associated with greater perceived competence about learning and teaching of the material.
conclusionsFindings from this study suggest that mentoring programs in medical education, which support learners' basic psychological needs, may promote their motivation and perceived competence-both about learning and also teaching of clinical skills. The implications of these results are discussed from an SDT perspective, with respect to mentoring programs in medical education.
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.