ArticleJournal of medical education and curricular development
Mentorship in Undergraduate Biomedical Education: Identifying Student Opinions and Expectations.
Article in Journal of medical education and curricular development. 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.
- Mentoring Students as a Professional Development Opportunity: Reflections of Early Career Dental Faculty.European journal of dental education : official journal of the Association for Dental Education in Europe · 2026Article
- Mentorship across institutional contexts: Insights from biology and biomedical science undergraduates at two institutions.PloS one · 2026Article
- Exploring Nursing Students' Expectations on Preceptoring and Preceptorship Program: A Mixed Method Study.Journal of caring sciences · 2024Article
- Mentoring and Supporting Our Next Generation of Women Toxicologists.Frontiers in toxicology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate undergraduate biomedical education student opinions and expectations on mentorship. Methods: A survey was administered to students enrolled in the undergraduate biology, neuroscience and nursing programs at a large public research-intensive university. The survey queried demographics, previous mentorship experiences, ideal qualities of mentors, benefits/value of mentorship and future plans for seeking mentorship. Survey responses were evaluated using either t-test comparisons or one-way ANOVA. Results: The majority of the respondents were female and were interested in pursuing professional schools (nursing and medicine). Survey results indicate high student interest in receiving mentoring, but few were active participants in a mentoring relationship. Respondents indicated either lack of knowledge or discomfort in identifying a mentor. While faculty mentors versus peer mentors were preferred, respondents indicated that mentoring by either faculty or peers would be of value. Survey results indicate that desired benefits of mentoring included guidance in future education and career decisions, networking and career advice. Conclusion: The major conclusions are that despite high student interest in being mentored, their participation in mentoring is very low. These finding are supportive of the development of structured mentoring programs to facilitate and enhance mentoring of undergraduate STEM students and aid in their academic career progression.
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.