Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35999559›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2022

Mentoring is in the 'I' of the beholder: supporting mentors in reflecting on their actual and preferred way of mentoring.

Lianne M Loosveld, Erik W Driessen, Eline Vanassche, Anthony R Artino, Pascal W M Van Gerven

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Discoveries or doubts: a qualitative study of the transformative potential of portfolio meetings.Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Lianne M LoosveldSchool of Health Professions Education, Department of Educational Development & Research, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Universiteitssingel 60, 6229 ER, Maastricht, The Netherlands. l.loosveld@maastrichtuniversity.nl.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9844-3202
Erik W DriessenSchool of Health Professions Education, Department of Educational Development & Research, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Universiteitssingel 60, 6229 ER, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8115-261X
Eline VanasscheFaculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Leuven, Campus Kulak, Etienne Sabbelaan 51, P.O. Box 7654, 8500, Kortrijk, Belgium.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0553-4258
Anthony R ArtinoDepartment of Health, Human Function, and Rehabilitation Sciences, School of Medicine and Health Sciences, The George Washington University, 2600 Virginia Avenue NW, Suite 104, Washington, DC, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2661-7853
Pascal W M Van GervenSchool of Health Professions Education, Department of Educational Development & Research, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, Universiteitssingel 60, 6229 ER, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8363-2534

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAn important strategy to support the professional development of mentors in health professions education is to encourage critical reflection on what they do, why they do it, and how they do it. Not only the 'how' of mentoring should be covered, but also the implicit knowledge and beliefs fundamental to the mentoring practice (a mentor's personal interpretative framework). This study analyzed the extent to which mentors perceive a difference between how they actually mentor and how they prefer to mentor.

methodsThe MERIT (MEntor Reflection InstrumenT) survey (distributed in 2020, N = 228), was used to ask mentors about the how, what, and why of their mentoring in two response modes: (1) regarding their actual mentoring practice and (2) regarding their preferred mentoring practice. With an analysis of covariance, it was explored whether potential discrepancies between these responses were influenced by experience, profession of the mentor, and curriculum-bound assessment requirements.

resultsThe averaged total MERIT score and averaged scores for the subscales 'Supporting Personal Development' and 'Monitoring Performance' were significantly higher for preferred than for actual mentoring. In addition, mentors' experience interacted significantly with these scores, such that the difference between actual and preferred scores became smaller with more years of experience.

conclusionsMentors can reflect on their actual and preferred approach to mentoring. This analysis and the potential discrepancy between actual and preferred mentoring can serve as input for individual professional development trajectories.

Indexed as

CurriculumHumansMentoringMentorsSurveys and QuestionnairesCritical reflectionFaculty developmentMentoringPersonal interpretative framework

Identifiers

PMID35999559
PMCPMC9396759

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.