ArticleBMJ open2022
Does reverse mentoring work in the NHS: a feasibility study of clinicians in practice.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Comprehensive Evidence on the Effectiveness and Experiences of Mentoring Programmes for Managers in Healthcare: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review.Journal of nursing management · 2026Pooled it
- What is the role of out of programme clinical fellowships in the era of Shape of Training? A single-centre cohort study.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2024Article
- Understanding the difference, makes the difference: perceptions of Black and Minoritised ethnic occupational therapists on mentoring.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Guided by Mentorship: Connections That Shape Medical Careers.Missouri medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the risks and benefits of reverse mentoring of consultants by junior doctors.
designA feasibility study divided into two phases: first a semistructured interview where performance of participating consultants was assessed by junior doctors and then a second phase allowing for feedback to be given on a one-to-one basis. Data collected through questionnaires with free text questions and Likert scores.
settingTertiary teaching hospital in the UK.
participantsSix junior doctors (66.6% male, age range 31-40 years) and five consultants (80% male, age range 35-65 years and consultants for 5-20 years).
interventionReverse mentoring session.
main outcome measureThe concerns and/or benefits of the process of reverse mentoring. Confidence was assessed in 7 domains: clinical practice, approach to juniors, approachability, use of technology, time management, strengths and areas for improvement using Likert scales giving a total out of 35.
resultsThe most common concerns cited were overcoming the hierarchical difference and a selection bias in both mentors and mentees. However, no participant experienced this hierarchical difference through the reverse mentoring process and no relationships were negatively affected. Mentors became more confident in feeding back to seniors (23 vs 29 out of 35, p=0.04) most evident in clinical practice and areas to improve (3 vs 4 out of 5, p=0.041 and 3 vs 5 out of 5, p=0.041, respectively).
conclusionWe present the first study of reverse mentoring in an NHS clinical setting. Initial concerns with regard to damaged relationships and hierarchical gradients were not experienced and all participants perceived that they benefited from the process. Reverse mentoring can play a role in engaging and training future leaders at junior stages and provide a means for consultants to receive valuable feedback from junior colleagues.
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.