ArticleCureus2024
Navigating Undergraduate Medical Education: The Impact of Enhanced Mentorship Pairing at a New Medical School.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Transitioning into medical school is challenging, particularly in the first year, with a notable support gap. This study aimed to evaluate a mentorship program at a new medical school. Methods Initiated in 2017 at the University of Texas Rio Grande Valley School of Medicine, the mentorship program had two iterations: initial random pairings and subsequent formative pairings based on matching criteria. A mixed-methods approach assessed its effectiveness in supporting first-year students. Results Of 109 first-year students, 76% completed a 6-month survey. Both classes primarily had male mentees with varied interests in primary or specialty care. No significant demographic differences or benefits between 1:1 and 2:1 mentor-mentee pairings were found, though in-person communication was preferred in 1:1 pairings (p=0.036). While enhanced matching criteria improved perceived transitions (p=0.47) and academic performance (p=0.84), these did not reach statistical significance. However, it increased the frequency of communication (p=0.038). Conclusion The implementation of a peer-mentorship program at a new medical school demonstrates high engagement among first- and second-year medical students with perceived improvement in transition and academic performance. Although enhanced matching criteria led to more frequent communication, highlighting the significance of careful mentor-mentee pairings, they did not correlate with better transitions or academic outcomes. This indicates that while these criteria are valuable, they are less crucial than simply having a mentorship program in place.
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.