ArticleInternational journal of medical education2024
How do mentors perceive and perform their role in a reflection-based mentoring programme for medical students?
Article in International journal of medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To explore how mentors perceive and perform their role in a longitudinal mentorship programme with the objective of guiding medical students in becoming reflective learners. Methods: A qualitative exploratory study was conducted using semi-structured interviews with 16 mentors from the Ghent University medical education mentoring programme. Participants were selected by purposeful sampling on gender, years of experience and area of specialisation. Interview transcripts were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Afterwards, all transcripts were re-analysed combining the resulting themes to identify different mentoring profiles. Results: Our analysis yielded three themes. First, the basic conditions for mentorship showed wide differences in competencies that mentors considered necessary. Second, goals and purposes of mentoring identified roles ranging from ombudsperson, confidential advisor, role model to guide towards professional and personal growth. Third, attitudes to the mentoring programme revealed a wide variation from fully embracing to rejecting the reflective method. Further analysis led to three mentor profiles: reflective, sharing and advising. Even reflective mentors struggled in varying degrees with applying the guidelines, mostly depending on prior experience with reflection. Advising mentors found the intervision techniques too constrictive and expressed doubts about the usefulness of the programme. Conclusions: In this reflection-based mentoring programme, different mentor perceptions strongly determined how reflection is being taught to medical students. This may affect the students' professional identity formation. Training should enable mentors to reflect on their beliefs and mentoring style. Further research is needed on the effects of reflection in mentoring and on mentor selection.
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.