ArticleBMC medical education2024
Exploring the factors affecting career progression in informal faculty mentoring sessions within mentor and mentee relationships: a qualitative study.
Article in BMC medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pathways to promotion: Leveraging your network for academic success.Journal of hospital medicine · 2026Article
- Mentoring in Specialty Training in Oman: Insights from Trainees' Perspectives and Experiences.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Article
- The Role of Mentorship in Orthopedic Professional Development: From Training to Mastery.Journal of orthopaedic case reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMentoring plays a pivotal role in mentees' professional advancement. However, the factors that affect career progression in informal mentoring relationships, especially with respect to faculty members, have not been extensively explored. This study aimed to explore the factors that affect career progression in informal faculty mentorings within mentor and mentee relationships. METHODOLOGY: A Qualitative Exploratory Study was designed and conducted from May to October 2023. Faculty members with informal mentoring relationships were recruited through purposive sampling. Seven faculty mentors and eight faculty mentees from various institutions participated in the study. Semi-structured interviews were used to collect data, which were audio-recorded and verbatim transcribed. The transcripts were then analysed using NVivo Software and coded. Braun and Clark's framework was used for the thematic analysis. The study adhered to the COREQ (Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research) checklist to ensure comprehensive and transparent reporting of the qualitative research process.
resultsA total of 76 codes emerged which were classified into six themes: (1) an ideal mentee, (2) an ideal mentor, (3) factors promoting the relationship, (4) the role of gender, (5) factors deteriorating the relationship, (6) overcoming barriers / trust-building strategies. Within each theme, mentor-mentee needs and behaviours were identified, which could lead to positive or deteriorating outcomes.
conclusionFactors affecting career progression in informal faculty mentoring sessions include mentees' positive mindset, internal motivation and clarity of vision, mentors' skills, reputation, and role modelling. Effective communication, trust, respect, and clear goals are also essential. Challenges, such as busy schedules, cross-gender mentoring, and societal biases, affect these relationships. Overcoming these barriers involves sharing experiences, psychosocial support, empathy, active listening, and feedback.
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.