ArticleJournal of medical physics
Virtual Mentoring for Medical Physicists: Results of a Global Online Survey.
Article in Journal of medical physics. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Medical physics professional development is limited in parts of the globe and can be aided by virtual mentoring. A global online perception survey was conducted to elucidate the characteristics of the preferred virtual mentoring program. Methods: Informed by a literature review and pilot testing by focus groups, the survey was electronically disseminated to multiple medical physics organizations, list servers, and professional contacts. It addressed issues including factors and barriers influencing successful mentoring; mentors'/mentees' matching preferences; frequency and length of meetings; importance of defining expectations; formal agreement; and assessment of the mentoring process. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize responses including comparisons by country income level. Results: The 396 responders (68% male and 32% female) were from 76 countries with 66% from high-income countries (HICs) and 34% from low- and middle-income countries (L&MICs). Data were provided on experience level as mentors (43% "little [occasional]", 38% "lot [regular or ongoing]") and mentees (53% "little [occasional]", and 23% "lot [regular or ongoing]"), and interest in participating in mentorship program (83% as mentor, mentee, or both). L&MIC responders were generally younger with less work experience (55% <10 years versus 28% for HIC responders). Differences between L&MIC and HIC responses occurred when considering the perceived limitations and barriers to virtual mentoring. Preferences were given to mentoring logistics (formal agreement, frequency, length, and format of meetings). Conclusions: Factors to consider in developing a virtual mentorship program are informed by the survey results and are applicable to both HIC and L&MIC contexts, to medical physicists, and to other related professions.
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.