ArticleJournal of cardiothoracic surgery2025
An environmental scan of current mentorship: fostering the next generations in cardiothoracic surgery in the UK.
Article in Journal of cardiothoracic surgery, 2025. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesMentorship is critical to the professional development of junior colleagues in cardiothoracic surgery. Despite its presumed importance and frequent discussion, its impact within cardiothoracic surgery training remains uncharacterised within the UK. We aimed to evaluate mentorship experience and identify gaps in the system of mentorship education. The differences between men and women's views on mentorship are also considered.
methodsWe prospectively collected of 92 responses [50 M:42 F] over 18 weeks. 'Society for Cardiothoracic Surgery in Great Britain and Ireland (SCTS) Critically Appraising mentorship' survey was formulated using electronic questionnaire system and distributed via emails to health professionals and medical students by using SCTS membership directory. The survey domains explore respondents' demographics, current or previous academic appointments, leadership roles, experience of mentorship, and opinions regarding ideal implementation of mentorship model, including the views on necessity for racial and gender concordance between mentor and mentee.
results43% of respondents (40/92) had less than 5 years of experience in practice, but in general men were more experienced than women with over 15 years of practice (40% versus 9.52%) (p = 0.01). Women are more likely to change their practice due to favourable work-life balance (40%, 4/10) or due to financial incentives (40%, 4/10). On the other hand, men were mostly likely to transit due to career specialisation (38.1%, 8/21) (p = 0.014). 48% of respondents (45/92) have a system of mentorship in the current practice, but 66.67% (30/92) did not have formal evaluations. All male participants did not think gender of mentor/mentee was important, but 21.43% (9/42) of women did (p = 0.002).
conclusionThe need for mentorship programme is widely recognised and is imperative to achieve maximum career potential, both professionally and personally. The key will be to establish more structured mentoring programme, finding apposite mentor-mentee dyad, predefining mentorship need, and recognising the unique needs associated with the mentee's identity. Women face unique challenges as a minority, and this must be considered when forming mentorship relationship.
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.