ArticleJournal of medical education and curricular development
Near-peer Mentorship: Promoting Medical Student Research With Resident Pairing.
Article in Journal of medical education and curricular development. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cascade mentoring: a proposal for transforming radiology education in line with the European training curriculum.Insights into imaging · 2026Review
- The collaboration of surgical education fellows' (CoSEF) guide to designing, executing, and publishing surgical education research.Global surgical education : journal of the Association for Surgical Education · 2026Article
- Implementing a Near-Peer Mentorship Program to Enhance Surgical Research Among Medical Students: A Protocol for a Mixed-Methods Evaluation.Advances in medical education and practice · 2025Article
- Perceived Educational Value and Enjoyment of Mandatory Research Assignment by Final-Year Veterinary Medicine Students.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundObtaining a clinical research mentor is a major barrier for medical students interested in research.
objectiveTo increase access to research, a Near-Peer Mentor Program (NPMP) was developed to pair medical students with resident mentors to submit case reports to an annual in-hospital research conference.
methodsStudents and residents were recruited via surveys and paired based on students' specialty interests. Support in the form of templates, instructions and timelines were given. To evaluate the program's impact, we reviewed the number of pairs' projects at the conference, awards, and who advanced their projects to publications and conferences from 2019 to 2022.
resultsDuring the study period, 173 students enrolled. The majority 106 (61.2%) were interested in medical specialties, followed by 47 (27.2%) in surgery and surgical subspecialities, and 20 (11.6%) undecided. All students were paired. One hundred and seventy (98.3%) had projects under resident mentors matching their specialty interests. One hundred and fifty (82.9%) completed the program and submitted a case report to the conference. Years with NPMP led to a 122% (55 in 2019 vs 122 in 2020) and 232% (50 in 2021 vs 166 in 2022) increase in medical student conference posters compared to the previous year without NPMP. In both years, NPMP students won all top 3 awards for best case report. Additionally, 10 pairs produced 6 peer-reviewed publications, 5 conference abstracts, and 2 conference oral presentations as first authors.
conclusionThe NPMP successfully promoted medical student participation in clinical research. The program substantially increased student poster presentations and subsequent publications and presentations stemming from them.
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.