ArticlePloS one2025
'I cannot be what I don't see': an evaluation of Academic Intersectionality Mentoring in medical schools (AIMMS Mentoring).
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mentoring to Support Healthcare Professional and Medical Career Progression and Leadership Development.The Medical journal of Australia · 2026Article
- Correction: 'I cannot be what I don't see': an evaluation of Academic Intersectionality Mentoring in medical schools (AIMMS Mentoring).PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Academic Intersectionality Mentoring in Medical Schools (AIMMS Mentoring) scheme aims to support the career progression of women from ethnic minority backgrounds working in academic medicine and health sciences who are under-represented in senior roles of academia in the UK. Two questionnaires (baseline and 6 months) captured information about AIMMS Mentoring participants and practical aspects of the scheme. Participants were asked about their experience of and satisfaction with the scheme, whether it matched their expectations and what they felt were the scheme's rewards and challenges. Questions were also asked about the organisation of the scheme and how it could be improved. The productivity of mentoring relationships was explored, including personal and professional development, and whether participants felt it important that mentoring takes place between people with similar characteristics. Sixteen pairs took part in mentoring, with ten mentees and four mentors completing evaluation questionnaires at 6m follow-up. Responses indicated that the scheme was helpful. All mentor and mentee responses reported personal and professional development. Mentee responses in particular reported gaining insight into career development, and both groups felt they had gained understanding about institutional ways of working. Participants rated the scheme positively and indicated they would recommend it to others. Being in mentoring relationships with women from similar backgrounds was ascribed value, as was mentor partners being empathetic. The evaluation revealed ways in which the scheme could be improved. Women from ethnic minorities working in academic medicine and health sciences can face structural barriers into leadership. This formative and summative evaluation of AIMMS Mentoring showed that mentoring and peer support in this group is valuable and can assist with personal, professional and career development. The scheme is an example of positive action and a model national activity aimed at achieving equity of opportunity in academic medicine and health sciences.
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.