Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40634969›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2025

Development and validation of an innovation competence instrument for medical mentors in China: a mixed-methods study.

Gang Chen, Jing Wu, Qingshan Ni, Xuhu Mao, Yi-Chao Wang, Juan-Juan Yue

Abstract readValidation Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Gang ChenDepartment of Clinical Microbiology and Immunology, Faculty of Pharmacy and Medical Laboratory Sciences, Third Military Medical University (Army Medical University), No. 30 Gaotanyan Street, Shapingba District, Chongqing, 400038, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7713-2413
Jing WuThe Graduate School of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing, 400038, China.
Qingshan NiBiomedical Analysis Center, College of Basic Medicine, Third Military Medical University (Army Medical University), Chongqing, 400038, China.
Xuhu MaoDepartment of Clinical Microbiology and Immunology, Faculty of Pharmacy and Medical Laboratory Sciences, Third Military Medical University (Army Medical University), No. 30 Gaotanyan Street, Shapingba District, Chongqing, 400038, China.
Yi-Chao WangVocational Education Center, Third Military Medical University (Army Medical University), Chongqing, No. 30 Gaotanyan Street, Shapingba District, 400038, China. wangyichao@tmmu.edu.cn.
Juan-Juan YueDepartment of Clinical Microbiology and Immunology, Faculty of Pharmacy and Medical Laboratory Sciences, Third Military Medical University (Army Medical University), No. 30 Gaotanyan Street, Shapingba District, Chongqing, 400038, China. yuejuanjuan@tmmu.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2451-6936

Funding

the Postgraduate Education Reform Foundation of Chongqing yjg212042the Project of Association of Chinese Graduate Schools ACGS05-2024041the Research Project of Graduate Education and Teaching Reform in Army Medical University Y2025A05
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMedical mentors' innovation competence, which has not yet been effectively evaluated, is crucial for cultivating talent in the medical field. In this study, we aim to develop a new tool for assessing medical mentors' innovation competence.

methodsThirteen experts were interviewed and consulted to identify items indicating innovation competence. These items were used to prepare a questionnaire for the subsequent cross-sectional survey. Finally, the innovation competence instrument was developed and verified through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using data from 1892 mentors and postgraduates at 9 Chinese universities.

resultsFive dimensions- "mentoring and teamwork", "supportive action", "scientific research", "professional ethics and spirit" and "educational reform"-including 21 items-were developed and verified. The instrument explained 68.66% of the total variance, and it exhibited good reliability and validity as well as a good fit to the data.

conclusionsThe instrument provides a new theoretical framework for innovation competence in postgraduate education, and it can be used to assess the innovation competence of mentors to guide them to better prepare for mentoring medical postgraduate students. Additionally, the results suggested that mentors should focus on "mentoring and teamwork", especially collaboration with postgraduates, to improve innovation competence.

Indexed as

MentoringMentorsProfessional CompetenceAdultChinaClinical CompetenceCross-Sectional StudiesFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleHumansMaleReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesInnovation competenceInstrumentMedical mentorPostgraduate

Identifiers

PMID40634969
PMCPMC12243290

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.