ArticleCureus2025
Introduction of a National Foundation Year 1 Mentoring Programme.
Article in Cureus, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background The transition from medical student to Foundation Year 1 (FY1) doctor is marked by high stress and rapid professional adaptation, with many new graduates feeling underprepared. Mentoring has been shown to support resident doctors, but access to such programmes remains inconsistent across the United States. Methods In partnership with Mind the Bleep, a free medical education platform for resident doctors and healthcare professionals, a national, peer-led mentoring scheme was developed to support incoming FY1 doctors. The programme matched final-year medical students with current FY1 doctors across two cycles (August 2023 and August 2024 cohorts). Feedback was collected at the end of each cycle to assess engagement, perceived usefulness, and guide areas for improvement. Results The first cycle matched 420 mentees with 230 mentors (ratio 1.83), whilst the second cycle matched 861 mentees with 146 mentors (ratio 5.90). Although contact frequency varied, mentees reported benefits such as receiving advice and reducing anxiety, whilst mentors valued the opportunity to give back and reflect on their own experiences. Mean usefulness ratings ranged from 3.25 to 3.93 (out of 5). Participant feedback guided key areas for improvement including matching by geographical location and more structured guidance. Conclusion This national peer-led mentoring scheme offers accessible and valuable support to new FY1 doctors during a critical transition. The programme complements local efforts and demonstrates potential for sustainable, scalable impact across the NHS. According to the findings, it can be seen that the mentoring scheme demonstrated clear demand and perceived value amongst both mentors and mentees. The voluntary, peer-led model has proven feasible and sustainable with limited administrative input. Matching participants by location enhanced relevance but introduced logistical constraints. Feedback underscored a desire for more structured support and one-to-one mentoring, which are being addressed through enhanced mentor recruitment strategies and refined supporting materials.
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.