ReviewMedical education online2025
Near-peer mentorship for newly qualified doctors; what are the benefits, and what methods can be used to overcome the pitfalls?
Review in Medical education online, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Near-peer learning in neurology residency: a 6-year experience comparing knowledge gains across cerebrovascular, electromyography, and electroencephalography modules.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Impact of structured mentorship on professional identity and career development among medical residents: a cross-sectional study in China.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
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
introductionAccess to mentorship is frequently cited as a priority for doctors, however formal mentorship programmes throughout training are lacking for residents. Near-peer mentorship is a faculty-light option to potentially bridge this mentorship gap, however the literature in the clinical postgraduate setting is not comprehensive. We aim to evaluate the benefits and pitfalls of near-peer mentorship in a postgraduate setting. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study conducted a narrative review based on previously published frameworks. An exhaustive search of the literature was conducted using PubMed and OVID Medline. The findings were analysed using Framework synthesis, in which the pre-existing framework of
resultsAcross 10 identified studies (one quantitative, three qualitative, six mixed-methods), near-peer mentorship was perceived to be beneficial (72-100% approval), with 85-99% of mentors and mentees desiring continuation of schemes at their units (seven UK-based, two Australian, one Canadian). The main themes identified were Mentee benefits, including careers advice and development of transferable skills; Mentor benefits, including leadership and organisational skill improvements; Organisational benefits, including reduced faculty workload and an enhanced sense of community. Pitfalls included a perceived lack of mentor expertise, shortage of time and resources, and unsupportive mentoring relationships. DISCUSSION: This research suggests that near-peer mentorship offers benefits for the mentee, mentor and organisation, if care is taken to mitigate the potential pitfalls. The main benefits versus traditional senior faculty mentorship derive from the concept of social and cognitive congruence, whereby a more closely relatable tutor is better able to tailor learning in terms understood by the tutee. Practical recommendations to optimise near-pear mentorship include mentorship pyramids, matching of pairings within the same clinical sites, and a hybrid matching approach with the option for mentee-led selection.
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.