ArticleBMC medical education2025
Improving mentorship for residency applications: insights from the Canadian match mentorship program.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Canadian Federation of Medical Students Match Mentorship Program (CFMS-MMP) pairs residency applicants with residents or fellows across Canada based on specialty, school of interest, and social or application-related factors. This quality improvement study examined program strengths, areas for improvement, and valued mentorship characteristics.
methodsA multi-institutional, cross-sectional survey was distributed to program participants following field testing. The 20-item survey assessed perceptions of the program, preferred pairing criteria, and valued mentorship qualities. Quantitative data were analyzed descriptively, while qualitative responses underwent content analysis.
resultsOf 291 final-year medical students and 364 mentors enrolled, 107 mentees and 132 mentors completed the survey. Most mentees (85.4%) prioritized specialty as their top matching criterion, followed by school (10.1%) and demographic concordance (5.6%). Most mentors (70.5%) and mentees (70.1%) agreed or strongly agreed the program was valuable. Many mentors (87.9%) wished to participate again, and 83.2% of mentees were interested in becoming mentors in subsequent iterations. Mentees valued interview preparation (83.2%), mentor communication (82.2%), and availability (80.4%), while mentors most strongly valued the mentee’s willingness to engage meaningfully (84.8%). Gender and racial or ethnic concordance were less valued. Qualitative feedback highlighted flexibility, self-directed structure, and tailored matching as strengths, while proximity to application deadlines and inconsistent mentee engagement were challenges.
conclusionsThe CFMS-MMP provided valued mentorship through flexible, interest-aligned pairings. The implementation of structured check-ins with pairs and mentorship workshops for mentors may improve engagement. Matching by specialty and communication style was preferred over demographic concordance, offering insights for optimizing future mentorship initiatives. Specialty and institutional alignment may be more important than demographic concordance for senior medical students.
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.