ArticleBMC medical education2025
Evaluation of a medical school's mentorship program using CIPP model: a mixed-methods study.
Article in BMC medical education, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMentoring medical students has become a prevalent educational strategy in medical schools with the purpose of their professional development. For a mentoring program, it is essential for its timely evaluation to make it successful in achieving the program's goals. This mixed-method study was designed to evaluate the newly started mentorship program at a medical school through Context Input Process and Product (CIPP) evaluation model.
methodsWe included 182 mentees and 29 mentors who were involved in the mentorship program for the academic years of 2023 and 2024. The quantitative portion of program evaluation was carried out through pre-tested separate surveys for mentors and mentees generated as per CIPP model of evaluation utilizing a 6-point Likert scale. For qualitative analysis, Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed through inductive thematic analysis to generate codes and identify overarching themes.
resultsThe quantitative data indicated that only 15-20% of mentees strongly agreed that the program's goals were achieved. Many mentors reported a generally positive attitude towards the mentorship program and rated the program as good (62.1%) whereas only 17.2% rated the program as very good. The qualitative data revealed unsatisfactory perception from both mentors and mentees due to unclear aims and objectives, matching process of mentees and mentors, inaccessible mentors and mentees to each other and lack of training of mentors.
conclusionWe found that both mentors and mentees recognized the importance of mentorship in medical training. Based on the results of the CIPP evaluation, the findings of this mixed-method study suggest that the implementation of the mentoring program is not up to the mark, and several areas need improvement including conveying proper aims and objectives, accessibility of mentors and mentees to each other and training of mentors for the program.
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.