ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2025
Finding the right fit: How mentor-mentee fit impacts outcomes for academic mentees.
Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 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.
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Mentoring is an important developmental tool for academic scientists. The match between mentor and mentee is a critical factor than can influence outcomes for mentees. However, we know little about what factors should be considered when matching mentors and mentees. We draw on person-environment fit theory to examine how different factors related to the fit between mentors and mentees may influence outcomes for mentees in health-related scientific disciplines. Methods: Data were collected from 76 mentor-mentee pairs who participated in a nine-month mentoring program for scientists interested in clinical and translational research. An index of supplementary fit was calculated to reflect mentor-mentee similarity in terms of race/ethnicity, gender, academic discipline, professional track, percent time allocated to research, and type of research. Complementary fit reflected the proportion of skills mentees identified as needs that their mentor felt comfortable providing. Mentee outcomes assessed included satisfaction with one's mentor, learning and development experiences, and short-term research output. Results: As predicted, we found that supplementary fit was positively related to mentee satisfaction with the mentor. We found no support for the expected relationship between complementary fit and mentee learning development experiences or short-term research output. Supplementary analyses explored other non-hypothesized relationships among study variables. Conclusions: This research underscores the need to consider different types of fit when matching academic mentors and mentees in clinical and translational science-related disciplines. Our results can be leveraged during the matching process in academic mentoring programs to maximize the success of mentoring relationships for scientists in health-related fields.
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.