ArticleCureus2026
Development and Evaluation of a Mentor Handbook to Support Accelerated Pathway to Medical Education (APME) Students.
Article in Cureus, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCombined baccalaureate-MD programs offer an accelerated pathway to medical education, yet mentor-facing guidance and evaluated support tools for these programs remain limited. The University of Arizona College of Medicine-Tucson established the Accelerated Pathway to Medical Education (APME) program in 2021, alongside a near-peer mentorship initiative connecting current medical students with APME participants. To address the absence of structured, mentor-facing resources tailored to accelerated tracks, we developed and evaluated a mentor handbook designed to support academic navigation, professional development, wellness, and peer connectivity for APME students, with evaluation focused on student perceptions rather than observed behavioral outcomes. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis cross-sectional, descriptive pilot study involved the development, dissemination, and perceptual evaluation of a digital mentor handbook. Content was created through review of institutional resources, consultations with program leaders and upperclassmen, and input from current mentors. Following dissemination, an anonymous electronic questionnaire was distributed to all eligible APME students and the new APME mentors (N=14) during the 2024-2025 academic year; 10 participants responded (71% response rate). Quantitative data from 5-point Likert scale questions assessing perceived clarity, relevance, and usefulness were summarized using frequencies, percentages, and p-values, while qualitative responses underwent reflexive thematic analysis by two independent coders.
resultsRespondents reported high perceived clarity (n=10/10 satisfied or very satisfied; p=0.001), relevance (n=8/10, p=0.055), and helpfulness (n=8/10; p=0.055). The most frequently selected useful sections were Mentor Contact Information (n=8/10), followed by the Cold Email Template (n=5/10). Qualitative feedback highlighted the value of peer contact information for fostering connections but raised concerns that including recommended course lists and early introduction of study tools could create unnecessary pressure or information overload. Students also recommended adding a section for on- and off-campus study locations.
conclusionIn this exploratory pilot study with a small sample size, the mentor handbook was perceived as a clear and relevant support tool for an accelerated medical pathway. Findings reflect subjective perceptions rather than demonstrated behavioral or academic outcomes and should be interpreted accordingly. Future work, including longitudinal follow-up and multi-institutional evaluation, will be critical to strengthen the evidence base, assess sustained impact, and determine generalizability across programs. Ongoing, student-driven revisions and longitudinal evaluations will be essential to optimize relevance, mitigate bias, and assess broader impact across future cohorts.
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.