ArticleMedical education online2026
Be a buddy: implementation and trainee perspectives on a near-peer mentorship program.
Article in Medical education online, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEvidence for mentorship largely focuses on traditional faculty-resident mentorship, with limited assessment of fellows as near-peer mentors. Our intervention develops and assesses a resident-fellow mentorship initiative.
methodsWe conducted a sequential, adaptive multi-method design program evaluation. First, to evaluate trainee attitudes and beliefs around fellows as residents' mentors we conducted annual surveys. Subsequently, interviews were used to iteratively understand how fellow-resident mentorship affected trainees' career development experiences in pursuit of fellowships.Our mentorship program at an academic pediatric hospital matched residents with fellows from 2020-2023 based on career subspecialty interests. Participants completed pre-intervention and post-participation surveys assessing experiences with prior mentorship, attitudes towards mentorship, and confidence in fellows as mentors. Subsequently in 2023, participants were recruited for qualitative, structured interviews to gain deeper understanding of experiences and recognize opportunities for program expansion and improvement.
resultsSeventy-two residents were paired with 53 fellows in dyads and triads of mentorship during the study period. Survey data revealed: 1) Less than half of residents (49%) and fellows (29%) previously had fellow mentorship; 2) Post-participation, 29% of residents and 21% of fellows completed surveys, and all accepted that fellows are capable mentors; 3) Lower satisfaction ratings on surveyed experience coincided with fewer meetings or mismatched specialty of interest.Subsequent interviews with 9 residents (post-match) and 9 fellows revealed: 1) The greatest benefit was strengthening residents' applications and insight into subspecialties; 2) Fellows were perceived as near-peers with deeper understanding and ease in communicating; 3) Barriers of time constraints and mismatch between specialties were underscored; 4) Fellows noted benefits of reflection opportunity and mentorship skill building. DISCUSSION: Implementation of a near-peer mentorship program for trainees interested in subspecialty careers provided an added layer of support in this single-center Pediatric training program. Fellows may be an underutilized resource for near-peer mentorship of trainees.
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.