ArticleBMC medical education2026
Perceptions and characteristics of the mentor role in research capacity building programs for clinicians: a scoping review and thematic analysis.
Article in BMC medical education, 2026. 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.
- Clinicians' experience of the research ready grant program: just-in-time learning to facilitate regional research capacity.BMC health services research · 2025Article
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
backgroundResearch capacity building programs facilitate clinician engagement with best-practice research. Benefits of research capacity in healthcare locations are far reaching, including individual community and health services improvements. Commonly, research capacity building programs include an element of mentoring, to facilitate experiential learning. The role of the mentor is diverse, thus this review aimed to uncover the role through the perceptions of mentors and mentees, with the view of identify the key features of mentoring in research capacity building programs.
methodsA scoping review was conducted, using the five-stage framework of Arksey and O’Malley (2005). CINAHL, Embase, PubMed and Scopus databases were searched in December 2025. Thematic analysis using Braun and Clarke (2008) was conducted to reconcile the data with the aims and objectives.
resultsA total of 25 articles were included for analysis. Analysis of data related to mentor perceptions of their role generated two main themes and associated subthemes; Drivers of success (Facilitate research opportunities, Understand the research process, and Embed research into practice) and Clear yet Flexible Mentoring (Understanding their role, and Multi-modal delivery). For the mentees, analysis generated two main themes and associated subthemes about the perceptions of their role; Forms of Expertise (Appropriately Experienced, Regular contact, and Approachable and enthusiastic), and Research and Researchers Capability (Increased research confidence, Facilitated collaboration, and Support to do research). These findings informed the development of a novel framework for mentoring in research capacity building programs.
conclusionsMentoring is a cornerstone of research capacity building, acting as both a leadership function and a mechanism for knowledge translation. Effective mentoring requires clear role expectations, diverse engagement strategies, and institutional support. This review offers actionable guidance for designing sustainable mentoring models that strengthen research culture and improve health service outcomes.
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.