ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2026
Research Mentorship for Undergraduate Medical Students in Low-Income Settings: A Perspective from Uganda.
Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Research mentorship is widely regarded as the single most effective route into research for medical students, yet it remains least accessible in low-income settings, where mentor time, institutional funding, and ethical infrastructure are all constrained. This Perspective, a descriptive account of early implementation experience rather than a formal program evaluation, presents the design and implementation of a phased, student-led research mentorship program for medical students at Makerere University, Uganda, and argues that closing this gap requires redesigning mentorship models rather than importing well-resourced ones. The program sequenced training to begin with evidence synthesis, which required neither funding nor ethical approval, before progressing to primary research, and distributed mentorship across small peer groups rather than one-to-one faculty pairings. Implementation nonetheless surfaced substantial challenges: mentor hesitancy and inconsistent availability, conflicting schedules between mentors and time-pressured students, high attrition, with only 33 of 75 enrolled students (44%) attending all five webinars, and difficulty absorbing students who joined after the program began. Five months in, only 5 of 13 groups had completed the deliverable needed to begin the program's second phase. Drawing on these findings alongside comparable near-peer and institutionally anchored mentorship models elsewhere, this Perspective argues that mentorship in resource-constrained settings requires deliberate structural design, tiered near-peer mentoring, proactive institutional anchoring, and modular entry points, rather than reliance on volunteer goodwill, and proposes these as concrete considerations for the program's next phase.
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.