3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Mentoring future mentors in undergraduate medical education

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Efforts to support flagging mentoring programs facing shortages of experienced clinical mentors have had an unexpected and welcome effect. Supplementing traditional mentoring programs with peer-mentoring have not only addressed gaps in practice, structure, support and mentee oversight but have offered mentees charged with peer-mentoring duties the opportunity to take on mentoring roles under senior supervision. This study evaluates the experiences of peer-mentors within a local research mentoring program to better understand and advance this endeavor.

          Methods

          Semi-structured interviews and post-interview surveys based on recent reviews on mentoring were employed. Adapting the Systematic Evidence Based Approach, data was analysed using thematic and content analysis. Results were combined using the Jigsaw Perspective to ensure that key elements of the different mentoring stages were identified.

          Results

          The interviews and surveys revealed the following domains: Motivation, Initiation, Practicing, and Mentoring Environment.

          Conclusion

          These findings provide novel insight into a structured framework that may help guide the experiences, training, assessment, and oversight of peer-mentors beyond the auspices of our local program. These general observations will equip host organizations with the direction they need to take in designing and executing peer-mentoring training and assessment programs of their own. Whilst the stages of peer-mentoring need further evaluation and an effective means of assessment and support pivotal, we believe our findings suggest that peer-mentoring may not only help to address the shortfall in mentors but is an invaluable learning experience that prepares and instils key values, beliefs and principles in young would-be mentors.

          Related collections

          Most cited references36

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.

          Content analysis is a widely used qualitative research technique. Rather than being a single method, current applications of content analysis show three distinct approaches: conventional, directed, or summative. All three approaches are used to interpret meaning from the content of text data and, hence, adhere to the naturalistic paradigm. The major differences among the approaches are coding schemes, origins of codes, and threats to trustworthiness. In conventional content analysis, coding categories are derived directly from the text data. With a directed approach, analysis starts with a theory or relevant research findings as guidance for initial codes. A summative content analysis involves counting and comparisons, usually of keywords or content, followed by the interpretation of the underlying context. The authors delineate analytic procedures specific to each approach and techniques addressing trustworthiness with hypothetical examples drawn from the area of end-of-life care.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            A methodological systematic review of meta-ethnography conduct to articulate the complex analytical phases

            Background Decision making in health and social care requires robust syntheses of both quantitative and qualitative evidence. Meta-ethnography is a seven-phase methodology for synthesising qualitative studies. Developed in 1988 by sociologists in education Noblit and Hare, meta-ethnography has evolved since its inception; it is now widely used in healthcare research and is gaining popularity in education research. The aim of this article is to provide up-to-date, in-depth guidance on conducting the complex analytic synthesis phases 4 to 6 of meta-ethnography through analysis of the latest methodological evidence. Methods We report findings from a methodological systematic review conducted from 2015 to 2016. Fourteen databases and five other online resources were searched. Expansive searches were also conducted resulting in inclusion of 57 publications on meta-ethnography conduct and reporting from a range of academic disciplines published from 1988 to 2016. Results Current guidance on applying meta-ethnography originates from a small group of researchers using the methodology in a health context. We identified that researchers have operationalised the analysis and synthesis methods of meta-ethnography – determining how studies are related (phase 4), translating studies into one another (phase 5), synthesising translations (phase 6) and line of argument synthesis - to suit their own syntheses resulting in variation in methods and their application. Empirical research is required to compare the impact of different methods of translation and synthesis. Some methods are potentially better at preserving links with the context and meaning of primary studies, a key principle of meta-ethnography. A meta-ethnography can and should include reciprocal and refutational translation and line of argument synthesis, rather than only one of these, to maximise the impact of its outputs. Conclusion The current work is the first to articulate and differentiate the methodological variations and their application for different purposes and represents a significant advance in the understanding of the methodological application of meta-ethnography. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-019-0670-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Medical students’ preference for returning to the clinical setting during the COVID‐19 pandemic

              Abstract Objectives The Covid‐19 pandemic has led to widespread disruptions in the clinical education of medical students. In managing students’ return to the clinical setting, medical schools face the challenge of balancing education, service, and risk considerations. To compound this challenge, medical students may prefer not to re‐enter during a period of great uncertainty, leading to substantive downstream sequelae on individual, institutional, and national levels. Understanding students’ views on resuming clinical experiences, therefore, is an important consideration. The purpose of this study was to assess medical students’ preference for re‐entering the clinical setting during a pandemic, and to explore personal and environmental characteristics associated with that preference. Methods We conducted an electronic survey of currently enrolled medical students of Duke‐NUS Medical School in Singapore, less than a month into the pandemic. Survey items were aligned with a conceptual framework related to medical students’ preference for returning to the clinical setting. The framework consisted of three domains: 1) non‐modifiable demographic information, 2) factors thought to be modifiable through the course of medical education, including burnout, tolerance for ambiguity, motivation, and professionalism, and 3) students’ perception of Covid‐19 infection risk to self. Results Approximately one third of 179 students preferred not to return to the clinical setting. Results of a multivariable analysis indicated that compared to this group, the two‐thirds of students favouring return showed evidence of greater autonomous (or internal) motivation, a greater sense of professional responsibility, and a lower self‐perception of harbouring risk to patients. Conclusions Students’ preference regarding return to the clinical environment stems from the interplay of several key factors, and is substantively associated with perceptions of professional responsibility and their own potential risk to the healthcare system. Mindfully considering and addressing these issues may help medical schools in their preparation for returning students to the clinical setting.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: Project administrationRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: InvestigationRole: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS One
                plos
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                15 September 2022
                2022
                : 17
                : 9
                : e0273358
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
                [2 ] Division of Supportive and Palliative Care, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
                [3 ] Division of Cancer Education, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
                [4 ] Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore
                [5 ] Palliative Care Institute Liverpool, Academic Palliative & End of Life Care Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom
                [6 ] Cancer Research Centre, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom
                [7 ] Centre of Biomedical Ethics, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
                [8 ] PalC, The Palliative Care Centre for Excellence in Research and Education, Singapore, Singapore
                Bilawal Medical College, Liaquat University of Medical and Health Sciences, PAKISTAN
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7350-8644
                Article
                PONE-D-22-14440
                10.1371/journal.pone.0273358
                9477267
                36108091
                c4327957-b207-4805-a979-945ad6c81544
                © 2022 Ong et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 18 May 2022
                : 8 August 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 1, Pages: 14
                Funding
                The authors received no specific funding for this work.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Health Care Providers
                Physicians
                People and Places
                Population Groupings
                Professions
                Medical Personnel
                Physicians
                Physical Sciences
                Physics
                Classical Mechanics
                Reflection
                Computer and Information Sciences
                Software Engineering
                Computer Software
                Engineering and Technology
                Software Engineering
                Computer Software
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Social Sciences
                Sociology
                Education
                Medical Education
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Medical Humanities
                Medical Education
                People and Places
                Geographical Locations
                Asia
                Singapore
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Design
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Health Care
                Palliative Care
                Custom metadata
                All relevant data are within the manuscript.

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article