14
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      Submit your digital health research with an established publisher
      - celebrating 25 years of open access

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Benefits of Mentoring in Oncology Education for Mentors and Mentees: Pre-Post Interventional Study of the British Oncology Network for Undergraduate Societies' National Oncology Mentorship Scheme

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      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

          Formal education of oncology is lacking in many undergraduate medical curricula. Mentoring schemes can expose participants to specific areas of medicine and may address the shortfalls in oncology education. Few mentoring schemes have been designed within the United Kingdom, especially within oncology. There is a need to understand reasons for mentor and mentee participation in such schemes and to identify ways to minimize barriers to engagement.

          Objective

          This study identifies motivations for participation in an oncology mentoring scheme and its benefits and limitations to both the mentee and the mentor.

          Methods

          The British Oncology Network for Undergraduate Societies launched a National Oncology Mentorship Scheme (NOMS) on September 1, 2021. Mentees (medical student or foundation doctor) were paired with mentors (specialty registrar or consultant), for 6 months of mentoring. In total, 86 mentors and 112 mentees were recruited to the scheme. The mentees and mentors were asked to meet at least 3 times during this period and suggestions were provided on the content of mentoring. Mentees and mentors were invited to complete a prescheme questionnaire, exploring motivations for involvement in the scheme, current experiences within oncology, and knowledge and interests in the field. At the end of the scheme, mentors and mentees were asked to complete a postscheme questionnaire exploring experiences and benefits or limitations of participation. Paired analysis was performed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. For free text data, content analysis was applied to summarize the main themes in the data.

          Results

          Of the 66 (59%) mentees who completed the prescheme questionnaire, 41 (62%) were clinical, 21 (32%) preclinical medical students, and the remainder were junior doctors. For mentees, networking was the primary reason for joining the scheme (n=25, 38%). Mentees ranked experience of oncology at medical school at 3 on 10 (IQR 2-5). In this, 46 (53%) mentors completed the prescheme questionnaire, 35 (76%) were registrar level, and the remainder were consultant level (n=11). The most common reason for mentor participation was to increase awareness and interest in the field (n=29, 63%). Of those who completed the prescheme questionnaire, 23 (35%) mentees and 25 (54%) mentors completed the postscheme questionnaire. Knowledge in all areas of oncology assessed significantly increased during the scheme ( P<.001). Most mentees (n=21, 91%) and mentors (n=18, 72%) felt they had benefited from the scheme. Mentees cited gaining insights into oncology as most beneficial; and mentors, opportunities to develop professionally. Whilst mentees did not report any barriers to participating in the scheme, mentors stated lack of time as the greatest barrier to mentoring.

          Conclusions

          British Oncology Network for Undergraduate Societies’ NOMS is expanding and is beneficial for mentees through increasing knowledge, providing exposure, and career advice in oncology. Mentors benefit from improving their mentoring skills and personal satisfaction.

          Related collections

          Most cited references31

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

          The qualitative content analysis process.

          This paper is a description of inductive and deductive content analysis. Content analysis is a method that may be used with either qualitative or quantitative data and in an inductive or deductive way. Qualitative content analysis is commonly used in nursing studies but little has been published on the analysis process and many research books generally only provide a short description of this method. When using content analysis, the aim was to build a model to describe the phenomenon in a conceptual form. Both inductive and deductive analysis processes are represented as three main phases: preparation, organizing and reporting. The preparation phase is similar in both approaches. The concepts are derived from the data in inductive content analysis. Deductive content analysis is used when the structure of analysis is operationalized on the basis of previous knowledge. Inductive content analysis is used in cases where there are no previous studies dealing with the phenomenon or when it is fragmented. A deductive approach is useful if the general aim was to test a previous theory in a different situation or to compare categories at different time periods.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Mentorship in the health professions: a review

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Factors influencing subspecialty choice among medical students: a systematic review and meta-analysis

              Objective To characterise the contributing factors that affect medical students’ subspecialty choice and to estimate the extent of influence of individual factors on the students’ decision-making process. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods A systematic search of the Cochrane Library, ERIC, Web of Science, CNKI and PubMed databases was conducted for studies published between January 1977 and June 2018. Information concerning study characteristics, influential factors and the extent of their influence (EOI) was extracted independently by two trained investigators. EOI is the percentage level that describes how much each of the factors influenced students’ choice of subspecialty. The recruited medical students include students in medical school, internship, residency training and fellowship, who are about to or have just made a specialty choice. The estimates were pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis model due to the between-study heterogeneity. Results Data were extracted from 75 studies (882 209 individuals). Overall, the factors influencing medical students’ choice of subspecialty training mainly included academic interests (75.29%), competencies (55.15%), controllable lifestyles or flexible work schedules (53.00%), patient service orientation (50.04%), medical teachers or mentors (46.93%), career opportunities (44.00%), workload or working hours (37.99%), income (34.70%), length of training (32.30%), prestige (31.17%), advice from others (28.24%) and student debt (15.33%), with significant between-study heterogeneity (p<0.0001). Subgroup analyses revealed that the EOI of academic interests was higher in developed countries than that in developing countries (79.66% [95% CI 70.73% to 86.39%] vs 60.41% [95% CI 43.44% to 75.19%]; Q=3.51, p=0.02). The EOI value of prestige was lower in developed countries than that in developing countries (23.96% [95% CI 19.20% to 29.47%] vs 47.65% [95% CI 34.41% to 61.24%]; Q=4.71, p=0.01). Conclusions This systematic review and meta-analysis provided a quantitative evaluation of the top 12 influencing factors associated with medical students’ choice of subspecialty. Our findings provide the basis for the development of specific, effective strategies to optimise the distribution of physicians among different departments by modifying these influencing factors.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                JMIR Med Educ
                JMIR Med Educ
                JME
                JMIR Medical Education
                JMIR Publications (Toronto, Canada )
                2369-3762
                2023
                11 September 2023
                : 9
                : e48263
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Institute of Immunology and Immunotherapy College of Medical and Dental Sciences University of Birmingham Birmingham United Kingdom
                [2 ] School of Medicine Newcastle University Newcastle upon Tyne United Kingdom
                [3 ] Academic Cancer Sciences Unit University Hospital Southampton Southampton United Kingdom
                [4 ] Institute of Systems, Molecular, & Integrative Biology University of Liverpool Liverpool United Kingdom
                [5 ] University of Liverpool Liverpool United Kingdom
                [6 ] University of Leeds Leeds United Kingdom
                [7 ] University of Lincoln Lincoln United Kingdom
                Author notes
                Corresponding Author: Taylor Fulton-Ward txf748@ 123456student.bham.ac.uk
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8407-7184
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8471-5625
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2559-2762
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5390-9996
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6689-1120
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3782-069X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7727-1157
                Article
                v9i1e48263
                10.2196/48263
                10520773
                37695662
                e06b3a11-d6a3-4ad7-95b5-bee94e480597
                ©Taylor Fulton-Ward, Robert Bain, Emma G Khoury, Sumirat M Keshwara, Prince Josiah S Joseph, Peter Selby, Christopher P Millward. Originally published in JMIR Medical Education (https://mededu.jmir.org), 11.09.2023.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Medical Education, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://mededu.jmir.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

                History
                : 17 April 2023
                : 14 June 2023
                : 1 August 2023
                : 8 August 2023
                Categories
                Original Paper
                Original Paper

                mentoring,medical education,oncology,medical student,teaching,undergraduate,graduate,student,cancer,mentor,mentee,mentors,mentees

                Comments

                Comment on this article