Implementation of a structured mentorship program among undergraduate health science students at Mbarara University – what we learned

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-4165434/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Implementation of a structured mentorship program among undergraduate health science students at Mbarara University – what we learned

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4165434/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

You are reading this latest preprint version

Background

Mentorship is recognized as a crucial element in students' education and career development, especially in health-related courses. However, there is a lack of structured mentorship programs in Sub-Saharan African universities. In response, the MedXMentor program was established at Mbarara University of Science and Technology to provide structured mentorship to undergraduate health sciences students in Uganda. This paper describes what we learned from implementing the MedXMentor program: a hybrid mentorship program.

Methods

The study utilized a mixed-methods approach, integrating quantitative and qualitative data collection techniques. It adopted the Kirkpatrick Model of Evaluation to gauge the program's influence on mentees' reactions, learning, behavior, and achievement of set participation targets. Data were gathered through Google Form surveys, feedback forms, mentoring logs, and session attendance records. The results, summarized through descriptive statistics and thematic analysis, provided a comprehensive understanding of the program's impact and effectiveness. This approach yielded insights into both the quantitative metrics and the qualitative aspects, offering a rich perspective on the program's outcomes and implications.

Results

The program catered to 80 mentees, with 48 engaging in one-on-one mentorship and 32 in group sessions. The mentorship initiative enlisted 24 mentors, primarily from the medical field. From April to September 2022, eight online group sessions were conducted, boasting an average attendance rate of 52%. These sessions emphasized project planning, grant writing, and the development of soft skills, with noticeable enhancements observed in mentees' comprehension and skill acquisition.

Specifically, mentees demonstrated an improved understanding of project planning, grant writing, and various soft skills, such as communication, leadership, and teamwork. Furthermore, the mentees' experiences were categorized into four distinct themes: Mentor Engagement, Goal-Oriented Study, Skills and Professional Development, and High-Yield Mentor-Mentee Engagements. These themes provide a structured framework for analyzing the outcomes and impacts of the mentorship program.

Conclusion & Recommendations

Through implementing the MedXMentor program, valuable lessons have been gleaned. The structured mentorship it offers to health sciences students has proven effective, meeting the critical need for mentorship and arming students with indispensable academic and professional development skills and knowledge. Moreover, this experience has illuminated the potential of the program to bridge the mentorship gap in low-resource settings. By empowering the next generation of healthcare professionals in Africa, MedXMentor stands as a beacon of possibility, showcasing how mentorship initiatives can catalyze significant advancements within healthcare education and practice.

Mentorship

MedXMentor program

Sub-Saharan African universities

Hybrid mentorship initiative

Kirkpatrick Model of Evaluation

Mentorship is a well-established concept in education and professional development, involving a nurturing relationship in which an experienced individual (mentor) guides, supports, and facilitates the growth and development of a less experienced person (mentee). Mentorship is recognized as a crucial element in students' education and career development, particularly those pursuing health-related courses (1–2). In contemporary medical practice, numerous studies have demonstrated the positive impact of mentorship, which includes reduced feelings of burnout and depression, heightened career satisfaction, and both personal and professional growth (3–5).

However, in the context of Sub-Saharan African universities, structured mentorship programs are notably lacking (6). Academic medical centers in Uganda and many other resource-limited countries face a substantial deficit in structured mentorship programs. In Uganda, for example, studies have indicated that the student-to-faculty ratio in medical schools can be as high as 7:1, highlighting the severe shortage of available mentors (7). This deficit is a critical concern, as mentorship is widely recognized as a cornerstone of professional development and future success for students pursuing health-related disciplines. While extensive literature exists on the benefits of mentorship in various educational and professional contexts (8–9), a dearth of research specifically addresses the impact of mentorship programs tailored to the unique challenges and needs of health professions students in resource-limited settings. Our study aims to address this gap by evaluating the effectiveness of the MedXMentor program at Mbarara University of Science and Technology, a novel hybrid mentorship initiative designed to fill the void and empower health sciences undergraduates in Uganda.

The MedXMentor program was developed in February 2022 by a group of passionate student leaders at Mbarara University of Science and Technology. It was established to provide structured mentorship to undergraduate health sciences students in Uganda. The program's name, "MedXMentor," reflects its primary emphasis on mentorship within the medical and health sciences domains. Though the name may not adhere to standardized conventions, it was carefully chosen to effectively communicate the program's objectives and target audience.

The MedXMentor program in Uganda is a structured hybrid initiative that addresses the need for mentorship among health sciences students and young professionals. Operating on an annual cohort basis spanning eight months, it utilizes both virtual platforms like Zoom and physical workshops to provide mentor-mentee sessions, ensuring accessibility and hands-on learning experiences. While there's no standardized manual, the program follows a structured framework, and participants engage for a defined duration. This engagement model ensures continuity and consistency in mentorship interactions, fostering meaningful relationships and sustainable learning outcomes, thus highlighting the effectiveness of hybrid mentorship models in promoting accessibility and engagement among participants.

The MedXMentor program uses several theoretical frameworks and concepts to inform its design and implementation. Firstly, the concept of mentorship itself is grounded in social learning and adult learning theories, which emphasize the importance of role models and supportive relationships in individuals' educational and professional development (10–11).

The MedXMentor program further integrates the concept of transformative mentorship, which has not been well explored in the existing literature. Transformative mentorship goes beyond traditional mentoring by emphasizing personal and professional growth, fostering leadership skills, and facilitating community engagement. It seeks to empower young health professionals to actively engage with mentors for professional development, career choices, and skill development. While this concept has not been extensively discussed in previous literature, it has been successfully implemented in various educational settings, including the MedXMentor program at Mbarara University of Science and Technology. (12–13). This initiative uniquely integrates online and physical interactions to create a dynamic and engaging community of mentors for health professions students.

Through a mixed-methods approach, we assessed how the MedXMentor program influenced students' professional development, knowledge, and career choices.

Design

The study aimed to evaluate the lessons learned during the implementation of the student-led hybrid mentorship initiative, MedXMentor, at Mbarara University of Science and Technology (MUST). The secondary objectives included identifying challenges encountered, strategies employed to overcome them, and insights gained regarding the program's structure, facilitation, and participant engagement. The target population comprised undergraduate students pursuing health-related courses within the Faculty of Medicine at MUST, a public university in Uganda accredited by the National Council for Higher Education (NCHE).

Participants

The Google form was distributed by the Secretariat of Student Leaders to students within the Faculty of Medicine at Mbarara University of Science and Technology (MUST) through class WhatsApp groups. Mentors were chosen based on their commitment to the program, including a minimum of two hours weekly for mentorship activities and at least a fortnightly meeting with mentees to align goals, as well as shared areas of interest with the mentee pool.

For mentees, inclusion criteria involved being undergraduate students from the five medical programs offered at MUST. They were required to complete the online Google form, which solicited information on their motivation for joining the program, areas of interest, and their commitment in terms of hours willing to dedicate to the program.

Mentees were then assigned to either the dyadic mentorship or team group mentorship model based on their preferences and the program's design.

Monitoring

The Dean of the Faculty of Medicine and the Medical Students Association president formed an interim secretariat of students to coordinate the program's day-to-day activities. The placement of participants into the two mentorship models, dyadic and team group mentorship, was determined based on the alignment of their goals and the availability of mentors. Those with clear goals, interests, and available mentors were matched with the dyadic model group. Participants whose goals were unclear or those interested in learning about mentorship were placed in the group mentorship model. The mentors and mentees were then paired based on the interests of both parties.

This mentorship program utilized two models. The dyadic or traditional mentorship utilized a one-to-one mentorship between mentor and mentee (14–15). This enabled the mentors and mentees to build close interpersonal relationships. This required both mentor and mentee to meet for some required hours within a week with designed monitoring and evaluation tools for tracking and reporting progress.

The second model was team group mentorship. This model was carried out through webinars and physical interactions through workshops and boot camps in which all mentees were clustered together for learning purposes. In team group mentoring, mentors from different fields of expertise form a coalition to share knowledge, with each mentor sharing unique but complementary knowledge from their various specialty areas (14). Through this form of mentorship, the program organized weekly webinar sessions conducted online, while different mentees were also assigned to specific mentors for group learning sessions. A physical workshop was held every two months to provide a more interactive session with the mentors.

Our study employed a modified version of the Kirkpatrick Model of Evaluation, benchmarked to suit our setting. This adaptation comprises four assessment levels:

Reactions

Feedback from both mentees and mentors was collected through evaluation forms after each session, allowing us to quantify their experiences, and identify noteworthy aspects, and areas for improvement.

Learning

Pre- and post-session assessments were used to evaluate learning. Mentees received sample questions related to the session topic before each online or physical session. Mentors tailored discussions based on these assessments. Post-session assessment forms measured knowledge acquisition among mentees.

Behavior

Behavioral changes were assessed through the dyadic mentorship model. Mentors and mentees provided assessments after each meeting using a structured mentoring log. This included mentor reports on mentees' progress and mentees' self-evaluations.

Results

Results obtained from the mentorship program are presented in the study's Results section.

The study cohort spanned eight months. Weekly online webinar sessions and group learning sessions were organized by the program's secretariat for different mentees under specific mentors' guidance. Physical workshops were conducted every two months for more interactive sessions.

For group mentorship, weekly online sessions between April and September 2022 covered topics like goal setting, project planning, leadership, mentorship relationships, self-leadership, personal branding, healthy financial habits, and entrepreneurship skills.

In contrast, individual sessions' topics in the one-on-one mentorship were determined by the set mentorship goals between the mentor and mentee over the eight-month duration. There was no specific structure to these individual sessions; instead, they were customized based on the mentorship goals agreed upon by the mentor and mentee.

Pre-session and post-session assessment forms were used to evaluate the impact of mentorship on mentees' development. These forms assessed knowledge acquisition and identified areas for improvement after each session. Additionally, a mentorship log was utilized in one-on-one mentorship meetings to document outcomes, action points, and progress toward goals. Together, these tools provided a comprehensive framework for evaluating mentorship effectiveness and facilitating continuous learning and improvement.

Analysis:

In our study, we employed a mixed-methods approach, incorporating both quantitative and qualitative methods to evaluate the effectiveness of the MedXMentor program. We adopted a monitoring and evaluation model based on the Kirkpatrick Model of Evaluation, with modifications to align with our program's goals. Data collection took place from February 2022 to October 2022, primarily through online Google forms completed by participants.

Throughout the program duration, feedback was gathered at mid-cohort and end-cohort intervals to monitor changes and identify areas for improvement. Additionally, pre- and post-session assessments were conducted during group activities, including weekly webinars and physical workshops.

Qualitative data were collected through various means, including mentoring logs, questionnaires, and feedback forms. These data were then subjected to thematic analysis to extract meaningful insights. Phone calls and Zoom calls were also utilized to gather qualitative feedback on emerging themes, with recordings transcribed and analyzed alongside other qualitative data sources.

Ethical Approval

The study obtained a waiver for ethical approval through the office of the Dean of the Faculty of Medicine. All participants provided informed consent, and measures were implemented to uphold their rights and confidentiality. Personally identifiable information was anonymized, and only aggregate data was utilized for analysis to protect participants' privacy.

Demographics of Participants:

The study encompassed 80 mentees recruited through online application forms. Among them, 48 qualified for one-on-one mentorship and were paired with mentors. These mentees represented various academic programs.

Gender distribution revealed that n=31 (64.6%) were male, and n=17 were female. Distribution by year of study was as follows: 1st year n=2 (4.4%), 2nd year n=15 (31.1%), 3rd year n=4 (8.9%), 4th year n=17 (44.4%), and 5th year n=10 (20.8%).

Of the 24 mentors, n=11 (45.8%) were female, while n=13 (54.2%) were male. Their backgrounds consisted of n=20 individuals in the medical profession, n=2 in project management, and n=2 in data science. Among those in the medical profession, there were n=16 doctors and n=4 nurses, while n=4 mentors were not from a medical background but rather from fields like project management and data science.

Implementation of Mentorship Activities

The MedXMentor program conducted various mentorship activities, including both one-on-one and group sessions. While one-on-one mentorship was exclusive to enrolled mentees, group sessions welcomed participation from medical students across Uganda and Africa. The average attendance for these group sessions was 52%, encompassing both enrolled mentees and attendees from other institutions. Despite this, monitoring attendance and gathering feedback for group sessions remained centered on enrolled mentees, ensuring assessments and feedback were tailored to their experiences within the program.

Pre- and Post-Session Mentee Assessments

Pre- and post-session assessments were conducted to measure the impact of the mentorship program on knowledge and skills. The results revealed a noticeable improvement in understanding, particularly in the project planning webinar, where 68% of attendees reported increased comprehension of project management basics. The average documented knowledge acquisition across the 9 webinar sessions was 67%.

Workshops

Two key workshops were conducted:

Grant Writing and Research Skills Workshop: This workshop equipped 60 mentees with knowledge about research skills, research proposal, and manuscript writing, the importance of mentorship in research, and grant writing. Following the workshop, 20% of attendees reported an improved understanding of research concepts.
Soft Skills Workshop: This workshop focused on the significance of soft skills in healthcare careers, guiding CV writing. After this workshop, 63% of mentees submitted updated resumes, and 50% reported improvements in their CVs.

Monitoring and Evaluation

The parameters mentioned were assessed using a Likert scale, where 5 represents excellent and 1 indicates poor performance. In the context of the MedXMentor Secretariat, which consists of 13 student team members from diverse health professional courses, a team evaluation was conducted. The assessment revealed strong performance in team delegation, scoring 3.5 out of 5. However, team meeting attendance received a lower score of 2.8. This table provides insight into the team's performance within the MedXMentor program.

Table 1

Aspect of Evaluation	Performance on a scale of 5
Team delegation	3.5
Team Harmony	3.4
Team meeting Attendance	2.8
Team Communication	3.3
Team Building	3.3
Team Task Accomplishment	3.4

II. Mentorship Models

a. One-on-One Mentorship: Mentees were required to submit at least two mentoring logs monthly and 53% of mentees had five mentorship meetings in six months. A significant portion (27%) achieved their mentorship goals, while 34% were in the process of implementing their action plans. Additionally, 66.6% of mentees rated their convenience in reaching out to their mentors at a satisfactory level (3 or higher on a scale of 1 to 5). Of the mentors, 52% reported productive mentorship relationships with their mentees.

b. Group Mentorship: Monitoring group mentorship included assessing attendees' knowledge before and after sessions using the Likert scale and the Kirkpatrick model. Sixty percent of mentees reported increased awareness and understanding of the covered topics, with at least 30% incorporating the skills learned into their daily work. Notably, three students initiated a project on Personal Branding following a session on the topic.

Mentee Experiences

Mentees shared their experiences, highlighting three main themes:

1. Professional Development: Mentees emphasized that their mentors supported their professional, clinical, and personal development. The mentor-mentee relationship fostered a comfortable and supportive environment for mentees.

Mentee 1, a 23-year-old male: “It has been a worthwhile journey because I enjoyed working with my mentor. I’m glad she was the one for me because I was comfortable with her during our mentorship sessions. She understood and guided me on whichever topic I brought up and so made it easier for me to open up more about which I was finding difficulty in...”

Mentee 2, a 22-year-old male: “The meetings with my mentor built me into the resilient and formidable lady I am today: willing to be at the front, determined and confident to always stand out. She was a mother figure; caring, understanding, inspirational, goal-oriented, and always encouraged me...”

Mentee 3, a 23-year-old female: “I found all the webinars that I attended very educational, with high-impact content and skills for survival in life, especially after school. They opened my eyes to the current trend in the job market, life skills such as project development, CV writing, and grants writing…”

2. Goal-Oriented Study: Mentees credited the program with helping them set and pursue specific goals.

Mentee 4, a 24-year-old male: “Before I joined the program, I wasn’t intentional about the many things I wanted to achieve in life. With guidance, I learned to develop SMART (Specific Measurable Attainable Realistic Timebound) life goals, break them into smaller achievable ones, and translate them to each day and month…” life and career goals, transforming abstract aspirations into actionable plans.

3. Inspirational Engagements: The diverse mentors' success stories, shared during mentorship sessions, served as a source of inspiration and motivation for mentees.

Mentee 5, a 22-year-old female: “Listening to several mentors narrate their success stories with immeasurable vigor and energy was entertaining: how they rose from the comfort of their medical undergraduate, masters, and Ph.D. degrees to venture into the business and research world and eventually succeeded was worth our ears. These gave us some lessons that we could draw on as young adults to enable us to impact and succeed in the contemporary and competitive world….” strive for excellence in their academic and professional journeys

professional journeys.

Results as by Kirk Patrick's model

Level 1: Reactions - Measuring Satisfaction

Participants expressed high satisfaction with the program. At the end of the cohort, mentees reported positive experiences with mentors and program activities.

Level 2: Learning - Measuring Knowledge and Skill Acquisition

Following the project planning webinar, 68% of attendees reported increased comprehension of project management basics.

Level 3: Behavior - Measuring Application of Learning

53% of one-on-one mentees had five mentorship meetings within six months, with 27% achieving their mentorship goals. Additionally, 34% were in the process of implementing their action plans, and 66.6% rated their ability to contact mentors as satisfactory. In group mentorship, 60% of mentees reported increased awareness and understanding of covered topics, with at least 30% incorporating learned skills into their daily work. Three students initiated a project on Personal Branding following a relevant session.

Level 4: Results - Measuring Overall Impact

The program led to improved knowledge, skills, and behavior among participants, as evidenced by the described outcomes in one-on-one and group mentorship.

One-on-One Mentorship:

53% of mentees had five mentorship meetings in six months.

27% achieved their mentorship goals.

34% were in the process of implementing their action plans.

66.6% of mentees rated their convenience in contacting their mentors satisfactorily.

Group Mentorship:

60% of mentees reported increased awareness and understanding of the covered topics.

At least 30% incorporated the skills learned into their daily work.

Notably, three students initiated a project on Personal Branding following a session on the topic.

Insights from the MedXMentor Mentorship Model

The primary objective of our study was to gain insights into the MedXMentor mentorship model, rather than focusing solely on its effectiveness. While we aimed to assess its impact, it's essential to acknowledge that efficacy cannot be definitively measured with the available data.

Our findings shed light on the value of structured mentorship programs for the academic and career development of health sciences undergraduates and young professionals in Uganda. Participants recognized the importance of a structured hybrid mentorship model in providing accessible opportunities and bridging gaps in career decision-making, self-esteem, and soft skills development.

Although our study lacks evidence to support efficacy, it aligns with existing literature on the benefits of mentoring, emphasizing the reciprocal mentor-mentee interaction model. MedXMentor contributed to academic and career decision-making, soft skills acquisition, and self-esteem development among mentees.

Strengths and Contributions:

An innovation in our study lies in the MedXMentor program's structured hybrid mentorship model, which we propose can be adapted in low-resource settings. While our study lacks results to support easy replication, the program's adaptability to mentors' and mentees' needs is noteworthy. The utilization of qualitative and quantitative data collection methods allowed for a comprehensive evaluation, although the results may not be exhaustive.

Our study contributes to mentorship practice by showcasing the effectiveness of a well-structured mentorship program in addressing challenges faced by young health professionals. It underscores the importance of holistic mentor-mentee relationships and efficient monitoring and evaluation processes in achieving program goals and ensuring stakeholder satisfaction.

Limitations:

Despite yielding insights, our study has limitations. Notably, we couldn't accommodate all program applicants, indicating an unmet need for mentorship. Additionally, our study was limited to one medical school in Uganda, potentially impacting the generalizability of findings. Furthermore, feedback from only 67% of participants may not fully represent the diverse perspectives on the program.

In conclusion, while our study offers valuable insights into the MedXMentor mentorship model, further research is needed to validate its efficacy and explore its applicability in diverse settings.

Recommendations:

Early Introduction of Mentorship: We recommend integrating mentorship early in the training of health professional students to ensure continuous guidance and support throughout their academic journey. Early exposure to mentorship can foster a strong foundation for professional growth.

Monitoring and Evaluation: Implementing a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation system is essential to ensure the regular occurrence of mentoring sessions, maintain accountability, and promote active participation of both mentors and mentees. This system should include clear metrics and feedback mechanisms to assess program effectiveness accurately.

Matching Based on Availability: When selecting mentors, it's crucial to consider their availability. Matching mentors and mentees based on availability can enhance the mentorship experience, ensuring consistent support and fostering a conducive learning environment.

Future Research Directions:

a) Scaling Across African Medical Schools: Expanding the MedXMentor program to other African medical schools will increase its impact and reach a wider pool of aspiring health professionals. Collaborative efforts can facilitate the exchange of best practices and promote a mentorship culture across institutions.

b) Developing Mentorship Metrics: Developing standardized metrics for assessing mentorship program progress and effectiveness will provide valuable insights into program outcomes and areas for improvement. These metrics should encompass various aspects of mentorship, including participant satisfaction, skill development, and career advancement.

c) Conducting Longitudinal Studies: Longitudinal studies tracking mentees' progress over time can offer insights into the long-term impacts of mentorship on their personal and professional development. Understanding these lasting effects will enable program refinement and optimization to maximize impact.

Structured mentorship programs serve as valuable tools for providing mentorship access and meeting the diverse needs of mentors and mentees. Lessons learned from programs like MedXMentor highlight the importance of leveraging online platforms to enhance mentorship accessibility and efficiency. While our study did not conclusively demonstrate effectiveness, it underscores the potential of such programs to empower aspiring healthcare professionals across Africa. Moving forward, further research and refinement of mentorship initiatives will be crucial to maximize their impact and benefit a wider range of individuals in low-resource settings.

Ethical Approval and Consent to Participate:

The protocol was approved by the Mbarara University of Science and Technology Research and Ethics Committee following the relevant guidelines and regulations. We certify that the study was performed per the ethical standards laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent was obtained from all participants.

Consent to Publish:

Not Applicable

Availability of Data and Materials:

Derived data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Competing Interests:

The authors declare no competing interests.

Funding:

This work was not funded.

Author Contributions:

ET and AS developed the idea for the program. TE, SA, AL, and MB designed and administered the monitoring and evaluation tools. TE and AL analyzed the data and wrote the first manuscript draft. IA, VO, KMM, SA, MB, MPD, NJ, and NJ reviewed and edited the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgments:

The authors thank the study participants and Mbarara University of Science and Technology for their assistance.

Mullan F, Frehywot S, Omaswa F, et al. Medical schools in sub-Saharan Africa. Lancet. 2011 Mar 26;377(9771):1113-21. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61961-7. Epub 2010 Nov 10. PMID: 21074256.
Skjevik EP, Boudreau JD, Ringberg U, et al. Group mentorship for undergraduate medical students—a systematic review. BMC Med Educ. 2020;20:299. doi: 10.1186/s12909-020-02231-0.
Donovan A, Tew M, Thompson R, et al. Feedback and mentoring Mentorship in postgraduate training programs: views of Canadian program directors. Med Educ. 2009;43(2):155-158. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2008.03258.x.
Frei E, Stamm M, Buddeberg-Fischer B. Mentoring programs for medical students - a review of the PubMed literature 2000 - 2008. BMC Med Educ. 2010;10:32. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-10-32.
Burgess A, van Diggele C, Mellis C. Mentorship in the health professions: a review. J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2018;5:2382120518772566. doi: 10.1177/2382120518772566.
Ddiba D. Mentorship: a missing link in education in Sub-Saharan Africa. Afr Educ Res J. 2013;1(1):1-7.
Nakanjako D, Byakika-Kibwika P, Kintu K, et al. Mentorship needs at academic institutions in resource-limited settings: a survey at Makerere University College of Health Sciences. BMC Med Educ. 2011;11:53. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-11-53.
Kashiwagi DT, Varkey P, Cook DA, Karle B, Beckman TJ. A Retrospective Investigation of the Relationship Between Quality of Clinical Supervision and the Self-Perceived Readiness of Early Graduates for Clinical Work. Teach Learn Med. 2013;25(4):278-284.
Sambunjak D, Straus SE, Marušić A. Mentoring in Academic Medicine: A Systematic Review. JAMA. 2006;296(9):1103-1115.
Vygotsky LS. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press; 1978.
Knowles MS. The Modern Practice of Adult Education: From Pedagogy to Andragogy. Prentice Hall; 1980.
Adoga AA, Ogbe AE, Misauno MA, Dahiru IL, Okon UO. The undergraduate medical student’s perception of professional mentorship: Results from a developing nation’s medical school. J Educ Health Promot. 2019;8:105. doi: 10.4103/jehp.jehp_197_18.
Indyk D, Deen D, Fornari A, Santos MT, Lu WH, Rucker L. The influence of longitudinal mentoring on medical student selection of primary care residencies. Med Educ Online. 2011;16(1):5480. doi: 10.3402/meo.v16i0.5480.
Henry-Noel N, Gittens S, Ani C, et al. Mentorship in Medicine and Other Health Professions. PRiMER. 2019;3:8. doi: 10.22454/PRiMER.2019.953308.
Williams JL, Haunani Kamakana M, Okawa G, et al. Dyadic connections in the context of group mentoring: A social network approach. J Community Psychol. 2019;47(3):611-626. doi: 10.1002/jcop.22180.
Bates R. A Critical Analysis of Evaluation Practice: the Kirkpatrick Model and the Principle of Beneficence. Eval Program Plann. 2005;28(4):371-377. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2004.04.011.
Quinton ML, Tidmarsh G, Parry BJ. A Kirkpatrick Model Process Evaluation of Reactions and Learning from My Strengths Training for Life TM. J Community Psychol. 2021;47(3):359-368. doi: 10.1002/jcop.22180.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Policy and Global Affairs, Board on Higher Education and Workforce, Committee on Science, Engineering, Medicine, and Public Policy, Stemm Committee on Effective Mentoring in Science, Engineering, Medicine, and Mathematics, Dahlberg
Pololi L, Knight S. Mentoring faculty in academic medicine: A new paradigm? J Gen Intern Med. 2005 Sep;20(9):866-70. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.05007.x. PMID: 16117759; PMCID: PMC1490198.
Sambunjak D, Straus SE, Marusić A. Mentoring in academic medicine: A systematic review. JAMA. 2006 Sep 6;296(9):1103-15. doi: 10.1001/jama.296.9.1103. PMID: 16954490.
Nimmons D, Giny S, Rosenthal J. Medical student mentoring programs: Current insights. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2019;10:113-123. doi: 10.2147/AMEP.S154974.
Skjevik EP, Boudreau JD, Ringberg U, Schei E, Stenfors T, Kvernenes M, Ofstad EH. Group mentorship for undergraduate medical students: A systematic review. BMC Med Educ. 2020;20:299. doi: 10.1186/s12909-020-02231-0.

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Editorial decision: Revision requested
27 May, 2024
Reviews received at journal
24 May, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
20 May, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
28 Apr, 2024
Reviews received at journal
28 Apr, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
26 Apr, 2024
Reviewers invited by journal
19 Apr, 2024
Editor assigned by journal
19 Apr, 2024
Submission checks completed at journal
15 Apr, 2024
First submitted to journal
25 Mar, 2024

You are reading this latest preprint version

Implementation of a structured mentorship program among undergraduate health science students at Mbarara University – what we learned

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Methods

Analysis:

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Version 1