Development and validation of the Medical Student Scholar-Ideal Mentor Scale (MSS-IMS)

Using structural equation modeling to investigate students' satisfaction with an undergraduate tutorial system

BACKGROUND

The undergraduate tutorial system (UTS) is a crucial measure in China for adhering to the principle of prioritizing foundational education, innovating the undergraduate talent training mode, and building a powerful country of higher education. This study investigated undergraduate students' satisfaction with UTS and the influencing factors, aiming to promote the healthy and sustainable development of UTS and provide practical implications and suggestions for universities.

METHODS

Based on relevant theories, we conducted a survey study and leveraged structural equation modeling to assess students' satisfaction with UTS and explore the influencing factors.

RESULTS

Our Pearson correlation analysis showed that students' satisfaction with mentors was positively correlated with dimensions such as humanistic care (r = 0.844, P < 0.05), mentor assistance (r = 0.906, P < 0.05), and mentor-student communication (r = 0.908, P < 0.05). Path analysis showed that mentor-student communication (β = 0.486, P < 0.01), mentor assistance (β = 0.228, P < 0.05), humanistic care (β = 0.105, P < 0.05) were positive factors affecting students' satisfaction with mentors, while satisfaction with mentors (β = 0.923, P < 0.01) had a positive impact on students' satisfaction with UTS. Students' satisfaction with mentors explained 73.4% of the variation in students' satisfaction with UTS, indicating that satisfaction with mentors was an important intermediary variable of UTS students.

CONCLUSION

The sustainable implementation of UTS requires the effort to improve student satisfaction, and the breakthrough of strengthening the targeted mentorship in "transmitting wisdom, imparting knowledge, and resolving doubts" for students. Efforts should also be devoted to fostering students' comprehensive skills and better serving the cultivation of talents in the new era.

Mentoring and Supporting Our Next Generation of Women Toxicologists

Career success of women toxicologists requires intentional strategies designed to encourage and support their professional and personal growth. Key among these are mentoring approaches which should be initiated early in their academic careers and continue as their careers progress. While undergraduate and graduate students as well as postdoctoral fellows, women engaged in all STEM fields benefit from one-on-one mentoring experiences offered by both their peers, near-peers and faculty. Here, they not only receive encouragement and lessons on "how to be a good mentee", but also gain scientific and life skills. Networking opportunities and career planning advice are also important benefits. As woman scientists progress in their careers, they continue to benefit from one-on-one mentoring and structured career development programs adapted to meet their changing needs ultimately culminating in leadership coaching as they reach the pinnacles of their careers. While mentoring success is best facilitated by structured programs that match mentees with mentors and offer training, support and programming, the availability of these programs to women toxicologists is limited. Opportunities for women to participate in structured mentoring programs should be enhanced by institutions, funding agencies and scientific societies as a component of accelerated diversity and inclusion efforts.

A medical student scholarly concentrations program: scholarly self-efficacy and impact on future research activities

BACKGROUND

The Scholarly Concentrations program was established at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in 2009 with the aim of instilling passion for scholarship.

OBJECTIVE

Our study aimed to determine whether the Scholarly Concentrations program achieves positive changes in medical student self-efficacy in conducting research and, if so, whether this results in future career aspirations toward scholarship.

DESIGN

We used the Clinical Research Appraisal Inventory-Short Form (CRAI-SF) to assess changes in self-efficacy among students completing the Scholarly Concentrations program between 2014 and 2017. We calculated composite mean scores of six domains. We included outcomes on whether students published a manuscript, overall program perceptions, and likelihood of future research careers. We analyzed relationships between CRAI-SF scores and outcomes using paired t-tests and multivariable-adjusted logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 419 students completed the Scholarly Concentrations program. All 6 CRAI domain scores showed significant improvements in self-efficacy between the pre-Scholarly Concentrations and post-Scholarly Concentrations ratings (range of changes 0.76-1.39, p < 0.05 for all). We found significant associations between post-Scholarly Concentrations self-efficacy ratings and course satisfaction (adjusted OR 1.57 [95% CI 1.20, 2.07]) and mentor satisfaction (OR 1.46 [1.15, 1.86]), as well as students' intent to conduct future research (OR 1.46 [1.15, 1.86]). These results were robust to sensitivity analyses, and pronounced in the group of students without prior research experience.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that a Scholarly Concentrations program is associated with an increased self-efficacy for research, and these changes in self-efficacy are associated with higher satisfaction in the scholarly experience and increased likelihood of pursuing scholarly work. Other medical schools could use such a tool of self-efficacy to both investigate the overall Scholarly Concentrations experience and understand factors that may increase interest in future physician-scientist pathways.

What Are the Unique Mentorship Needs of Fourth-Year Medical Students Applying to Pediatrics Residency?

OBJECTIVE

The qualities of good medical school mentors have been well described. However, there is little written about the mentoring needs of medical students applying to pediatrics residency.

METHODS

In order to characterize pediatrics interns' perspectives on the mentorship needs of fourth-year medical students applying to residency, the authors conducted an IRB-approved, qualitative-modified grounded-theory study using a brief survey and semistructured focus groups of pediatric interns in January and February 2018. Two investigators independently coded the focus group transcripts and reconciled codes to develop categories and themes using constant comparison, which were then reviewed by the third author for validation. To further ensure trustworthiness of analysis, participants were asked to comment on the themes' accuracy.

RESULTS

Eighteen pediatrics interns participated, representing 15 medical schools. Four major themes emerged: 1) effective mentors guide medical students to self-reflect and find their own answers about what is important to them in a residency program; 2) multiple mentors are helpful during the residency application process; 3) several key components of advising are often missing during the residency application process; 4) students find it difficult to be honest with their mentors if there is a perceived conflict of interest.

CONCLUSIONS

Medical students applying for pediatrics residency have specific mentorship needs and cite opportunities to improve this area of mentorship. Several key recommendations include utilizing multiple mentors and providing emotional support during the residency application process. In addition, near-peer mentorship is important for medical students applying to residency and should be facilitated by medical schools.

Finding a Fit: Biological Science Doctoral Students' Selection of a Principal Investigator and Research Laboratory

In the laboratory-based disciplines, selection of a principal investigator (PI) and research laboratory (lab) indelibly shapes doctoral students' experiences and educational outcomes. Framed by the theoretical concept of person-environment fit from within a socialization model, we use an inductive, qualitative approach to explore how a sample of 42 early-stage doctoral students enrolled in biological sciences programs made decisions about fitting with a PI and within a lab. Results illuminated a complex array of factors that students considered in selecting a PI, including PI relationship, mentoring style, and professional stability. Further, with regard to students' lab selection, peers and research projects played an important role. Students actively conceptualized trade-offs among various dimensions of fit. Our findings also revealed cases in which students did not secure a position in their first (or second) choice labs and had to consider their potential fit with suboptimal placements (in terms of their initial assessments). Thus, these students weighted different factors of fit against the reality of needing to secure financial support to continue in their doctoral programs. We conclude by presenting and framing implications for students, PIs, and doctoral programs, and recommend providing transparency and candor around the PI and lab selection processes.

A new Mentor Evaluation Tool: Evidence of validity

Background

Mentorship plays an essential role in enhancing the success of junior faculty. Previous evaluation tools focused on specific types of mentors or mentees. The main objective was to develop and provide validity evidence for a Mentor Evaluation Tool (MET) to assess the effectiveness of one-on-one mentoring for faculty in the academic health sciences.

Methods

Evidence was collected for the validity domains of content, internal structure and relationship to other variables. The 13 item MET was tested for internal structure evidence with 185 junior faculty from Schools of Dentistry, Medicine, Nursing, and Pharmacy. Finally, the MET was studied for additional validity evidence by prospectively enrolling mentees of three different groups of faculty (faculty nominated for, or winners of, a lifetime achievement in mentoring award; faculty graduates of a mentor training program; and faculty mentors not in either of the other two groups) at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) and asking them to rate their mentors using the MET. Mentors and mentees were clinicians, educators and/or researchers.

Results

The 13 MET items mapped well to the five mentoring domains and six competencies described in the literature. The standardized Cronbach’s coefficient alpha was 0.96. Confirmatory factor analysis supported a single factor (CFI = 0.89, SRMR = 0.05). The three mentor groups did not differ in the single overall assessment item (P = 0.054) or mean MET score (P = 0.288), before or after adjusting for years of mentoring. The mentorship score means were relatively high for all three groups.

Conclusions

The Mentor Evaluation Tool demonstrates evidence of validity for research, clinical, educational or career mentors in academic health science careers. However, MET did not distinguish individuals nominated as outstanding mentors from other mentors. MET validity evidence can be studied further with mentor-mentee pairs and to follow prospectively the rating of mentors before and after a mentorship training program.

Assessing mentoring: A scoping review of mentoring assessment tools in internal medicine between 1990 and 2019

BACKGROUND

Mentoring's success in enhancing a mentee's professional and personal development, and a host organisations' reputation has been called into question, amidst a lack of effective tools to evaluate mentoring relationships and guide oversight of mentoring programs. A scoping review is proposed to map available literature on mentoring assessment tools in Internal Medicine to guide design of new tools.

OBJECTIVE

The review aims to explore how novice mentoring is assessed in Internal Medicine, including the domains assessed, and the strengths and limitations of the assessment methods.

METHODS

Guided by Levac et al.'s framework for scoping reviews, 12 reviewers conducted independent literature reviews of assessment tools in novice mentoring in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, ERIC, Cochrane, GreyLit, Web of Science, Open Dissertations and British Education Index databases. A 'split approach' saw research members adopting either Braun and Clarke's approach to thematic analysis or directed content analysis to independently evaluate the data and improve validity and objectivity of the findings.

RESULTS

9662 abstracts were identified, 187 full-text articles reviewed, and 54 full-text articles included. There was consensus on the themes and categories identified through the use of the split approach, which were the domains assessed and methods of assessment.

CONCLUSION

Most tools fail to contend with mentoring's evolving nature and provide mere snap shots of the mentoring process largely from the mentee's perspective. The lack of holistic, longitudinal and validated assessments propagate fears that ethical issues in mentoring are poorly recognized and addressed. To this end, we forward a framework for the design of 'fit for purpose' multi-dimensional tools.

PRACTICE POINTS

Most tools focus on the mentee's perspective, do not consider mentoring's evolving nature and fail to consider mentoring holistically nor longitudinallyA new tool capable of addressing these gaps must also consider inputs from all stakeholders and take a longitudinal perspective of mentoring.

A systematic scoping review of ethical issues in mentoring in internal medicine, family medicine and academic medicine

Mentoring's role in medical education is threatened by the potential abuse of mentoring relationships. Particularly affected are mentoring relationships between senior clinicians and junior doctors which lie at the heart of mentoring. To better understand and address these concerns, a systematic scoping review into prevailing accounts of ethical issues and professional lapses in mentoring is undertaken. Arksey and O'Malley's (Int J Soc Res Methodol 8(1):19-32, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616) methodological framework for conducting scoping reviews was employed to explore the scope of ethical concerns in mentoring in general medicine. Databases searcheed included PubMed, ScienceDirect, ERIC, Embase, Scopus, Mednar and OpenGrey. 3391 abstracts were identified from the initialy search after removal of duplicates, 412 full-text articles were reviewed, 98 articles were included and thematically analysed. Unsatisfactory matching, misaligned expectations, inadequate mentor training, cursory codes of conduct, sketchy standards of practice, meagre oversight and unstructured processes have been identified as potential causes for ethical and professional breaches in mentoring practice. Changes in how professionalism is viewed suggest further studies of educational culture should also be carried out. The host organization plays a major role in establishing codes of conduct, expectations, and holistically, longitudinally oversight of the mentoring process and mentoring relationships.

The Pivotal Role of Host Organizations in Enhancing Mentoring in Internal Medicine: A Scoping Review

In undergraduate and postgraduate medical education, mentoring offers personalized training and plays a key role in continuing medical education and the professional development of healthcare professionals. However, poor structuring of the mentoring process has been attributed to failings of the host organization and, as such, we have conducted a scoping review on the role of the host organization in mentoring programs. Guided by Levac et al's methodological framework and a combination of thematic and content analysis, this scoping review identifies their "defining" and secondary roles. Whilst the "defining" role of the host is to set standards, nurture, and oversee the mentoring processes and relationships, the secondary roles comprise of supporting patient care and specific responsibilities toward the mentee, mentor, program, and organization itself. Critically, striking a balance between structure and flexibility within the program is important to ensure consistency in the mentoring approach whilst accounting for the changing needs and goals of the mentees and mentors.

Transforming a U.S. scholarly concentrations program internationally: lessons learned

BACKGROUND

Scholarly Concentrations programs in U.S. medical schools aim to instill passion for critical thinking and promote careers in academic medicine. The rise of these programs has seen variable goals, structure, and outcomes. Transformation of these programs internationally is in its infancy.

METHODS

We describe implementation of the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine Scholarly Concentrations program, offering Basic Science, Clinical Science, Medical Ethics/Healing Arts, History of Medicine, and Public Health/Community Service, at Bezmiâlem Vakif University in Istanbul, Turkey. Over six modules in the preclinical years, students develop a faculty-mentored experience which encourages the acquisition of attitudes and skills for self-directed, lifelong learning and scholarship. This culminates in abstract and project presentation. We report program characteristics (context and logistics) and outcomes (student engagement and experiences).

RESULTS

The Scholarly Concentrations program at Bezmiâlem began in 2014, with nearly two completed cohorts of students. In comparison to Johns Hopkins, students at Bezmiâlem begin at an earlier age (thus do not have as much prior research experience) and are subsequently evaluated for residency in terms of test scores rather than scholarship and publications, but have a similar level of intellectual curiosity and desire to take ownership of their project. Eighty-two percent of Bezmiâlem students stated the project they pursued was either their own idea or was an idea they formed after meeting with their mentor. Students at Bezmialem were more likely to choose Clinical Science projects (p = 0.009). Only 5% of Bezmiâlem students in end-of-course survey felt dissatisfied with the level of ownership they experienced with their project, a frequency similar to that seen by Johns Hopkins students (2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Scholarly Concentrations programs play an important role in U.S. medical schools, and these programs can be successfully implemented internationally. The Scholarly Concentrations program at Johns Hopkins has been transformed to a program at Bezmiâlem in Istanbul, the first program outside North America or the European Union. When designing these programs, one must consider the context, logistics, student engagement, and outcomes. While long-term outcomes are needed, this can serve as a model for implementation elsewhere.

Does reality meet expectations? An analysis of medical students' expectations and perceived learning during mandatory research projects

BACKGROUND

Although much has been written about structure and outcomes of medical students' curricular research projects, less attention has been paid to the expectations on such projects. In order to foster students' scientific understanding and improve the quality of mandatory research projects, we compared students' pre-course expectations with their post-course insights regarding learning and transferable skills.

METHODS

A prospective cross-sectional questionnaire study. All students registered on a mandatory 20-week research project course in 2011-2013 were e-mailed questionnaires in the beginning and after the course asking them to rate statements on expectations and perceived learning on a 5-point Likert scale. Of 652 students, 358 (mean age 26 years; range 21-49; 63% females) returned both questionnaires, corresponding to a response rate of 55%.

RESULTS

The ratings for expectations as well as perceived learning were highest for learning to search and critically appraise literature. The greatest pre- and post-course differences were indicated for participation in scientific discussions and oral communication. Surprisingly, both pre- and post-course ratings were low for research ethics. The highest post-course ratings regarding skills for future working life were given to items pertaining to understanding the scientific basis of medicine, ability to follow the development of knowledge and to critically integrate knowledge. Female students had higher expectations than male students. Those with a previous university degree had lower ratings of expectations and perceived learning. Students with basic science projects reported higher expectations and higher learning compared to students with other projects. Previous research experience had no significant influence on expectations nor learning. The correlations between post-course ratings of learning and skills showed that problem-solving ability had a relatively high correlation with all skills.

CONCLUSIONS

Students had high expectations and perceived the course improved crucial practical skills. However, expectations were not quite met regarding aspects of scientific communication, and hypothesis formulation, likely because these require more extensive practice and feedback. Students should be actively involved in ethical discussions and oral communication should be trained repeatedly as it is an important task of doctors to communicate scientific information to patients and non-experts.