Dataset Information

A systematic scoping review of ethical issues in mentoring in medical schools.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Mentoring provides mentees and mentors with holistic support and research opportunities. Yet, the quality of this support has been called into question amidst suggestions that mentoring is prone to bullying and professional lapses. These concerns jeopardise mentoring's role in medical schools and demand closer scrutiny. METHODS:To better understand prevailing concerns, a novel approach to systematic scoping reviews (SSR) s is proposed to map prevailing ethical issues in mentoring in an accountable and reproducible manner. Ten members of the research team carried out systematic and independent searches of PubMed, Embase, ERIC, ScienceDirect, Scopus, OpenGrey and Mednar databases. The individual researchers employed 'negotiated consensual validation' to determine the final list of articles to be analysed. The reviewers worked in three independent teams. One team summarised the included articles. The other teams employed independent thematic and content analysis respectively. The findings of the three approaches were compared. The themes from non-evidence based and grey literature were also compared with themes from research driven data. RESULTS:Four thousand six titles were reviewed and 51 full text articles were included. Findings from thematic and content analyses were similar and reflected the tabulated summaries. The themes/categories identified were ethical concerns, predisposing factors and possible solutions at the mentor and mentee, mentoring relationship and/or host organisation level. Ethical concerns were found to stem from issues such as power differentials and lack of motivation whilst predisposing factors comprised of the mentor's lack of experience and personality conflicts. Possible solutions include better program oversight and the fostering of an effective mentoring environment. CONCLUSIONS:This structured SSR found that ethical issues in mentoring occur as a result of inconducive mentoring environments. As such, further studies and systematic reviews of mentoring structures, cultures and remediation must follow so as to guide host organisations in their endeavour to improve mentoring in medical schools.

SUBMITTER: Kow CS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7395401 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A systematic scoping review of ethical issues in mentoring in medical schools.

Kow Cheryl Shumin CS Teo Yao Hao YH Teo Yao Neng YN Chua Keith Zi Yuan KZY Quah Elaine Li Ying ELY Kamal Nur Haidah Binte Ahmad NHBA Tan Lorraine Hui En LHE Cheong Clarissa Wei Shuen CWS Ong Yun Ting YT Tay Kuang Teck KT Chiam Min M Mason Stephen S Krishna Lalit Kumar Radha LKR

BMC medical education 20200731 1

<h4>Background</h4>Mentoring provides mentees and mentors with holistic support and research opportunities. Yet, the quality of this support has been called into question amidst suggestions that mentoring is prone to bullying and professional lapses. These concerns jeopardise mentoring's role in medical schools and demand closer scrutiny.<h4>Methods</h4>To better understand prevailing concerns, a novel approach to systematic scoping reviews (SSR) s is proposed to map prevailing ethical issues in ...[more]

PMID: 32736552

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn recent years, innovations in artificial intelligence (AI) have led to the development of new healthcare AI (HCAI) technologies. Whilst some of these technologies show promise for improving the patient experience, ethicists have warned that AI can introduce and exacerbate harms and wrongs in healthcare. It is important that HCAI reflects the values that are important to people. However, involving patients and publics in research about AI ethics remains challenging due to relatively limited awareness of HCAI technologies. This scoping review aims to map how the existing literature on publics' views on HCAI addresses key issues in AI ethics and governance.MethodsWe developed a search query to conduct a comprehensive search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Academic Search Complete from January 2010 onwards. We will include primary research studies which document publics' or patients' views on machine learning HCAI technologies. A coding framework has been designed and will be used capture qualitative and quantitative data from the articles. Two reviewers will code a proportion of the included articles and any discrepancies will be discussed amongst the team, with changes made to the coding framework accordingly. Final results will be reported quantitatively and qualitatively, examining how each AI ethics issue has been addressed by the included studies.DiscussionConsulting publics and patients about the ethics of HCAI technologies and innovations can offer important insights to those seeking to implement HCAI ethically and legitimately. This review will explore how ethical issues are addressed in literature examining publics' and patients' views on HCAI, with the aim of determining the extent to which publics' views on HCAI ethics have been addressed in existing research. This has the potential to support the development of implementation processes and regulation for HCAI that incorporates publics' values and perspectives.

Project description:BackgroundImmunization during pregnancy can provide protection for mother and child. However, there have been only a limited number of studies documenting the efficacy and safety of this strategy.AimsTo determine the extent and nature of subject matter related to ethics in maternal immunization by systematically documenting the spectrum of ethical issues in vaccine studies involving pregnant women.MethodWe conducted a systematic literature review of published works pertaining to vaccine and therapeutic studies involving pregnant women through searches of PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Database, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We selected literature meeting the inclusion criteria published between 1988 and June 2014. We systematically abstracted subject matter pertaining to ethical issues in immunization studies during pregnancy. Immunization-specific ethical issues were matched and grouped into major categories and subcategories.ResultsSeventy-seven published articles met the inclusion criteria. Published articles reported findings on data that had been collected in 26 countries, the majority of which were classified as high-income or upper-middle-income nations according to World Bank criteria. Review of these publications produced 60 immunization-specific ethical issues, grouped into six major categories. Notably, many studies demonstrated limited acknowledgment of key ethical issues including the rights and welfare of participants. Additionally, there was no discussion pertaining to the ethics of program implementation, including integration of maternal immunization programs into existing routine immunization programs.ConclusionThis review of ethical issues in immunization studies of pregnant women can be used to help inform future vaccine trials in this important population. Consistent documentation of these ethical issues by investigators will facilitate a broader and more nuanced discussion of ethics in immunization of pregnant women - offering new and valuable insights for programs developed to prevent disease in newborn children in low- and middle-income countries.

Dataset Information

A systematic scoping review of ethical issues in mentoring in medical schools.

Publications

A systematic scoping review of ethical issues in mentoring in medical schools.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets