Mentoring Medical Students Towards Oncology: Results from a Pilot Multi-institutional Mentorship Programme.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Rallis KS
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7688447 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundMedical education all over the country has been forced to shift to e-learning, mainly online classes. In this scenario, the medical education department (MEU) of a teaching hospital under a deemed university felt the need to study the satisfaction and usefulness of these classes, as perceived by the undergraduate medical students.MethodsQuestionnaire survey was planned. A specially designed questionnaire was created, keeping in mind, the study objectives. It was validated, and a pilot was conducted, for modifications and to calculate sample size. The questionnaire was administered by email as Google Forms. The responses, which included quantitative and qualitative responses, were analysed, and feedback points noted. Percentage level of satisfaction and usefulness was calculated with 95% confidence interval. To test the statistical significance of the association of satisfaction levels amongst students of different Phases, chi square test was used.ResultsOn a scale scoring for satisfaction, 53.6% scored moderate, 31% high, and 15.4% low satisfaction. 49.8% of the students were less satisfied about attending classes from home; 15.7% felt it was better. 57.1% of the students found the concept of online learning moderately useful, 31.4% found it minimally useful, 11.5%, highly useful.ConclusionsThe undergraduate medical students perceived moderate satisfaction and usefulness with the on-going online classes. They expressed the desire to resume routine physical classes, especially for practicals and clinics. Points of improvement of the online teaching-learning programme were also obtained. This study revealed sufficient feedback to be shared with all stakeholders, regarding improvements in the online classes.
| S-EPMC7873757 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe purposes of this study were to assess the exposure that medical students (MSs) have to radiation oncology (RO) during the course of their medical school career, as evidenced by 2 time points in current medical training (ie, first vs fourth year; MS1s and MS4s, respectively) and to assess the knowledge of MS1s, MS4s, and primary care physicians (PCPs) about the appropriateness of RT in cancer management in comparison with RO attendings.MethodsWe developed and beta tested an electronic survey divided into 3 parts: RO job descriptions, appropriateness of RT, and toxicities of RT. The surveys were distributed to 7 medical schools in the United States. A concordance of >90% (either yes or no) among RO attendings in an answer was necessary to determine the correct answer and to compare with other subgroups using a χ(2) test (P<.05 was significant).ResultsThe overall response rate for ROs, MS1s, MS4s, and PCPs was 26%; n (22 + 315 + 404 + 43)/3004. RT misconceptions decreased with increasing level of training. More than 1 of 10 MSs did not believe that RT alone could cure cancer. Emergent oncologic conditions for RT (eg, spinal cord compression, superior vena cava syndrome) could not be identified by >1 of 5 respondents. Multiple nontoxicities of RT (eg, emitting low-level radiation from the treatment site) were incorrectly identified as toxicities by >1 of 5 respondents. MS4s/PCPs with an RO rotation in medical school had improved scores in all prompts.ConclusionsAlthough MS knowledge of general RT principles improves from the first to the fourth year, a large knowledge gap still exists between MSs, current PCPs, and ROs. Some basic misconceptions of RT persist among a minority of MSs and PCPs. We recommend implementing formal education in RO fundamentals during the core curriculum of medical school.
| S-EPMC7548032 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Mentoring of medical students remains a core pillar of medical education, yet the changing landscape of medicine has called for new and innovative mentoring models to guide students in professional development, career placement, and overall student well-being. The objective of this review is to identify and describe models of mentorship for US medical students. METHODS:We searched PubMed, PsycINFO, Education Resources Information Center, and Cochrane Databases of Systematic Reviews following PRISMA guidelines. We included original, English-language studies of any research design including descriptive studies that described a mentorship program at a US medical school designed for medical students. RESULTS:Our search yielded 3743 unique citations. Thirty articles met our inclusion criteria. There was significant diversity of the identified programs with regard to program objectives and size. The traditional dyad model of mentorship was the most frequently cited model, with a combination of models (dyad and group mentorship) cited as the second most common. Outcome measures of the programs were largely survey based, with satisfaction being the most measured outcome. Overall, satisfaction was highly rated throughout all the measured mentoring programs. Seven programs provided objective outcomes measures, including improved residency match data and increased scholarly productivity. The programs with objective outcomes measures were smaller, and 6/7 of them focused on a specific clinical area. Five of these programs relied on the traditional dyad model of mentorship. Cost and faculty time were the most frequently cited barriers to these programs. DISCUSSION:Our review demonstrates that mentoring programs for medical students can positively improve medical school satisfaction and career development. These results underscore the need for continued innovative mentoring programs to foster optimal student development in the setting of the increasingly competitive residency match process, growing expectations about student research productivity, and the national focus for overall student wellness.
| S-EPMC6848625 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundExisting research has suggested that self-reported empathy in medical students is moderated by personality traits and diverse demographic and educational factors including age, gender, nationality, career aspirations, as well as year of curriculum. It is unclear how empathy, personality, and background factors might impact on students' attitudes towards professionalism in medicine.MethodsA cross-sectional questionnaire-based study was conducted in first and final year medical students at an Irish medical school. The following instruments were administered: (a) Jefferson Scale of Empathy; (b) NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI-3); (c) Attitudes towards Professionalism Scale. Demographic and educational variables were also measured. Descriptive and correlational analysis was conducted to examine the association between empathy, personality, professionalism-related attitudes and additional measures. Regression analysis was used to examine determinants of attitudes towards professional behaviour.ResultsBoth selected NEO-FFI personality traits and empathy were independently associated with distinct categories of professional behaviour. Specifically, Openness to Experience was associated with higher empathy scores, and higher 'Social responsibility'. Extraversion was linked with higher scores on the "Personal characteristics" and "Interactions with team" categories, while Conscientiousness was also positively associated with "Personal characteristics". In agreement with previous studies, the personality traits most associated empathy were Agreeableness and Openness to Experience. Empathy did not vary according to programme year or career specialty preference.ConclusionsThis study is the first to show that empathy and personality factors may act as determinants of students' attitudes towards medical professionalism in a manner which is dependent upon category of professional behaviour.
| S-EPMC6497245 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionMentoring has become a prevalent educational strategy in medical education, with various aims. Published reviews of mentoring report very little on group-based mentorship programs. The aim of this systematic review was to identify group-based mentorship programs for undergraduate medical students and describe their aims, structures, contents and program evaluations. Based on the findings of this review, the authors provide recommendations for the organization and assessment of such programs.MethodsA systematic review was conducted, according to PRISMA guidelines, and using the databases Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and ERIC up to July 2019. Eight hundred abstracts were retrieved and 20 studies included. Quality assessment of the quantitative studies was done using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI).ResultsThe 20 included studies describe 17 different group mentorship programs for undergraduate medical students in seven countries. The programs were differently structured and used a variety of methods to achieve aims related to professional development and evaluation approaches. Most of the studies used a single-group cross-sectional design conducted at a single institution. Despite the modest quality, the evaluation data are remarkably supportive of mentoring medical students in groups.DiscussionGroup mentoring holds great potential for undergraduate medical education. However, the scientific literature on this genre is sparse. The findings indicate that group mentorship programs benefit from being longitudinal and mandatory. Ideally, they should provide opportunities throughout undergraduate medical education for regular meetings where discussions and personal reflection occur in a supportive environment.
| S-EPMC7550430 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PURPOSE: The first year is stressful for new medical students who have to cope with curricular challenges, relocation issues, and separation from family. Mentoring reduces stress and facilitates adaptation. A program for faculty mentoring of first-semester students was initiated by the Medical Education Unit in 2009 at University College of Medical Sciences, Delhi. Feedback after the first year revealed that mentees were reluctant to meet their mentors, some of whom were senior faculty. In the following year, student mentors (near-peers) were recruited to see if that would improve the rate and quality of contact between mentees and mentors. METHODS: Volunteer faculty (n=52), near-peers (n=57), and new entrants (n=148) admitted in 2010 participated in the ratio of 1:1:3. The program aims were explained through an open house meeting, for reinforcement, and another meeting was conducted 5 months later. At year-end, a feedback questionnaire was administered (response rate: faculty, 28 [54%]; mentees, 74 [50%]). RESULTS: Many respondent faculty (27, 96%) and mentees (65, 88%) believed that near-peer mentoring was useful. Compared to the preceding year, the proportion of meetings between faculty mentors and mentees increased from 4.0±5.2 to 7.4±8.8; mentees who reported benefit increased from 23/78 (33%) to 34/74 (46%). Benefits resulted from mentors' and near-peers' demonstration of concern/support/interaction/counseling (35, 47.3% mentees); 23 mentees (82%) wanted to become near-peers themselves. CONCLUSION: Near-peer mentoring supplements faculty mentoring of first-year medical students by increasing system effectiveness.
| S-EPMC4309947 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEffective mentoring is an important component of medical student professional development. We provide a description of the mentoring program at our institution.MethodsOur institution UTHSCSA implemented a student-advising program (Veritas) with clinical faculty mentors and senior students (MiMs). The MiMs provided vertical peer mentoring to more junior students as an adjunct to faculty advising. The MiMs lead small group discussions that foster camaraderie, share academic and career information and promote professional identity. An optional MiM elective more intensively develops mentorship and leadership skills through a formal curriculum. The authors used annual survey data of all students as well as student mentors to evaluate program effectiveness.ResultsOverall, student perception of the program improved each year across multiple domains, including feeling more prepared, supported and satisfied with their overall experience in medical school. Student mentors also found the process rewarding and helpful to their future careers as physicians.ConclusionsThe authors suggest implementing a vertical peer-mentoring program can be an effective adjunct to faculty mentoring.
| S-EPMC5414204 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PURPOSE:To assess the optimal structure of an introductory curriculum (IC) for radiation oncology residents, including the perceived utility of a 2-day off-site "boot camp," and evaluate the success of a pilot introductory radiation oncology curriculum (IROC) based on these initial data. METHODS AND MATERIALS:In the first phase, anonymous, web-based surveys were sent to US radiation oncology program directors and residents. Likert-type scores (1, not at all; 5, extremely) are reported as the median and interquartile range. Using the phase 1 results, IROC was developed, piloted, and evaluated. RESULTS:Of the 89 program directors and 697 residents, 47 (53%) and 165 (24%) responded, respectively. Of the 89 program directors, 37 (79%) reported offering a formal IC. However, only 83 residents (50%) reported having a formal IC. Program directors reported resident preparation for clinical training as "moderate" (median 3, interquartile range 2-3) on entering residency and "moderate" (median 3, interquartile range 3-4) after IC completion (P = .03). However, residents only believed they were "slightly" prepared (median 2, interquartile range 1-2) on entering residency and "moderately" (median 3, interquartile range 2-3) prepared after IC completion (P < .01). Program directors believed an off-site boot camp would be of "moderate" utility (median 3, interquartile range 3-4) with participation limited by funding (57%). Residents without an IC reported that having an IC would be "quite" beneficial (median 4, interquartile range 3-5). Residents preferred instruction before the clinical training (49%) and over 1 week (40%). Both program directors and residents rated lectures on radiation emergencies and simulation highly. Using these data, IROC was developed and piloted with incoming residents at 4 institutions. After IROC, residents reported improvement in overall preparedness for clinical training (before: median 1, interquartile range 1-2; vs after: median 3, interquartile range 2-3; P < .01) and among specific practice domains. CONCLUSIONS:Beginning radiation oncology residents frequently lack structured introductory curricula but desire instruction before the clinical training with a focus on practical aspects (emergency management, contouring). Program directors recognize the value of both off-site and on-site boot camps. An on-site IC could mitigate funding barriers. A standardized IC, IROC, piloted at 4 programs, showed promising outcomes.
| S-EPMC6553473 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDespite increasing recognition that mentoring is essential early in medical careers, little is known about the prevalence of mentoring programs for medical students. We conducted this study to survey all medical schools in Germany regarding the prevalence of mentoring programs for medical students as well as the characteristics, goals and effectiveness of these programs.MethodsA definition of mentoring was established and program inclusion criteria were determined based on a review of the literature. The literature defined mentoring as a steady, long-lasting relationship designed to promote the mentee's overall development. We developed a questionnaire to assess key characteristics of mentoring programs: the advocated mentoring model, the number of participating mentees and mentors, funding and staff, and characteristics of mentees and mentors (e.g., level of training). In addition, the survey characterized the mentee-mentor relationship regarding the frequency of meetings, forms of communication, incentives for mentors, the mode of matching mentors and mentees, and results of program evaluations. Furthermore, participants were asked to characterize the aims of their programs. The questionnaire consisted of 34 questions total, in multiple-choice (17), numeric (7) and free-text (10) format. This questionnaire was sent to deans and medical education faculty in Germany between June and September 2009. For numeric answers, mean, median, and standard deviation were determined. For free-text items, responses were coded into categories using qualitative free text analysis.ResultsWe received responses from all 36 medical schools in Germany. We found that 20 out of 36 medical schools in Germany offer 22 active mentoring programs with a median of 125 and a total of 5,843 medical students (6.9 - 7.4% of all German medical students) enrolled as mentees at the time of the survey. 14 out of 22 programs (63%) have been established within the last 2 years. Six programs (27%) offer mentoring in a one-on-one setting. 18 programs (82%) feature faculty physicians as mentors. Nine programs (41%) involve students as mentors in a peer-mentoring setting. The most commonly reported goals of the mentoring programs include: establishing the mentee's professional network (13 programs, 59%), enhancement of academic performance (11 programs, 50%) and counseling students in difficulties (10 programs, 45%).ConclusionsDespite a clear upsurge of mentoring programs for German medical students over recent years, the overall availability of mentoring is still limited. The mentoring models and goals of the existing programs vary considerably. Outcome data from controlled studies are needed to compare the efficiency and effectiveness of different forms of mentoring for medical students.
| S-EPMC3191506 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFormal 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.ObjectiveThis study identifies motivations for participation in an oncology mentoring scheme and its benefits and limitations to both the mentee and the mentor.MethodsThe 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.ResultsOf 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.ConclusionsBritish 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.
| S-EPMC10520773 | biostudies-literature