Yong Xiang Ng1,2, Zachary Yong Keat Koh1,2, Hong Wei Yap2,3, Kuang Teck Tay1,2, Xiu Hui Tan1,2, Yun Ting Ong1,2, Lorraine Hui En Tan1,2, Annelissa Mien Chew Chin4, Ying Pin Toh5, Sushma Shivananda2, Scott Compton6, Stephen Mason7, Ravindran Kanesvaran1,6,8, Lalit Krishna1,2,6,7,9,10,11. 1. Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. 2. Division of Supportive and Palliative Care, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. 3. Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore. 4. Medical Library, National University of Singapore Libraries, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. 5. Department of Family Medicine, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore. 6. Education Department, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore. 7. Cancer Research Centre, Marie Curie Palliative Care Institute, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, England, United Kingdom. 8. Division of Medical Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. 9. Centre of Biomedical Ethics, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. 10. Division of Cancer Education, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. 11. PalC, The Palliative Care Centre for Excellence in Research and Education, Singapore, Singapore.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Keith Zi Yuan Chua; Elaine Li Ying Quah; Yun Xue Lim; Chloe Keyi Goh; Jieyu Lim; Darius Wei Jun Wan; Simone Meiqi Ong; Chi Sum Chong; Kennan Zhi Guang Yeo; Laura Shih Hui Goh; Ray Meng See; Alexia Sze Inn Lee; Yun Ting Ong; Min Chiam; Eng Koon Ong; Jamie Xuelian Zhou; Crystal Lim; Simon Yew Kuang Ong; Lalit Krishna Journal: BMC Palliat Care Date: 2022-07-04 Impact factor: 3.113
Authors: Lynda B Ransdell; Taylor S Lane; Anna L Schwartz; Heidi A Wayment; Julie A Baldwin Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-01-07 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Zhi H Ong; Lorraine H E Tan; Haziratul Z B Ghazali; Yun T Ong; Jeffrey W H Koh; Rachel Z E Ang; Chermaine Bok; Min Chiam; Alexia S I Lee; Annelissa M C Chin; Jamie X Zhou; Gene W H Chan; Gayathri D Nadarajan; Lalit K R Krishna Journal: J Med Educ Curric Dev Date: 2021-10-16