Colleen E Laurence1, Jessie R Jones1, Shane N Stone1, Malcolm Moses-Hampton1, Samuel J Yates1, Mario E Khalil1, Tyler E Callese1, Shaina P Kaye1, Scott H Wirth1, Vahakn S Keskinyan1, Paige G Bentley2,3, Patrick S Reynolds4, Roy E Strowd4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mentorship is critical to developing health professionals. Near-peer mentorship pairs senior mentors with junior peers to help navigate academic, professional, and social aspects of training.
METHODS: In this convergent parallel mixed methods study, we assessed the feasibility, usability, professional and social impact, and barriers to implementation of a 16-week semi-structured, near-peer, student guides program involving 39 first year medical students (MS1s) and 41 fourth year medical students (MS4s). Student enrollment was quantified, guide-guidee meetings tracked, and > 2 meetings defined as feasible. Meeting topics, impact on student advising, and barriers to sustainability were contextualized qualitatively.
RESULTS: Twenty-two percent of all MS4s and 46% of MS1s enrolled in the program; 67% of guides facilitated the requisite two meetings with their group, which was less than our predetermined feasibility criteria of 75%. Most guide-guidee interactions occurred in person (91%), but text messages (82%) and video/mobile messaging apps (78%) were also used. Ninety-two percent of guidees recommended the program, and 85% were satisfied with guidance received. Barriers included meeting coordination, infrequent meetings, and informal meeting structure.
CONCLUSIONS: While the program was infeasible by predefined frequency criteria, participant satisfaction was high and academic, professional, and social benefits of near-peers were reported. In response, programmatic revisions now incorporate centralized support for meetings, e-mentorship, and guide training. © International Association of Medical Science Educators 2020.
BACKGROUND: Mentorship is critical to developing health professionals. Near-peer mentorship pairs senior mentors with junior peers to help navigate academic, professional, and social aspects of training.
METHODS: In this convergent parallel mixed methods study, we assessed the feasibility, usability, professional and social impact, and barriers to implementation of a 16-week semi-structured, near-peer, student guides program involving 39 first year medical students (MS1s) and 41 fourth year medical students (MS4s). Student enrollment was quantified, guide-guidee meetings tracked, and > 2 meetings defined as feasible. Meeting topics, impact on student advising, and barriers to sustainability were contextualized qualitatively.
RESULTS: Twenty-two percent of all MS4s and 46% of MS1s enrolled in the program; 67% of guides facilitated the requisite two meetings with their group, which was less than our predetermined feasibility criteria of 75%. Most guide-guidee interactions occurred in person (91%), but text messages (82%) and video/mobile messaging apps (78%) were also used. Ninety-two percent of guidees recommended the program, and 85% were satisfied with guidance received. Barriers included meeting coordination, infrequent meetings, and informal meeting structure.
CONCLUSIONS: While the program was infeasible by predefined frequency criteria, participant satisfaction was high and academic, professional, and social benefits of near-peers were reported. In response, programmatic revisions now incorporate centralized support for meetings, e-mentorship, and guide training. © International Association of Medical Science Educators 2020.
Entities:
Keywords:
Development; Guidance; Mentorship; Near-peer; Training
Year: 2020
PMID： 34457689 PMCID： PMC8368906 DOI： 10.1007/s40670-020-00929-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Med Sci Educ ISSN： 2156-8650