Mind the gap, factors that affect mentee's satisfaction in a formal mentorship program with arbitrary matching

Gil Goldinger,Lior Nesher

doi:10.15694/mep.2021.000049.1

Abstract

MedEdPublish (ISSN 2312–7996) is a highly visible, open access, specialist practitioner e-journal that enables academics, teachers, clinicians, researchers and students to publish their experiences, views and research findings relating to teaching, learning and assessment in medical and health professions education. An innovative and key feature of MedEdPublish is that the peer review process begins following publication.

Highlights

The selection and matching process of mentorship programs impacts its success
We found that the number of personal meetings was the only factor associated with both a high personal aspects of mentoring (PAM) score (OR-1.723, p=0.003) and a high content aspects of mentoring (CAM) score (OR=1.278, p=0.017)
Our results suggest that specific factors need to be considered when assigning students to mentors in a formal mentoring program to increase the effectiveness of the mentoring relationship

Summary

Introduction

The selection and matching process of mentorship programs impacts its success. Many medical schools offer a formal mentoring program which provides advantages throughout the different phases of medical training. Modern medical schools have grown larger and some even reported that the personal connection between teacher and student or an apprenticeship relationship has been lost, leading to attempts to reestablish the apprenticeship connection through mentorship programs (Geerts, Goodall and Agius, 2020). In the last 5 years, a formal mentoring program was established at the Joyce & Irving Goldman Medical School, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Israel. Mentoring programs in medical schools take on many different forms, they can be formal or informal, mandatory, or voluntary and can be offered in different stages of training. The mentoring relationship is a private encounter, with total confidentiality given and expected on both sides (Peeraer, 2014)

Methods

Results

Conclusion