Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

In undergraduate and postgraduate medical education, mentoring offers personalized training and plays a key role in continuing medical education and the professional development of healthcare professionals. However, poor structuring of the mentoring process has been attributed to failings of the host organization and, as such, we have conducted a scoping review on the role of the host organization in mentoring programs. Guided by Levac et al’s methodological framework and a combination of thematic and content analysis, this scoping review identifies their “defining” and secondary roles. Whilst the “defining” role of the host is to set standards, nurture, and oversee the mentoring processes and relationships, the secondary roles comprise of supporting patient care and specific responsibilities toward the mentee, mentor, program, and organization itself. Critically, striking a balance between structure and flexibility within the program is important to ensure consistency in the mentoring approach whilst accounting for the changing needs and goals of the mentees and mentors.

Keywords

Host organization mentoring medical education mentors mentees continuing medical education continuing professional development

Introduction

Mentoring boasts many benefits. Through the provision of personalized training, learning and support, mentoring facilitates “the process by which health professionals keep updated to meet the needs of patients, the health service, and their own professional development.”¹ Indeed, it not only enhances the academic, research, clinical, and personal development of both mentors and mentees, it also improves patient outcomes and boosts the reputation of the host organization managing the mentoring program (henceforth, the host).^2-25 By providing opportunities for mentors and mentees to develop their social, personal, leadership, and managerial competencies,²⁶ mentoring plays an integral part in the continuing medical education (CME) and continuing professional development (CPD) of physicians, nurses, and health professionals from the various allied health specialities.^27-29

However, lapses in support and oversight of the mentor-mentee matching process, the nurturing of relationships between the mentee, mentor and the host organization, and the cultivation of a positive mentoring environment has hindered its full potential.^28-36 With 2 recent reviews^30,31 attributing ethical issues such as bullying and misappropriation of the mentee’s work to neglect on the part of the host, it is critical to scrutinize their role in mentoring programs.^32-41

Studying mentoring

A dearth of data on the role of the host in mentoring has been attributed to a number of issues.^1-20 Perhaps most significant has been the failure of many reviews in acknowledging and contending with the impact of mentoring’s evolving, entwined, context-specific, goal-sensitive, mentee-, mentor-, relationship-, and host-dependent nature.^42-49 This suggests that peer, near-peer, group, mosaic, network, leadership, patient, youth, family, and e-mentoring should not be mistakenly conflated nor intermixed with preceptorship, supervision, role modeling, and networking which have their own specific approach and role in education and training.⁴¹ Acknowledging mentoring’s context specific nature, this review will focus on the role of the host in novice mentoring which is defined as the “dynamic, context-dependent, goal-sensitive, mutually beneficial relationship between an experienced clinician and junior clinicians and/or undergraduates focused upon advancing the development of the mentee.”⁵⁰ Novice mentoring is the dominant form of mentoring in medical education.^51-60

Methods

Design

A systematic scoping review was adopted to identify “the central sources and forms of evidence available” on host organzations.⁴² The flexible nature of a scoping review allows systematic extraction, synthesis,⁴³ and summarizing⁴⁴ of actionable and applicable information across a diverse range of study formats and settings. This circumnavigates the limitations posed by mentoring’s nature^45-50 and a paucity of articles on host organizations.^51-54

Levac et al’s⁵⁵ adaptations of Arksey and O’Malley’s⁴² methodological framework for conducting scoping reviews was adopted to systematically study the potential size, gaps, and scope of available literature on host organizations in novice mentoring.^56-60 The PRISMA-P 2015 checklist was used to develop the protocol for this study.⁶¹

Guided by local clinicians, educators, researchers, librarians (henceforth, the expert team), and prevailing reviews of CPD practices, the 8-member research team determined the primary research question to be “what is known about the role of the host organization in novice mentoring—particularly in Internal Medicine and its subspecialties as delineated by the American College of Physicians?”⁶² The secondary research question was then determined to be “what would make an effective host organization in these disciplines?” Narrowing this scoping review’s focus on novice mentoring in Internal Medicine was largely determined by the amount of prevailing data already present in the field of mentoring in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education. These questions were designed on the PCC (population, concept, and context) elements of the inclusion criteria^63,64 and presented in a PICOS format (Table 1).

Table 1.

PICOs, inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria applied to database search.

PICOS	Inclusion criteria	Exclusion criteria
Population	Undergraduate and postgraduate medical students, residents, and/or postgraduate and clinical clerkship	General Surgery and Surgical Specialties
	Tutors and learners in General Medicine, including Allergy and Immunology, Clinical Medicine, Community Medicine, Dermatology, General Practice, Geriatrics, Hospital Medicine, Neurology, Palliative Medicine, and Internal Medicine (Cardiology, Endocrinology, Gastroenterology, Hematology, Immunology, Infectious Disease, Nephrology, Respiratory Medicine, and Rheumatology)	Pathology, Radiology, Pediatrics, Psychiatry, Emergency Medicine, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Anesthesia, Allied Health (Dietetics, Occupational Therapy, Psychology, Chiropractic, Midwifery, Social Work), Nursing, and Clinical and Translational Science
	Tutors and learners in Clinical, Academia or Research setting.	Non-medical professions (e.g. Science, Veterinary, Dentistry)
		Peer, Near-peer, Mosaic, and E-mentoring
		Tutoring, Preceptorship, Coaching, Role Modeling, Advising, and Sponsorship
Intervention	Interventions by HOs to create, modify, or evaluate novice mentoring processes or programs
Comparison	Comparisons of the various characterizations, definitions, roles and descriptions of the HO and its impact upon the mentoring process, the mentoring relationship and oversight of the mentoring program
Outcome	Concepts and constructs of HO
	Impact of HO and its impact upon the mentoring process, the mentoring relationship, and oversight of the mentoring program
Study design	Articles in English or translated to English
	All study designs including
	Mixed methods research, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies, and descriptive papers
	Gray Literature/electronic and print information not controlled by commercial publishing
	Case reports and series, ideas, editorials, and perspectives
	Year of Publication: January 2000–December 2019
	Databases: PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Google Scholar and Scopus, GreyLit, OpenGrey, Web of Science databases

Sampling

A search on 7 bibliographic databases (PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Google Scholar, and Scopus) was conducted between 24th April and 12th September 2018. A search of gray literature involving GreyLit, OpenGrey, and Web of Science databases was carried out between 18th October 2018 and 17th December 2018. In order to update the search so as to include articles published up to December 2019, a subsequent search of all 10 databases was conducted between 30th December 2019 and 4th January 2020. Accounts of novice mentoring prior to the year 2000 were omitted given the propensity of these articles to neglect clear descriptions of mentoring and conflate mentoring approaches.^65,66 The PubMed Search Strategy may be found in Supplemental Appendix A.

Upon completion of the independent searches, each member of the research team compiled a list of titles and abstracts to be reviewed. They discussed their findings online and at weekly research team meetings, achieving consensus on the final list of titles and abstracts by using Sambunjak et al’s⁶⁷ approach to “negotiated consensual validation.”

Analysis

Braun and Clarke’s⁶⁸ approach to thematic analysis was adopted in the absence of an a priori framework and a clear definition of the host in novice mentoring.

Reiterative process

In keeping with the reiterative process outlined in Levac et al’s sixth stage, consultations with key stakeholders saw the expert team note that the themes identified were consistent with descriptions of medical education units which oversee and support multiple education programs.^69,70 As such, drawing upon the roles of medical education units set out by the “AMEE Education Guide no. 28: The development and role of departments of medical education,”⁷¹ 2 independent reviewers who were not involved in the thematic analysis adopted Hsieh and Shannon’s⁷² approach to directed content analysis. This process involves “identifying and operationalizing a priori coding categories”⁷³ which aligns with the constructivist approach adopted in this scoping review. This approach circumnavigates the wide range of research methodologies employed in the articles and prevents statistical pooling and analysis.^74-77 Quantifying the data and tabulating the frequency by which the themes and categories emerge also aids as a proxy indicator of their significance.⁷⁸

In total, 18 603 abstracts were identified from the 10 databases, 231 full-text articles were reviewed, and 76 full-text articles were analyzed⁷⁹ (Figure 1: PRISMA flow chart).

Figure 1.

PRISMA flow chart.

Majority of the articles surveyed mentees and mentors instead of the host organization and the articles were predominantly qualitative or quantitative, retrospective or prospective in nature. The characteristics of the 76 included articles are featured in Supplemental Appendix B.

Quality assessment of studies

Whilst not commonly associated with systematic scoping reviews, quality assessments were deemed important to better influence and inform future practice. This sentiment was shared by the expert team. Two authors thus carried out individual appraisals using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI)⁸⁰ and the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies (COREQ)⁸¹ to evaluate the quality of the quantitative and qualitative studies included in this review.

The narrative produced was guided by the Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) Collaboration guide⁸² and the STORIES (Structured approach to the Reporting In healthcare education of Evidence Synthesis) statement.⁸³

Results

Comparisons between the themes and categories identified using thematic and directed content analysis revealed significant consistencies.

(1) “Defining” and secondary roles

An overwhelming majority of the included articles defined the host organization by the roles they play in their respective mentoring programs.^67,83-141 These papers suggest that the “defining” roles⁴⁷ of the host include:

establishing and/or complying with overarching goals, clinical standards, and curriculum requirements^84,86-92,140

designing,^{83,88,92,95-102,132,135} influencing,^{47,90,92-94,122} and overseeing the mentoring program^{88,95,98,102-107}

and nurturing the mentoring culture^{84,85,90-92,97,101,106,108-110} and mentoring relationships^{83,85,88,92,95-102}

Characteristics of an effective host, in particular, were determined to be their ability to:

provide consistent leadership^{47,67,84,91,93,96,102,107,137,142-144}

proactively support mentor and mentee participation^{47,67,83,85,93,96,101,103,107,111,118,120,129,134,142-145}

cogently facilitate all mentoring processes^{47,67,87,91,92,99,101,106,107,111,118,127,138,143,144,146}

proactively gather and revert feedback on the mentoring program and the mentoring relationships within^{47,89,101,116,126,134,142,146-148}

and, finally, successfully initiate curricular reform to better meet the needs of their participants^{107,137,144,146}

In addition, the secondary roles of the host comprise of supporting patient care and specific responsibilities toward the mentee, mentor, the overall program, and the organization itself. These are outlined in Table 2.

Table 2.

Secondary Roles of Host Organization.

Roles in	Elaboration	References
Patient Care	Supports patient care delivery, safety, and health outcomes	^{92,110,124,125}
Mentee and Mentors	Supports their personal	^{47,85,88,92,108,113,120,142,144,149,150}
	Professional and career development	^{47,83,85,88,91,92,98,106,108,112,113,116-120,126,129,137,142-144,147,149-151}
	And addresses heavy workloads, stress, and anxiety amongst mentors and mentees	⁸⁸
Program	Reduces the proportion of ineffective matches and unnecessary evaluations of mentors, mentees, and the mentoring process to sustain the viability of the program	^{47,88,126,129}
Organization	Maintains:
	Organizational practice and collaborations	^{47,83,85,92,124,144}
	Research development	^{47,92,108,111,128,133,142-144,147}
	Faculty development	^{83,85,88,92,108,116,128,129,138,142,143,146}
	Satisfaction and retention	^{83,88,92,96,108,110,116,126,129,138,144,146,152,153}
	Sustainability and productivity of the program	^{47,85,96,118,124,142-144,153}

(2) Balancing structure and flexibility

Although not a defining characteristic of the host organization, a key finding which emerged in numerous papers was the need for the host to balance structure and flexibility within the program.

Establishing a mentoring structure serves to ensure fairness and consistency in the mentoring approach and experience for all.^{67,83,85,88,90-93,95-101,104,107,111,118,121,123-125,129,133,134,136,138,142,144} Rigorous oversight and the just provision of support, in turn, influences the mentoring culture.^{47,92,104,106,107,142,151} It ensures transparent communication of the program’s mentoring philosophy, mentoring approach, as well as the goals and values of the program.^{47,88,95,98,101,103,104,124,149} It also facilitates recruitment and retention of mentors through the provision of financial remuneration,^{84,86,88,93,97,102,104,124,129,130,134,139,142,144,150} opportunities for academic promotion,^{83,86,93,106,138,139} formal recognition of their time and efforts,^{25,83,84,86,90,92,96,97,124,134,138,139,144,150} timely access to facilities, resources,^47,105,144 research funding,^84,136,154 and protected time.^{25,67,83,84,90,92,95-97,133,134,139,142,144,154}

Yet, the host must also allow for flexibility⁴⁷ within the mentoring program so as to adapt to the evolving mentee-, mentor-, host organization-, and relationship-dependent nature of each individual mentoring relationship.¹¹⁴ This is critical in enhancing the mentee’s sense of autonomy, connectivity, and advocacy.^114,144 It is of note that flexibility is also encapsulated within the clinical standards and codes of conduct set out by prevailing host organizations.^47,84,86-92 As outlined in Table 3, structure and flexibility within the mentoring program is evident in the various stages of the mentoring process.

Table 3.

Structure and Flexibility in Stages of Mentoring Processes.

Stage	Elaboration	References
Structure
Matching Stage	The host establishes its selection, vetting, matching and training for mentees and mentors	^{47,67,83,85,88,90-93,95-101,104,107,111,118,121,123-125,129,133,134,136,138,142}
	And may use contractual agreements	^{67,90,92-94,101,102,131}
	To align expectations	^{47,84,85,88,90,92,97,101,108-110,131,139,142,144}
	And clarify goals, timelines, and roles	^{53,106,112,115,118,119,138,156}
	And responsibilities	^{53,54,106,112,115,118,119}
Pre-mentoring Stage	Sets out its own objectives establishes and oversees the entry criteria, goals, selection, and matching processes	^{84,92,97,99,101,103,105,124,142,144,147}
	And the mentoring approach	^{85,88,95,98,101,103,104,142}
	Within a formal curriculum	^{47,87,88,94,95,98,104,111,116,117,119,126,130,134,136,139,148,150,155,156}
^Flexibility
Matching Stage	Accounts for the mentor’s and mentee’s goals and interests	^{47,52,84,85,92,97,101,111,126,132,142,144}
	Personalities	¹⁰¹
	Preferences on how they would like to initiate mentoring relationships	^{67,101,110,111,129,132}
	Gender	^83,96,132
	Background	^87,96
	Ethnicity	^67,92
Pre-mentoring stage	Flexibility is apparent in the:	^{47,67,90,92,97,101,106,108,109,117,129}
	structure, form and frequency of meetings, codes of conduct, roles and responsibilities and standards of practice established	^{47,87,90,92,96,97,101,141}
	consideration of individual mentee’s and mentor’s expectations	^47,108,111
	goals	^{47,85,105,106,147}
Mentoring Process	Adaptable	^{25,47,87,90,92,96,97,101,141}
	And longitudinal evaluations are employed to account for changes in the mentoring relationships and shifts in individual academic, social, research, and personal situations of mentees and mentors	^{84-87,89-93,96,97,102,115,142,144,149}
	Flexibility is also evident as hosts respond and adapt its approach and support in response to appraisals	^{67,87,91,92,99,101,106,107,111,118,127,138,146}

Discussion

In addressing its primary and secondary questions, this SSR characterizes the host organization as a “team of educators and administrators^{83,102,104,112,116} with common values, goals and views on education and clearly delineated roles and responsibilities ^86,87,90-92 who collaborate through coordinated lines of communication¹⁰⁴, assessment, and reporting ^{88,95,98,103,104} in order to realize their “defining” and secondary roles. The “defining” roles of the host include establishing, nurturing, and overseeing mentoring relationships whilst ideally offering both structure and flexibility within the mentoring program.”^83,84,86-110

To realize their “defining” roles, the host should design and incorporate the mentoring program as part of the formal curriculum.^{87,88,94,95,98,104,111,116,117,119,126,130,134,136,139,148,150,155} This will provide the program leaders with administrative, financial, and training support that will help streamline their response to the changing needs of the stakeholders and the mentoring process.^{67,87,91,92,99,101,106,107,111,118,127,138,146} Such resources will ensure that codes of conduct, standards of practice, timelines, roles, and responsibilities to be adhered to by mentees, mentors and the educationalists and administrators designing and spearheading the program are clearly overseen.^84,86-92 A consistent framework is also critical in ensuring that mentoring takes place within reasonable boundaries.^30,31 Establishing an implicit or contractual^{67,90,92-94,101,102,131} agreement between mentees and mentors on the expectations of the mentoring program would minimize the risk of misdemeanors and breaches in ethical conduct.

To ensure a flexible approach, the host must adopt adaptable, context sensitive, and stakeholder-specific assessment methods to provide mentees, mentors, and the mentoring relationship with personalized, appropriate, specific, timely, holistic, accessible, and longitudinal support.^{25,67,84,86,87,89-93,96,97,99,101,102,106,107,111,115,118,127,138,141,146,149} Adaptations should be guided by consistent evaluations of the mentee’s, mentor’s, and the host organization’s changing needs and goals. In the absence of a specific assessment tool, a combination of tools and assessors may be considered.^{83,88,91,92,96,98,106,108,110-113,116-120,124-126,128,129,133,137,138,146,147,149-153}

The host should also work to establish an accessible and robust platform for mentors and mentees to communicate freely and confidentially. Such a platform would also encourage mentors and mentees to attune themselves and respond to any changes during the course of their mentoring relationship. To facilitate this, they should be provided with pre-mentoring workshops and longitudinal training programs to develop their communication and online literacy skills. Such skills will help them to circumnavigate obstacles such as conflicting schedules amidst urgent deadlines that may impede the progress of their mentoring projects.

Overall, these considerations will provide the host with the opportunity to deliver consistent, timely, appropriate, longitudinal leadership^{47,67,84,91,93,96,102,107,137,142-144}, holistic support for the matching,^{47,67,83,85,93,96,101,103,107,111,118,120,129,134,142-145} and mentoring process^{47,67,87,91,92,99,101,106,107,111,118,127,138,143,144,146}, personalized, specific and comprehensive feedback to all participants ^{47,89,101,116,126,134,142,146-148} and the successful development and execution of crucial curricular reform.^{107,137,144,146}

Limitations

Too narrow a picture of the host organization may have been sketched in this scoping review given that it was explored in isolation from factors such as the dynamic nature of mentoring relationships, structures, environments, and even mentee-mentor matching processes. Concurrently, given the context-specific nature of the host and their roles in mentoring programs, conflation within the included articles of different healthcare, educational and CPD systems across different national and international contexts may prove to be problematic.

These limitations are compounded by the scoping review’s focus on articles published or translated into English. As a result, much of the data comes from North America and Europe, potentially skewing perspectives and raising questions as to the applicability of these findings in other healthcare settings. In addition, despite using the Endnote software to carry out independent searches and consolidation of the findings, relevant articles may have been unintentionally omitted.

However, despite these limitations, this scoping review was carried out with the required rigor and transparency advocated by Arksey and O’Malley,⁴² Levac et al,⁵⁵ and Pham et al.¹⁵⁷ As a result, we believe that the findings will help to inform the design and oversight of future mentoring programs. We also believe that this review may be of interest to educators and program designers in settings beyond the mentoring landscape due to the potential applicability of the findings to other aspects of medical education.

Directions for future research

This scoping review evidences the critical role of the host in mentoring programs and hints at their applicability to undergraduate and postgraduate medical education. Riding on ever improving communication technology and advances in the dissemination of information, the increasing use of technology-enhanced mentoring platforms will also see ever increasing demands for transparency and accountability. There is a need to conduct closer evaluations of all intra and interprofessional mentoring interactions to ensure that personal and professional boundaries are maintained with codes of conduct and standards of practice strictly adhered to.

Prospective studies should be conducted to better understand how balance between structure and flexibility can be better struck to ensure maximum efficacy. However, it is only with the curation and validation of effective assessment tools accounting for mentoring’s evolving nature that mentoring can realize its true potential in CPD programs.

Lessons for practice

(a) Mentoring’s role in CPD hinges on effective support and oversight by the host organization. This may be facilitated through the development of a formal mentoring program that is overseen by the wider education and administrative team.

(b) Collaborative efforts between educators and administrators are required to ensure that a clear organizational structure is established with the aim of meeting the critical “defining” roles of the host. These comprise of establishing, nurturing, and overseeing the mentoring relationships whilst balancing structure and flexibility within the program. This process must be guided by clear outcome measures, codes of conduct, standards of practice, and assessment points.

(c) Members of the host must be trained, briefed, supported, and appraised throughout the mentoring program. Their roles, responsibilities and lines of reporting should be clearly established.

(d) Mentoring in CPD should be run as a longitudinal program that is in turn supported by mentee and mentor training workshops.

(e) Mentoring’s role in CPD is to facilitate personalized social, academic, and leadership development opportunities especially when used in conjunction with e-mentoring. However, the effectiveness of such an approach pivots upon the host’s ability to assess and respond to the evolving needs of the mentee, mentor and the mentoring relationship.

Supplemental Material

Supplementary_material – Supplemental material for The Pivotal Role of Host Organizations in Enhancing Mentoring in Internal Medicine: A Scoping Review

Supplemental material, Supplementary_material for The Pivotal Role of Host Organizations in Enhancing Mentoring in Internal Medicine: A Scoping Review by Elisha Wan Ying Chia, Kuang Teck Tay, Shiwei Xiao, Yao Hao Teo, Yun Ting Ong, Min Chiam, Ying Pin Toh, Stephen Mason, Annelissa Mien Chew Chin and Lalit Kumar Radha Krishna in Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to dedicate this paper to the late Dr S Radha Krishna whose advice and ideas were integral to the success of this study. The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers whose advice and feedback greatly improved this manuscript.

Funding:

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of conflicting interests:

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Contributions

EWYC, KTT, SX, YHT, YTO, MC, YPT, SM, AMCC, LKRK were involved in data curation, formal analysis, investigation, preparing the original draft of the manuscript as well as reviewing and editing the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the manuscript.

ORCID iDs

Elisha Wan Ying Chia

Stephen Mason

Lalit Kumar Radha Krishna

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Peck

McCall

McLaren

Rotem

Continuing medical education and continuing professional development: international comparisons. BMJ. 2000;320:432-435.

Alleyne

Horner

Walter

Fleisher

Arzubi

Martin

Mentors’ perspectives on group mentorship: a descriptive study of two programs in child and adolescent psychiatry. Acad Psychiatry. 2009;33:377-382.

Andre

Deerin

Leykum

Students helping students: vertical peer mentoring to enhance the medical school experience. BMC Res Notes. 2017;10:176.

Buddeberg-Fischer

Vetsch

Mattanza

Career support in medicine—experiences with a mentoring program for junior physicians at a university hospital. Psychosoc Med. 2004;1:Doc04.

Bussey-Jones

Bernstein

Higgins

, et al. Repaving the road to academic success: the IMeRGE approach to peer mentoring. Acad Med. 2006;81:674-679.

Chen

Sandborg

Hudgins

Sanford

Bachrach

LK.

A multifaceted mentoring program for junior faculty in academic pediatrics. Teach Learn Med. 2016;28:320-328.

Files

Blair

Mayer

MG.

Facilitated peer mentorship: a pilot program for academic advancement of female medical faculty. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2008;17:1009-1015.

Fleming

Simmons

, et al. A facilitated peer mentoring program for junior faculty to promote professional development and peer networking. Acad Med. 2015;90:819-826.

Kashiwagi

Varkey

Cook

DA.

Mentoring programs for physicians in academic medicine: a systematic review. Acad Med. 2013;88:1029-1037.

10.

Lewellen-Williams

Johnson

Deloney

Thomas

Goyol

Henry-Tillman

The POD: a new model for mentoring underrepresented minority faculty. Acad Med. 2006;81:275-279.

11.

Lord

Mourtzanos

McLaren

Murray

Kimmel

Cowley

DS.

A peer mentoring group for junior clinician educators: four years’ experience. Acad Med. 2012;87:378-383.

12.

Pololi

Evans

AT.

Group peer mentoring: an answer to the faculty mentoring problem? A successful program at a large Academic Department of Medicine. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2015;35:192-200.

13.

Pololi

Knight

Dennis

Frankel

RM.

Helping medical school faculty realize their dreams: an innovative, collaborative mentoring program. Acad Med. 2002;77:377-384.

14.

Singh

Dhaliwal

Near-peer mentoring to complement faculty mentoring of first-year medical students in India. J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2014;11:12.

15.

Welch

Jimenez

Walthall

Allen

SE.

The women in emergency medicine mentoring program: an innovative approach to mentoring. J Grad Med Educ. 2012;4:362-366.

16.

Toh

Lam

Soo

Chua

KLL

Krishna

Developing palliative care physicians through mentoring relationships. Palliat Med Care. 2017;4:1-6.

17.

Yeam

Loo

Kanesvaran

Krishna

An evidence-based evaluation of prevailing learning theories on mentoring in palliative medicine. Palliat Med Care. 2016;3:1-7.

18.

Wahab

Ikbal

MFBM

Loo

TWW

Kanesvaran

Krishna

LKR

. Toward an interprofessional mentoring program in palliative care—a review of undergraduate and postgraduate mentoring in medicine, nursing, surgery and social work. J Palliat Med. 2016;6:1-11.

19.

Wahab

Ikbal

MFBM

Loo

WTW

Kanesvaran

Krishna

LKR

. Creating effective interprofessional mentoring relationships in palliative care: lessons from medicine, nursing, surgery and social work. J Palliat Med. 2016;6: 1-10.

20.

Loo

WTW

Ikbal

MFBM

, et al. Towards a practice guided evidence based theory of mentoring in palliative care. J Palliat Care Med. 2017;7:296.

21.

Tan

Toh

Kanesvaran

Krishna

LKR

. Extending mentoring in palliative medicine-systematic review on peer, near-peer and group mentoring in general medicine. J Palliat Med. 2017;7:323.

22.

Kalen

Ponzer

Seeberger

Kiessling

Silen

Longitudinal mentorship to support the development of medical students’ future professional role: a qualitative study. BMC Med Educ. 2015;15:97.

23.

Balmer

D’Alessandro

Risko

Gusic

ME.

How mentoring relationships evolve: a longitudinal study of academic pediatricians in a physician educator faculty development program. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2011;31:81-86.

24.

Rashid

Narra

Woo

Mentoring in surgical training. ANZ J Surg. 2015;85:225-229.

25.

Jackson

Palepu

Szalacha

Caswell

Carr

Inui

“Having the right chemistry”: a qualitative study of mentoring in academic medicine. Acad Med. 2003;78:328-334.

26.

Campbell

Silver

Sherbino

Cate

Holmboe

ES.

Competency-based continuing professional development. Med Teach. 2010;32:657-662.

27.

Lin

Chew

Toh

Krishna

LKR

. Mentoring in nursing: an integrative review of commentaries, editorials, and perspectives papers. Nurse Educ. 2018;43:E1-E5.

28.

Toh

Karthik

Teo

Suppiah

Cheung

Krishna

Toward mentoring in palliative social work: a narrative review of mentoring programs in social work. Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2017;35:523-531.

29.

Yap

Chua

Toh

, et al. Thematic review of mentoring in occupational therapy and physiotherapy between 2000 and 2015, sitting occupational therapy and physiotherapy in a holistic palliative medicine multidisciplinary mentoring program. J Palliat Med. 2017;2:46-55.

30.

Lee

FQH

Chua

Cheong

CWS

, et al. A systematic scoping review of ethical issues in mentoring in surgery. J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2019;6:2382120519888915.

31.

Cheong

CWS

Chia

EWY

Tay

, et al. A systematic scoping review of ethical issues in mentoring in internal medicine, family medicine and academic medicine. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2020;25:195-226.

32.

Singh

TSS

Singh

Abusive culture in medical education: mentors must mend their ways. J Anaesth Clin Pharm. 2018;34:145-147.

33.

Byerley

JS.

Mentoring in the era of# MeToo. JAMA. 2018;319:1199-1200.

34.

Walters

Simoni

Evans-Campbell

, et al. Mentoring the mentors of underrepresented racial/ethnic minorities who are conducting HIV research: beyond cultural competency. AIDS Behav. 2016;20:288-293.

35.

Soklaridis

Zahn

Kuper

Gillis

Taylor

Whitehead

Men’s fear of mentoring in the# MeToo era—what’s at stake for academic medicine?

N Engl J Med. 2018;379:2270-2274.

36.

Olasoji

HO.

Broadening conceptions of medical student mistreatment during clinical teaching: message from a study of “toxic” phenomenon during bedside teaching. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2018;9:483.

37.

Duck

. Stratagems, spoils, and a serpent’s tooth: on the delights and dilemmas of personal relationships. In: Cupach

Spitzberg

, eds. The Dark Side of Interpersonal Communication. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1994:3-24.

38.

Chopra

Edelson

Saint

Mentorship malpractice. JAMA. 2016;315:1453-1454.

39.

Long

The dark side of mentoring. Aust Educ Res. 1997;24:115-133.

40.

Walensky

Kim

Chang

, et al. The impact of active mentorship: results from a survey of faculty in the Department of Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital. BMC Med Educ. 2018;18:108.

41.

Krishna

LKR

Renganathan

Tay

, et al. Educational roles as a continuum of mentoring’s role in medicine—a systematic review and thematic analysis of educational studies from 2000 to 2018. BMC Med Educ. 2019;19:439.

42.

Arksey

O’Malley

Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8:19-32.

43.

Du Mont

Macdonald

Kosa

Elliot

Spencer

Yaffe

. Development of a comprehensive hospital-based elder abuse intervention: an initial systematic scoping review. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0125105.

44.

O’Donovan

Kuhn

Sachs

Winters

Ongoing training of community health workers in low-income andmiddle-income countries: a systematic scoping review of the literature. BMJ Open. 2018;8:e021467.

45.

Lim

SYS

Koh

EYH

Tan

BJX

Toh

Mason

Krishna

LKR

. Enhancing geriatric oncology training through a combination of novice mentoring and peer and near-peer mentoring: a thematic analysis of mentoring in medicine between 2000 and 2017. J Geriatr Oncol. 2020;11:566-575.

46.

Chong

Ching

Renganathan

, et al. Enhancing mentoring experiences through e-mentoring: a systematic scoping review of e-mentoring programs between 2000 and 2017. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2019;25:195-226.

47.

Tan

Teo

SWA

Pei

, et al. A framework for mentoring of medical students: thematic analysis of mentoring programmes between 2000 and 2015. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2018: 23:671-697.

48.

Low

CQT

Toh

Teo

SWA

Toh

Krishna

. A narrative review of mentoring programmes in general practice. Educ Prim Care. 2018;29:259-267.

49.

Hee

Yap

Ong

, et al. Understanding the mentoring environment through thematic analysis of the learning environment in medical education: a systematic review. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34:2190-2199.

50.

Sheri

Too

JYJ

Chuah

SEL

Toh

Mason

Krishna

LKR

. A scoping review of mentor training programs in medicine between 1990 and 2017. Med Educ Online. 2019;24:1555435.

51.

Taufeeq Wahab

Bin Mohamad Ikbal

Jingting

Wesley

LTW

Kanesvaran

Radha Krishna

LK.

Creating effective interprofessional mentoring relationships in palliative care- lessons from medicine, nursing, surgery and social work. J Palliat Care Med. 2016;6:1-10.

52.

Toh

YP.

Developing palliative care physicians through mentoring relationships. Palliat Med Care. 2017;4:1-6.

53.

Jia Min Hee

HWY

Zheng Xuan

Ong

Simone

Quek

Ying Pin

Toh

Stephen

Mason

lalit kumar

radha krishna.

Understanding the mentoring environment through thematic analysis of the learning environment in medical education: a systematic review. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34:2190-2199.

54.

Wahab

Ikbal

Loo

Kanesvaran

Lalit

Toward an interprofessional mentoring program in palliative care—a review of undergraduate and postgraduate mentoring in medicine, nursing, surgery and social work. J Palliat Care Med. 2016;6:1-14.

55.

Levac

Colquhoun

O’Brien

KK.

Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5:69.

56.

Chambers

Wilson

Thompson

Harden

Social network analysis in healthcare settings: a systematic scoping review. PLoS One. 2012;7:e41911.

57.

Colquhoun

Levac

O’Brien

, et al. Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:1291-1294.

58.

Thomas

Menon

Boruff

Rodriguez

Ahmed

Applications of social constructivist learning theories in knowledge translation for healthcare professionals: a scoping review. Implement Sci. 2014;9:54.

59.

Mays

Roberts

Popay

Synthesising research evidence. In: Allen

Black

Clarke

Fulop

Anderson

(eds) Studying the organisation and delivery of health services: Research methods. London: Routledge; 2001:240.

60.

Lorenzetti

Powelson

SE.

A scoping review of mentoring programs for academic librarians. J. Acad. Librariansh. 2015;41(2):186-196.

61.

Osama

Brindley

Majeed

, et al. Teaching the relationship between health and climate change: a systematic scoping review protocol. BMJ Open. 2018;8(5):e020330.

62.

Physicians ACo. Subspecialties of internal medicine. Philadelphia, PA: American College of Physicians. Published 2018. Accessed May 20, 2018.

63.

Peters

Godfrey

McInerney

Soares

Khalil

Parker

. The Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers’ manual 2015: methodology for JBI scoping reviews. 2015. http://joannabriggs.org/assets/docs/sumari/Reviewers-Manual_Methodology-for-JBI-Scoping-Reviews_2015_v1.pdf. Accessed April 29, 2019.

64.

Peters

Godfrey

Khalil

McInerney

Parker

Soares

CB.

Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):141-146.

65.

Krishna

Toh

Mason

Kanesvaran

Mentoring stages: a study of undergraduate mentoring in palliative medicine in Singapore. PLoS one. 2019;14(4):e0214643-e0214643.

66.

Ikbal

MFBM

Wahab

Kanesvaran

Krishna

LKR

. Mentoring in palliative medicine: guiding program design through thematic analysis of mentoring in internal medicine between 2000 and 2015. J Palliat Care Med. 2017;7:318.

67.

Sambunjak

Straus

Marusic

A systematic review of qualitative research on the meaning and characteristics of mentoring in academic medicine. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25:72-78.

68.

Braun

Clarke

Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology. 2006;3:77-101.

69.

Wen

Ren

Wang

Carline

Fang

GE.

A survey on financial support and research achievement of medical education research units in China. Med Teach. 2011;33:e158-e162.

70.

Varpio

Gruppen

, et al. Working definitions of the roles and an organizational structure in health professions education scholarship: initiating an international conversation. Acad Med 2017;92:205-208.

71.

Davis

Karunathilake

Harden

RM.

AMEE Education Guide no. 28: the development and role of departments of medical education. Med Teach. 2005;27:665-675.

72.

Hsieh

H-F

Shannon

SE.

Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Quale Health Res. 2005;15:1277-1288.

73.

Neal

Lawlor

Mills

McAlindon

What makes research useful for public school educators?

Adm Policy Ment Health. 2018;45:432-446.

74.

Soemantri

Herrera

Riquelme

Measuring the educational environment in health professions studies: a systematic review. Med Teach. 2010;32:947-952.

75.

Schönrock-Adema

Heijne-Penninga

van Hell

Cohen-Schotanus

Necessary steps in factor analysis: enhancing validation studies of educational instruments. The PHEEM applied to clerks as an example. Med Teach. 2009;31:e226-e232.

76.

Riquelme

Herrera

Aranis

Oporto

Padilla

Psychometric analyses and internal consistency of the PHEEM questionnaire to measure the clinical learning environment in the clerkship of a Medical School in Chile. Med Teach. 2009;31:e221-e225.

77.

Gordon

Gibbs

STORIES statement: publication standards for healthcare education evidence synthesis. BMC Med. 2014;12:143.

78.

Vaismoradi

Turunen

Bondas

Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nurs Health Sci. 2013;15:398-405.

79.

Moher

Liberati

Tetzlaff

Altman

DG.

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:264-269.

80.

Reed

Beckman

Wright

Levine

Kern

Cook

DA.

Predictive validity evidence for medical education research study quality instrument scores: quality of submissions to JGIM’s Medical Education Special Issue. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23:903-907.

81.

Tong

Sainsbury

Craig

Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19:349-357.

82.

Haig

Dozier

BEME Guide no 3: systematic searching for evidence in medical education–Part 1: Sources of information. Med Teach. 2003;25:352-363.

83.

Frei

Stamm

Buddeberg-Fischer

Mentoring programs for medical students-a review of the PubMed literature 2000-2008. BMC Med Educ. 2010;10:32.

84.

White

Buhr

Pinheiro

SO.

Mentoring: a key strategy to prepare the next generation of physicians to care for an aging America. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009;57:1270-1277.

85.

Farkas

Allenbaugh

Bonifacino

Turner

Corbelli

JA.

Mentorship of US medical students: a systematic review. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34:2602-2609.

86.

Lin

C-D

Lin

BY-J

Lin

C-C

Lee

C-C.

Redesigning a clinical mentoring program for improved outcomes in the clinical training of clerks. Med Educ Online. 2015;20:28327.

87.

Devi

Abraham

Adiga

Ramnarayan

Kamath

Fostering research skills in undergraduate medical students through Mentored Student Projects: example from an Indian medical school. Kathmandu University Med J. 2010;8:294-298.

88.

Dobie

Smith

Robins

How assigned faculty mentors view their mentoring relationships: an interview study of mentors in medical education. Mentor Tutor. 2010;18:337-359.

89.

Fleming

House

Shewakramani

, et al. The mentoring competency assessment: validation of a new instrument to evaluate skills of research mentors. Acad Med 2013;88:1002.

90.

Straus

Johnson

Marquez

Feldman

MD.

Characteristics of successful and failed mentoring relationships: a qualitative study across two academic health centers. Acad Med. 2013;88:82.

91.

Fraser

Mentoring resident doctors. N Zealand Med J. 2004;117:1-5.

92.

Ikbal

Wahab

Kanesvaran

Krishna

Mentoring in palliative medicine: Guiding program design through thematic analysis of mentoring in internal medicine between 2000 and 2015. J Palliat Care Med. 2017;7:318.

93.

Mark

Link

Morahan

Pololi

Reznik

Tropez-Sims

Innovative mentoring programs to promote gender equity in academic medicine. Acad Med. 2001;76:39-42.

94.

Gotterer

O’day

Miller

BM.

The Emphasis program: a scholarly concentrations program at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine. Acad Med. 2010;85:1717-1724.

95.

Usmani

Omaeer

Sultan

ST.

Mentoring undergraduate medical students: experience from Bahria University Karachi. J Pak Med Assoc. 2011;61:790.

96.

Shamim

MS.

Mentoring programme for faculty in medical education: South-Asian perspective. J Pak Med Assoc. 2013;63:619-623.

97.

Sheikh

ASF

Sheikh

Huynh

M-H

Mohamed

. Mentoring among Pakistani postgraduate resident doctors. Postgraduate Med J. 2017;93:115-120.

98.

Kalén

Ponzer

Seeberger

Kiessling

Silén

Longitudinal mentorship to support the development of medical students’ future professional role: a qualitative study. BMC Med Educ. 2015;15:97.

99.

Dzau

Soo

. Mentorship in academic medicine: a catalyst of talents. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 2015;44:232-234.

100.

Winston

Van Der Vleuten

Scherpbier

AJ.

The role of the teacher in remediating at-risk medical students. Med Teach. 2012;34:e732-e742.

101.

Sng

Pei

Toh

Peh

Neo

Krishna

LKR

. Mentoring relationships between senior physicians and junior doctors and/or medical students: a thematic review. Med Teach. 2017;39:866-875.

102.

Kashiwagi

Varkey

Cook

DA.

Mentoring programs for physicians in academic medicine: a systematic review. Acad Med. 2013;88:1029-1037.

103.

Boninger

Troen

Green

, et al. Implementation of a longitudinal mentored scholarly project: an approach at two medical schools. Acad Med. 2010;85:429-437.

104.

Coates

Crooks

Slavin

Guiton

Wilkerson

Medical school curricular reform: fourth-year colleges improve access to career mentoring and overall satisfaction. Acad Med. 2008;83:754-760.

105.

Fornari

Murray

Menzin

, et al. Mentoring program design and implementation in new medical schools. Med Educ Online. 2014;19:24570.

106.

von der Borch

Dimitriadis

Störmann

, et al. A novel large-scale mentoring program for medical students based on a quantitative and qualitative needs analysis. GMS Zeitschrift für medizinische Ausbildung. 2011;28:1-16.

107.

Davis

Nakamura

A proposed model for an optimal mentoring environment for medical residents: a literature review. Acad Med. 2010;85:1060-1066.

108.

Toklu

Fuller

JC.

Mentor-mentee relationship: a win-win contract in graduate medical education. Cureus. 2017;9:e1908.

109.

Schäfer

Pander

Pinilla

Fischer

von der Borch

Dimitriadis

The Munich-Evaluation-of-Mentoring-Questionnaire (MEMeQ)–a novel instrument for evaluating protégés’ satisfaction with mentoring relationships in medical education. BMC Med Educ. 2015;15:201.

110.

Harrison

Anderson

Laloë

P-A

Santillo

Lawton

Wright

Mentorship for newly appointed consultants: what makes it work?

Postgrad Med J. 2014;90:439-445.

111.

Pinilla

Pander

von der Borch

Fischer

Dimitriadis

5 years of experience with a large-scale mentoring program for medical students. GMS Zeitschrift für Medizinische Ausbildung. 2015;32.

112.

Buddeberg-Fischer

Herta

K-D.

Formal mentoring programmes for medical students and doctors–a review of the Medline literature. Med Teach. 2006;28:248-257.

113.

DeFilippis

Cowell

Rufin

Sansone

Kang

Innovative mentoring for female medical students. Clin Teach. 2016;13:381-382.

114.

Hauer

Teherani

Dechet

Aagaard

EM.

Medical students’ perceptions of mentoring: a focus-group analysis. Med Teach. 2005;27:732-734.

115.

Beech

Calles-Escandon

Hairston

Langdon

MSE

Latham-Sadler

Bell

RA.

Mentoring programs for underrepresented minority faculty in academic medical centers: a systematic review of the literature. Acad Med 2013;88.

116.

Bhatia

Singh

Dhaliwal

Mentoring for first year medical students: humanising medical education. Indian J Med Ethics. 2013;10:100-103.

117.

Han

E-R

Chung

E-K

S-A

Woo

Y-J

Hitchcock

MA.

Mentoring experience and its effects on medical interns. Singapore Med J. 2014;55:593.

118.

Iversen

Eady

Wessely

SC.

The role of mentoring in academic career progression: a cross-sectional survey of the Academy of Medical Sciences mentoring scheme. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 2014;107(8):308-317.

119.

Kalén

Ponzer

Silén

The core of mentorship: medical students’ experiences of one-to-one mentoring in a clinical environment. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2012;17:389-401.

120.

Arnold

Cuddy

Hathaway

Quaintance

Kanter

SL.

Medical school factors that prepare students to become leaders in medicine. Acad Med. 2018;93:274-282.

121.

Ottenheijm

Zwietering

Scherpbier

Metsemakers

JF.

Early student-patient contacts in general practice: an approach based on educational principles. Med Teach. 2008;30:802-808.

122.

Thomas-Squance

Goldstone

Martinez

Flowers

LK.

Mentoring of students from under-represented groups using emotionally competent processes and content. Med Educ. 2011;45:1153-1154.

123.

Schmidt

Schwedler

Hahn

EG.

Does the training of mentors increase the contact frequency and the quality of support in a portfolio-based teaching module?

GMS Z Med Ausbild. 2010;27:1-10.

124.

Meinel

Dimitriadis

von der Borch

Störmann

Niedermaier

Fischer

MR.

More mentoring needed? A cross-sectional study of mentoring programs for medical students in Germany. BMC Med Educ. 2011;11:68.

125.

Ludwig

Turk

Seitz

Klaus

Löffler-Stastka

The search for attitude—a hidden curriculum assessment from a central European perspective. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2018;130:134-140.

126.

Thomas-MacLean

Hamoline

Quinlan

Ramsden

Kuzmicz

Discussing mentorship: an ongoing study for the development of a mentorship program in Saskatchewan. Can Fam Physician. 2010;56:e263-e272.

127.

Srinivasan

S-TT

Meyers

, et al. “Teaching as a competency”: competencies for medical educators. Acad Med. 2011;86:1211-1220.

128.

Longo

Katerndahl

Turban

, et al. The research mentoring relationship in family medicine: findings from the grant generating project. Fam Med-Kans City. 2011;43:240.

129.

Straus

Chatur

Taylor

Issues in the mentor–mentee relationship in academic medicine: a qualitative study. Acad Med. 2009;84:135-139.

130.

Stenfors-Hayes

Kalén

Hult

Dahlgren

Hindbeck

Ponzer

Being a mentor for undergraduate medical students enhances personal and professional development. Med Teach. 2010;32:148-153.

131.

Sozio

Chan

Beach

MC.

Development and validation of the Medical Student Scholar-Ideal Mentor Scale (MSS-IMS). BMC Med Educ. 2017;17:132.

132.

Sanfey

Hollands

Gantt

NL.

Strategies for building an effective mentoring relationship. Am J Surg. 2013;206:714-718.

133.

Zier

Coplit

LD.

Introducing INSPIRE, a scholarly component in undergraduate medical education. Mount Sinai J Med. 2009;76:387-391.

134.

Levy

Katz

Wolf

Sillman

Handin

Dzau

VJ.

An initiative in mentoring to promote residents’ and faculty members’ careers. Acad Med. 2004;79:845-850.

135.

Stamm

Buddeberg-Fischer

The impact of mentoring during postgraduate training on doctors’ career success. Med Educ. 2011;45:488-496.

136.

Miedzinski

Wong

Morrison

JC.

Perceptions of a faculty mentorship programme. Med Educ. 2009;43:1084-1084.

137.

Guraya

Almaramhy

HH.

The legacy of teaching medical professionalism for promoting professional practice: a systematic review. Biomed Pharmacol J. 2016;9:809-817.

138.

Morrison

Lorens

Bandiera

, et al. Impact of a formal mentoring program on academic promotion of Department of Medicine faculty: a comparative study. Med Teach. 2014;36:608-614.

139.

Rothberg

Kleppel

Friderici

Hinchey

Implementing a resident research program to overcome barriers to resident research. Acad Med. 2014;89:1133-1139.

140.

Luckhaupt

Chin

Mangione

, et al. Mentorship in academic general internal medicine. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20:1014-1018.

141.

Larkin

GL.

Mapping, modeling, and mentoring: charting a course for professionalism in graduate medical education. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2003;12:167-177.

142.

Elez

Quintanar

Bosch-Barrera

, et al. The medical oncology resident mentor: situation and workload. Clin Transl Oncol. 2019;21:304-313.

143.

Manabe

Nambooze

Okello

, et al. Group mentorship model to enhance the efficiency and productivity of PhD research training in Sub-Saharan Africa. Ann Glob Health. 2018;84:170-175.

144.

Spence

Buddenbaum

Bice

Welch

Carroll

AE.

Independent investigator incubator (I3): a comprehensive mentorship program to jumpstart productive research careers for junior faculty. BMC Med Educ. 2018;18:186.

145.

Sambunjak

Straus

Marušić

Mentoring in academic medicine: a systematic review. JAMA. 2006;296:1103-1115.

146.

Ramani

Twelve tips to promote excellence in medical teaching. Med Teach. 2006;28:19-23.

147.

Dimitriadis

von der Borch

Störmann

, et al. Characteristics of mentoring relationships formed by medical students and faculty. Med Educ. 2012;17:17242.

148.

Kukreja

Chhabra

Kaur

Arora

Singh

Introducing mentoring to 1st-year medical students of a private medical college in North India: A pilot study. Int J Appl Basic Med Res. 2017;7(Suppl 1):S67.

149.

Hawkins

Jones

Stanton

. A mentorship programme for final-year students. Clin Teach. 2014;11:345-349.

150.

Kalén

Stenfors-Hayes

Hylin

Larm

Hindbeck

Ponzer

. Mentoring medical students during clinical courses: a way to enhance professional development. Med Teach. 2010;32:e315-e321.

151.

Zuzuárregui

JRP

Hohler

. Comprehensive Opportunities for Research and Teaching Experience (CORTEX): a mentorship program. Neurology. 2015;84:2372-2376.

152.

Goldszmidt

Zibrowski

Watling

. Fostering education scholarship: the mentored research group. Med Educ. 2009;43:1084-1085.

153.

Kwan

Prokubovskaya

Hopman

Carpenter

. Mentoring for female medical trainees in a dual-setting group. Med Educ. 2015;49:540-540.

154.

Sakushima

Mishina

Fukuhara

, et al. Mentoring the next generation of physician-scientists in Japan: a cross-sectional survey of mentees in six academic medical centers. BMC Med Educ. 2015;15:54.

155.

Kwon

Park

Yoon

. A study of satisfaction of medical students on their mentoring programs at one medical school in Korea. Korean J Med Educ. 2017;29:253.

156.

Sayan

Ohri

Lee

, et al. The Impact of Formal Mentorship Programs on Mentorship Experience Among Radiation Oncology Residents From the Northeast. Front Oncol. 2019;9:1369.

157.

Pham

Rajić

Greig

Sargeant

Papadopoulos

McEwen

SA.

A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Res Synth Methods. 2014;5:371-385.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.17 MB