Characterization of Student and Faculty Perspectives of Mentorship During the Clerkship Year of Medical School: A Mixed-Methods Approach
PATIL SIM Scholarly Report - DRAFT 3.docx (127.4Kb)
Access StatusFull text of the requested work is not available in DASH at this time ("dark deposit"). For more information on dark deposits, see our FAQ.
Patil, Achyut Rao
MetadataShow full item record
CitationPatil, Achyut Rao. 2018. Characterization of Student and Faculty Perspectives of Mentorship During the Clerkship Year of Medical School: A Mixed-Methods Approach. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard Medical School.
AbstractTITLE: Characterization of student and faculty perspectives of mentorship during the clerkship year of medical school: a mixed-methods approach.
AUTHORS: Achyut Patil and Grace Huang
PURPOSE: Mentorship is integral to academic medicine but the dynamics of the mentor-mentee relationships have not been not well-studied. We evaluated an existing structured mentorship program to identify aspects of positive and negative mentorship relationships.
METHODS: From 2010-2013, we performed a mixed methods study of mentor-mentee dyads within a mentorship program situated with the PCE at BIDMC. We analyzed quantitative data including Likert-type ratings of the relationship with chi-squared testing, multivariable linear regression, and other quantitative methods. Free text responses were analyzed qualitatively with a grounded theory approach.
RESULTS: Student and mentor “burden-benefit” scores were generally positive, indicating that both students and mentors viewed the relationship as a benefit. However, there was no correlation between a positive student and positive mentor burden-benefit score (chi-square = 1.45, p = 0.23). With a one-unit increase in frequency of meeting, the odds ratio for the student burden-benefit ratio to be positive increases 2.62-fold (p = 0.00), but this had no effect on the mentor burden-benefit ratio. Students considering the mentor to be an academic advisor (p = 0.00), personal counselor (p = 0.01), or role model (p <0.001) was associated with a positive student perspective on the relationship. Students seeing the mentor as an evaluator was associated with a positive mentor perspective (p = 0.01), while seeing the mentor as a teacher (p = 0.04) or advocate (p = 0.03) was associated with a negative perspective from the mentor. Common professional interest (p <0.001) was associated with a positive student perspective, but had no impact on the mentor. Multiples themes emerged, delineating availability, receptivity, and authenticity as important components of a strong mentorship relationship.
CONCLUSION: Student and mentor experiences do not completely align in a structured mentorship program. When mentors were felt to fulfill the specific roles of academic advisor or personal counselor, or if they role-modeled behavior or had common interests, student mentees found more value in the relationship. Strong mentorship relationships required availability from each party, receptivity to participation, and authenticity of the interactions. These insights can be used to help guide design and best practices in future medical student mentorship programs.
Citable link to this pagehttp://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:41973474