INTRODUCTION

The first year is a stressful period for medical students; the new entrant has to cope with the challenges of the medical curriculum, a new environment, and anxiety of separation from family. Any form of support provided at this time could help. Mentoring has been shown to reduce stress and facilitate adaptation to change [1]. With this in mind, in 2009, the Medical Education Unit (MEU) of this Institute initiated a program in which volunteer faculty mentored first-year students [2]. The program, Mentoring 2009, randomly matched first-year students with a faculty mentor, and the latter’s role was to interact with and provide new students with an immediate support network. Evaluation of the program revealed that although some students felt supported, many were reluctant to meet their mentors, some of whom held high academic posts [2]. The suggestions received from students included the idea to recruit mentors from amongst senior students. They felt that new students would be less hesitant in sharing their difficulties with near-peers than with faculty.

Consequently, the MEU introduced near-peers into the existing scenario in 2010. Near-peer mentoring is a process in which an older or more able peer mentors a younger one [3]. The near-peer mentor, being close to the social, professional, or age level of the new student, may enhance his or her cognitive and psychomotor development [3]. The affective domain could also be expected to advance, as a trusting relationship with the near-peer, who does not hold a high academic post, might facilitate communication [4]. Also, the younger peer may find the skills of near-peers more achievable and easier to replicate [4,5]. The aim of this study was to evaluate near-peer mentoring of new medical students. Our hypothesis was that near-peer mentoring would improve the mentor-mentee contact rate and thus complement faculty mentoring of first-year undergraduate medical students.

METHODS

Fifty-two faculty mentors from the Mentoring 2009 program [2] volunteered as faculty mentors for 2010. A notice was posted describing the roles and responsibilities of near-peer mentors and seeking volunteers from students in their 3rd to 9th semesters. Fifty-seven near-peer students volunteered in writing and were recruited. All 148 first-year students admitted in 2010 (mentees) were randomly distributed across 52 groups each comprising one faculty mentor and one or more near-peer mentors. The ratio of faculty mentors to near-peer mentors to mentees amounted broadly to 1:1:3.

Mentees were informed through individual letters about the availability of the facility of mentoring, the do’s and don’ts of mentoring, and contact details of their faculty and near-peer mentors. The program commenced with an open house where mentees, near-peer mentors, and faculty mentors were invited and encouraged to get to know each other. The goals of mentoring, expectations of the program, and responsibilities of mentors were elaborated by one of the authors (UD). The gains of the inaugural mentoring program, perceived barriers, and recommendations were also discussed [2]. The presentation was followed by small-group meetings between mentees, near-peers, and faculty over refreshments, where ground rules for future meetings were set. It was left to the group to evolve as a team at their own pace. To encourage interaction, a second open house was held five months later, during which individual experiences were shared over refreshments and games. At the end of the year, mentors and mentees were requested to complete an open-ended questionnaire on their experience with the mentoring program. The questionnaire items were drawn from the following resources: (1) Planning Commission of British Columbia. Mentorship program evaluation form (cited March 28, 2014; available from: http://www.pibc.bc.ca/sites/default/files/pdfs/PIBC-Mentoring-Program-Evaluation-July2010.pdf); (2) Virginia Commonwealth University School of Medicine. Faculty Mentoring Guide (cited 2014 Mar 28; available from: http://www.medschool.vcu.edu/facultyaffairs/career_dev/facultymentoringguide/appendixa.html). The mentoring guide is available on the website of the Medical Education Unit. Available from: http://medicaleducationunit.yolasite.com/resources/A%20Guide%20to%20Mentoring%20Medical%20Students.pdf. Some had been used by the authors previously [2]. The quantitative and qualitative responses were descriptively analyzed and comprise the results of this study. SPSS ver. 17 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) was used for the statistical analysis, a chi-square test was used for categorical variables, and Student unpaired t-test for continuous variables.

RESULTS

Fifty-two faculty mentors, 57 near-peer mentors, and 148 mentees participated in Mentoring 2010. Though the faculty mentors reported that they had many more meetings with their mentees than in the previous year (Table 1), and they felt that more mentees benefited in the year that near-peer mentors were involved in the mentoring, the findings were not statistically significant. Mentees, on the other hand, met their near-peer mentors significantly more often than they did their faculty mentors (P=0.018) (Table 2). Both faculty mentors and mentees appreciated the contributions of near-peer mentors (Table 3). Near-peer mentors, too, gained valuable skills in the affective domain (Table 4). Their qualitative observations were recorded in Table 5.

DISCUSSION

The introduction of near-peer mentors into Mentoring 2010 seemed to improve contact between mentees and mentors, both quantitatively and qualitatively. There is limited research specifically addressing near-peer mentoring; most reports deal with faculty-student relationships [4]. Nevertheless, near-peer mentoring is not a new concept. Harvey Cushing’s relationship with William Osler is an early example; it is reported that they both benefited from the mentoring relationship [6]. Mentoring relationships have been reported to facilitate self-directed learning, career advancement, productivity, and a positive attitude towards another person’s (mentee’s) career [7-9]. Our study was able to identify specific benefits and difficulties with near-peer mentoring.

Near-peer mentoring: benefits to the mentee

As reported by new students, most measures of mentoring were comparable between faculty mentors and near-peer mentors (Table 2). The only reported difference was that mentees met more often with near-peers. Studies have shown that junior students reportedly prefer interacting and learning from near-peers because they are less intimidated by them than by their teachers [4]. Additionally, near-peers have recently passed through the same experiences and are, therefore, better able to understand the problems faced by new students [5,10]. The new students in this study, based on their qualitative feedback (Table 3), benefited academically, socially, and emotionally from having near-peer mentors. The benefits accruing to the mentee pertain to short-term goals of adjusting to the new and challenging academic environment. However, reports suggest that there are long-term advantages as well. Mentoring causes a ripple effect, and persons who have participated in mentoring as either mentees or mentors are more likely to mentor in the future [11]. The mentee is also more inclined to teach, to develop strong professional relationships, and to thus help in advancing the profession [4].

Advantages for the near-peer mentor

The near-peer mentors overwhelmingly felt that they benefited from being mentors (Tables 4, 5). Other studies have also shown that serving as a mentor enhances personal satisfaction, professional success, and organizational and professional contributions [12]. For the mentors in this study, benefits pertained mainly to the affective domain and occasionally to the cognitive and psychomotor domains. Student learning in the affective domain is often neglected in favor of the cognitive domain [13]; the results of this study reinforce our earlier findings that mentoring is a promising tool for honing medical students’ affective skills [2].

By reinforcing the near-peer mentor’s own knowledge, mentoring has been reported to hone teaching skills [3,14,15], a distinct advantage for medical students who are future residents and potential faculty members. Improvement in communication skills has also been reported as a result of mentoring activities; communication is an essential aspect of physician-patient interaction, and all efforts to enhance it would be welcome [16].

An unexpected benefit of our initiative was the two-way mentoring experienced by near-peers. Alongside their responsibilities of mentoring junior students, they were able to take advantage of the mentoring offered by faculty mentors. Thus, near-peers were both mentors and mentees; reportedly, they enjoyed the experience.

An advantage, as declared by the near-peers, was that near-peer mentoring, adequately supervised by faculty, bridged the gap between senior and junior students. The gap had widened since strict anti-ragging measures had made contact between senior and new students taboo for the first few weeks after admission. We took extreme care, through near-peer selection guidelines and through interviews and counseling, to ensure that near-peer mentoring was not used as a surrogate for ragging. Perhaps near-peer mentoring of first-year students may curb the menace of ragging, while allowing a healthy, mutually beneficial interaction between students at different levels of the hierarchy.

Barriers

Although more meetings took place during the period of this study, lack of time to meet was cited as a major barrier to mentoring. This was reported in our previous study [2], and it has troubled other mentoring endeavors as well [4,12]. Since common free time to meet is difficult to arrange owing to the hectic academic, patient care, and research schedules of the parties concerned, mentors must be enthusiastic about their roles. They must make extra effort to make themselves available and approachable [7]. The lack of initiative from mentees was troubling. The authors advise that the mentee must be proactive so as to receive the most benefit from the relationship [2,8]. In the inaugural meeting with new students, in order to make them aware of the concept of mentoring and of their role as mentees, we exhorted them to communicate with their mentors and apprised them of the availability of a mentoring guide on the MEU website (supplementary material B). This worked to a limited extent; perhaps mentees who did not get in touch did not feel the need for mentoring [2].

The close interpersonal relationship between mentor and mentee may sometimes blur ethical boundaries; however, the students in this study did not report any such issues. Perhaps the presence of faculty mentors in the equation helped. Further, the mentoring manual and open house meetings may have served to remind mentors about their roles and the need for high standards of role modeling.

Making mentoring work: the good mentor

Mentees appreciate mentors whose personal attributes include honesty and sincerity [17,18]; who have professional skills and abilities like leadership, social networking, and goal setting [4]; and who demonstrate good communication skills (listen actively), understand mentees’ needs, and resolve conflicts [4,18,19].

During the inaugural near-peer mentoring initiative at our institute, and based on mentees’ feedback, near-peer mentors exhibited several of the traits of a good mentor (Table 3). They were altruistic, understanding, patient, responsible, active listeners, motivating, accessible, problem solvers, teachers, and social networkers. They were also role models and good advocates for the mentoring program. Many (23; 82%) of the mentored first-year students wanted to be recruited as near-peer mentors for the following year’s entering class.

Facilitated mentoring

Mentoring models can range from completely formal to completely informal, with various permutations in between. Since we did not employ match-making or have structured training for mentors, ours was not a truly formal mentoring program; however, we did formally assign mentors, set up meetings according to a schedule, and have an evaluation process facilitated by the program organizers; hence, the mentoring model was a facilitated, partly formal one. Advocates of mentoring have suggested that the type of mentoring depends on the institution’s needs and experiences [4]. We anticipated that new students would have insufficient knowledge of and exposure to their seniors or the faculty, and limited access to them; hence, self-selection of mentors would be impractical [7]. Thus, we chose formal allocation of mentors rather than self-selection. Assigned mentoring has been criticized because there may be a lack of chemistry, and the relationship may feel forced [18,19]. Such concerns were recorded by a few of our participants, who quoted non-compatibility as having a negative impact on the mentoring process; nevertheless, feedback revealed that effective mentoring occurred despite such difficulties, suggesting that successful mentoring can develop even through formal assignment of mentors. Success depends greatly on the individuals involved [19].

Limitations

The study, being questionnaire based, may have been subject to response bias. Perhaps non-respondents had a different experience with their near-peer mentors. Thus, the positive experiences reported by the respondents may be an overestimation; nevertheless, the response rate of around 50% is much better than that reported in the literature, giving credence to our findings [4]. Further, since near-peer mentoring was being implemented at this university for the first time, the sample included only one student cohort, resulting in a small sample size; thus, our experiences with near-peer mentoring may not be representative of other institutes in India, or elsewhere in the world where near-peer mentoring is also being practiced.

Future directions

The success of near-peer mentoring depends on students being prepared for the job [11]. The authors recommend that students be trained in the fundamentals of mentoring and that faculty be readily available to provide support. Preparedness leads to better experiences and more effective mentoring [11]. To maximize the benefits for new students, we plan to implement an enhanced near-peer mentor training program prior to the admission of the next cohort of first-year medical students. Perhaps incentives for near-peers in the form of institutional acknowledgment and letters of commendation may help optimize mentor performance. Further, we plan to encourage asynchronous online mentoring practices through e-mail and social networking sites since such media has been found to appeal to contemporary students [20]. In order to provide a support system for low-achieving students, the program will be directed to identifying them early in the course and applying remedial measures as appropriate.

In conclusion, mentoring is a dynamic process, and program evaluation is essential. Feedback can provide an impetus for evolution and can enhance the success of the program. The feedback in this study reveals that near-peer mentoring supplements faculty mentoring of first-year medical students. We believe that, in a fostering environment, near-peer mentors have the diverse abilities required to provide effective mentoring. Mentors, in turn, benefit by honing or acquiring various skills critical for the development of a humane doctor.

Article information

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Acknowledgments

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL

References

• 1. Levy BD, Katz JT, Wolf MA, Sillman JS, Handin RI, Dzau VJ. An initiative in mentoring to promote residents’ and faculty members’ careers. Acad Med 2004;79:845-850. ArticlePubMed
• 2. Bhatia A, Singh N, Dhaliwal U. Mentoring for first year medical students: humanizing medical education. Indian J Med Ethics 2013;10:100-103. ArticlePubMed
• 3. Singh S. Near peer role modeling: the fledgling scholars’ education paradigm. Anat Sci Educ 2010;3:50-51. http://dx/doi.org/10.1002/ase.126 ArticlePubMed
• 4. Quesnel M, King J, Guilcher S, Evans C. The knowledge, attitudes, and practices of Canadian master of physical therapy students regarding peer mentorship. Physiother Can 2012;64:65-76. http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/ptc.2011-02 ArticlePubMedPMC
• 5. Ramani S, Gruppen L, Kachur EK. Twelve tips for developing effective mentors. Med Teach 2006;28:404-408. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01421590600825326 ArticlePubMed
• 6. Duffy TP. The Osler-Cushing covenant. Perspect Biol Med 2005;48:592-602. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/pbm.2005.0087 ArticlePubMed
• 7. Garmel GM. Mentoring medical students in academic emergency medicine. Acad Emerg Med 2004;11:1351-1357. ArticlePubMed
• 8. Frei E, Stamm M, Buddeberg-Fischer B. Mentoring programs for medical students: a review of the PubMed literature 2000-2008. BMC Med Educ 2010;10:32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-10-32 ArticlePubMedPMC
• 9. von der Borch P, Dimitriadis K, Stormann S, Meinel FG, Moder S, Reincke M, Tekian A, Fischer MR. A novel large-scale mentoring program for medical students based on a quantitative and qualitative needs analysis. GMS Z Med Ausbild 2011;28:Doc26. http://dx.doi.org/10.3205/zma000738
• 10. Lockspeiser TM, O’Sullivan P, Teherani A, Muller J. Understanding the experience of being taught by peers: the value of social and cognitive congruence. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract 2008;13:361-372. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10459-006-9049-8 ArticlePubMed
• 11. Sprengel AD, Job L. Reducing student anxiety by using clinical peer mentoring with beginning nursing students. Nurse Educ 2004;29:246-250. ArticlePubMed
• 12. Lafleur AK, White BJ. Appreciating mentorship: the benefits of being a mentor. Prof Case Manag 2010;15:305-311. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/NCM.0b013e3181eae464 ArticlePubMed
• 13. Miller C. Improving and enhancing performance in the affective domain of nursing students: insights from the literature for clinical educators. Contemp Nurse 2010;35:2-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.5172/conu.2010.35.1.002 ArticlePubMed
• 14. Naeger DM, Conrad M, Nguyen J, Kohi MP, Webb EM. Students teaching students: evaluation of a “near-peer” teaching experience. Acad Radiol 2013;20:1177-1182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2013.04.004 ArticlePubMed
• 15. Singh S. Near peer teaching in South Asia: a buzz word or ground reality? Mymensingh Med J 2011;20:171-172. PubMed
• 16. Hall S, Stephens J, Andrade T, Davids J, Powell M, Border S. Perceptions of junior doctors and undergraduate medical students as anatomy teachers: Investigating distance along the near-peer teaching spectrum. Anat Sci Educ 2014;7:242-247. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ase.1419 ArticlePubMed
• 17. Rabatin JS, Lipkin M, Rubin AS, Schachter A, Nathan M, Kalet A. A year of mentoring in academic medicine: case report and qualitative analysis of 15 hours of meetings between a junior and senior faculty member. J Gen Intern Med 2004;19:569-573. ArticlePubMedPMC
• 18. Straus SE, Chatur F, Taylor M. Issues in the mentor-mentee relationship in academic medicine: qualitative study. Acad Med 2009;84:135-139. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e31819301ab ArticlePubMed
• 19. Koopman RJ, Thiedke CC. Views of family medicine department chairs about mentoring junior faculty. Med Teach 2005;27:734-737. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01421590500271209 ArticlePubMed
• 20. Pena-Sanchez R, Hicks RC. Faculty perceptions of communications channels: a survey. Int J Innov Learn 2006;3:45-62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJIL.2006.008179 Article

Figure & Data

References

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  

• Outcomes of a Near-Peer Intern Orientation Boot Camp
  Rashid Alhusain, Astha Saini, Hersimren Minhas, Ahmed K Ahmed, Patrick Bishop, Baraa Osman, Hajra Khan, Omeralfaroug Adam, Jarrett J Weinberger, Diane L Levine
  Cureus.2024;[Epub]     CrossRef
• Effectiveness of peer mentoring in the study entry phase: A systematic review
  Laura Gehreke, Hannes Schilling, Simone Kauffeld
  Review of Education.2024;[Epub]     CrossRef
• Uncovering heterogeneity in mental health changes among first-year medical students
  Sabine Polujanski, Ulrike Nett, Thomas Rotthoff, Melissa Oezsoy, Ann-Kathrin Schindler
  Medical Education Online.2024;[Epub]     CrossRef
• A qualitative study of mentors’ perceptions and experiences of a near-peer mentoring program for medical students
  Lea Pölczman, Márk Jámbor, Zsuzsa Győrffy, György Purebl, András Végh, Edmond Girasek
  Frontiers in Education.2024;[Epub]     CrossRef
• The Impact on Peer Mentorship After Implementation of a Competency-Based Residency Curriculum in Canadian Radiation Oncology Training Programs
  David Y. Mak, Janet Papadakos, Joanne Alfieri, Jennifer Croke, Paris-Ann Ingledew, Shaun K. Loewen, Meredith Giuliani
  Advances in Radiation Oncology.2024; 9(5): 101462.     CrossRef
• Outcomes of a pilot virtual mentorship program for medical students interested in surgery
  Jihane Jadi, Elizabeth Shaughnessy, Linda Barry, Chantal Reyna, Susan Tsai, Stephanie M. Downs-Canner, Sara Myers
  The American Journal of Surgery.2023; 225(2): 229.     CrossRef
• Teaching students to mentor: Near-peer mentoring in undergraduate medical radiation science education
  Elio Arruzza
  Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences.2023; 54(1): 23.     CrossRef
• Introduction of Near-Peer Mentorship Program in an Undergraduate Medical College in Pakistan: A Pilot Study
  Narmeen Ahmed, Shaur Sarfaraz, Iram Khursheed, Zohaib Khurshid, Xiaojing Hu
  Education Research International.2023; 2023: 1.     CrossRef
• Barriers to Accessing Mental Health Support Services in Undergraduate Medical Training: A Multicenter, Qualitative Study
  Wen Qing Wendy Ye, Bradley A. Rietze, Sydney McQueen, Kevin Zhang, Lena C. Quilty, Christine M. Wickens
  Academic Medicine.2023; 98(4): 491.     CrossRef
• Implementing a Near Peer Instructor Placement Model in Physiotherapy Education
  Madeleine Simmons, Jasdeep Dhir, Sarah Wojkowski, Kristina K. Durham
  Physiotherapy Canada.2023;[Epub]     CrossRef
• Addressing the needs and challenges of mentorship in veterinary medicine
  Amy B. Yanke, Kelly A. Weigand, Erik H. Hofmeister
  New Directions for Teaching and Learning.2023; 2023(176): 83.     CrossRef
• Pre-service Teachers’ Motivations to Participate in the Near-Peer Mentoring Program
  Dilara KARA-ZORLUOGLU, Ilkem OZDİNC, Busra KARGA, Gaye CEYHAN
  Sakarya University Journal of Education.2023; 13(3): 484.     CrossRef
• Piloting ‘Virtual Ward’: a novel platform for delivering medical student education by residents
  Coralea Kappel, Waseem Hijazi, Nishma Singhal
  BMC Medical Education.2022;[Epub]     CrossRef
• Developing a well-received pre-matriculation program: the evolution of MedFIT
  Alexa Allen, Brandon Conner, Brooke Gantman, Kendal Warner, Ranna Nash, Brady Janes, Megan Hellum, Cherie Singer
  Discover Education.2022;[Epub]     CrossRef
• Improving Outcomes for At-Risk MSW Students: A Pilot e-Mentorship Program Using A Near-Peer Model
  Donna L. Schuman, Rupal M. Parekh, Noelle L. Fields, Deborah Woody, Vivian J. Miller
  Journal of Teaching in Social Work.2021; 41(1): 42.     CrossRef
• Enhancing mentoring experiences through e-mentoring: a systematic scoping review of e-mentoring programs between 2000 and 2017
  Jia Yan Chong, Ann Hui Ching, Yaazhini Renganathan, Wei Qiang Lim, Ying Pin Toh, Stephen Mason, Lalit K. R. Krishna
  Advances in Health Sciences Education.2020; 25(1): 195.     CrossRef
• Enhancing geriatric oncology training through a combination of novice mentoring and peer and near-peer mentoring: A thematic analysis ofmentoring in medicine between 2000 and 2017
  Samuel Yong Siang Lim, Eugene Yong Hian Koh, Benjamin Jia Xing Tan, Ying Pin Toh, Stephen Mason, Lalit K.R. Krishna
  Journal of Geriatric Oncology.2020; 11(4): 566.     CrossRef
• Implementing Change in Neuroanatomy Education: Organization, Evolution, and Assessment of a Near‐Peer Teaching Program in an Undergraduate Medical School in Greece
  Stefanos Karamaroudis, Eleni Poulogiannopoulou, Marinos G. Sotiropoulos, Thomas Kalantzis, Elizabeth O. Johnson
  Anatomical Sciences Education.2020; 13(6): 694.     CrossRef
• Group mentorship for undergraduate medical students—a systematic review
  Elise Pauline Skjevik, J. Donald Boudreau, Unni Ringberg, Edvin Schei, Terese Stenfors, Monika Kvernenes, Eirik H. Ofstad
  Perspectives on Medical Education.2020; 9(5): 272.     CrossRef
• The Pivotal Role of Host Organizations in Enhancing Mentoring in Internal Medicine: A Scoping Review
  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, Lalit Kumar Radha Krishna
  Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development.2020; 7: 238212052095664.     CrossRef
• Developing Humanistic Competencies Within the Competency-Based Curriculum
  Satendra Singh, Upreet Dhaliwal, Navjeevan Singh
  Indian Pediatrics.2020; 57(11): 1060.     CrossRef
• Structuring Mentoring in Medicine and Surgery. A Systematic Scoping Review of Mentoring Programs Between 2000 and 2019
  Wen Jie Chua, Clarissa Wei Shuen Cheong, Fion Qian Hui Lee, Eugene Yong Hian Koh, Ying Pin Toh, Stephen Mason, Lalit Kumar Radha Krishna
  Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions.2020; 40(3): 158.     CrossRef
• A scoping review of mentor training programs in medicine between 1990 and 2017
  Krish Sheri, Jue Ying Joan Too, Sing En Lydia Chuah, Ying Pin Toh, Stephen Mason, Lalit Kumar Radha Krishna
  Medical Education Online.2019; 24(1): 1555435.     CrossRef
• Establishing online mentorship for early career researchers: Lessons from the Organization for Human Brain Mapping International Mentoring Programme
  Natalia Bielczyk, Michele Veldsman, Ayaka Ando, Chiara Caldinelli, Meena M. Makary, Aki Nikolaidis, Marzia A. Scelsi, Melanie Stefan, AmanPreet Badhwar
  European Journal of Neuroscience.2019; 49(9): 1069.     CrossRef
• Perceived Benefits of a Peer Mentoring Program for First-Year Medical Students
  Samuel J. Altonji, James H. Baños, Caroline N. Harada
  Teaching and Learning in Medicine.2019; 31(4): 445.     CrossRef
• A Systematic Scoping Review of Ethical Issues in Mentoring in Surgery
  Fion Qian Hui Lee, Wen Jie Chua, Clarissa Wei Shuen Cheong, Kuang Teck Tay, Eugene Koh Yong Hian, Annelissa Mien Chew Chin, Ying Pin Toh, Stephen Mason, Lalit Kumar Radha Krishna
  Journal of Medical Education and Curricular Development.2019; 6: 238212051988891.     CrossRef
• Improving Diversity of Dental Students Through the Boston University Master's of Oral Health Sciences Postbaccalaureate Program
  Theresa A. Davies, Elizabeth Kaye, Michele Stahlberger, Majed Abbas, Catherine Sarkis, Linda Reed, Larry Dunham, Barbara M. Schreiber, Cataldo Leone, Ana Karina Mascarenhas
  Journal of Dental Education.2019; 83(3): 287.     CrossRef
• Value of Near-Peer Mentorship from Protégé and Mentor Perspectives: A Strategy to Increase Physician Workforce Diversity
  Adrianne Haggins, Gurjit Sandhu, Paula T. Ross
  Journal of the National Medical Association.2018; 110(4): 399.     CrossRef
• Development of a systematic career coaching program for medical students
  Yera Hur, A Ra Cho, Mihye Kwon
  Korean Journal of Medical Education.2018; 30(1): 41.     CrossRef
• A systematic review of the literature describing the outcomes of near-peer mentoring programs for first year medical students
  Olawunmi Akinla, Pamela Hagan, William Atiomo
  BMC Medical Education.2018;[Epub]     CrossRef
• Exploring the possibility of one-on-one mentoring as an alternative to the current student support system in medical education
  Yera Hur, A Ra Cho, Sun Kim
  Korean Journal of Medical Education.2018; 30(2): 119.     CrossRef
• Vertical Alignment of Educational Opportunities for STEM Learners: Evaluating the Effects of Road Dust on Biological Systems
  Jason A. Rosenzweig, Daniel Vrinceanu, Hyun-Min Hwang, Shishir Shishodia
  The American Biology Teacher.2016; 78(9): 710.     CrossRef