1Department of Physiology, University College of Medical Sciences, University of Delhi, Delhi, India
2Department of Pathology, University College of Medical Sciences, University of Delhi, Delhi, India
3Department of Ophthalmology, University College of Medical Sciences, University of Delhi, Delhi, India
4Department of Medical Humanities Group, University College of Medical Sciences, University of Delhi, Delhi, India
5Department of Medical Education Unit, University College of Medical Sciences, University of Delhi, Delhi, India
® 2014, National Health Personnel Licensing Examination Board of the Republic of Korea
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Variable |
Faculty mentors’ feedback |
P-value | |
---|---|---|---|
Mentoring 2009 (mentoring by faculty alone) | Mentoring 2010 (faculty-supervised, near-peer mentoring) | ||
Total | 55 | 52 | |
Response | 29 (53) | 28 (54) | |
How many mentoring sessions have you had? | 4.0±5.2 (0–12) | 7.4 ± 8.8 (0–40) | 0.080 |
Was the quality of contact with your mentee adequate? | |||
Yes | 14 (48) | 16 (57) | 0.599 |
If not, why? | |||
Logistical barriers | 9a) | 7b) | |
Attitudinal barriers | 7c) | 6d) | |
Do you think that mentoring is a good idea? (yes) | 28 (97) | 27 (96) | 1.000 |
Do you believe that the mentee benefitted? (yes) | 14 (48) | 17 (61) | 0.429 |
Questionnaire item | Feedback on faculty mentor | Feedback on near-peer mentor | P-value | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Response | 74/148 (50) | - | ||
How many mentoring sessions have you had in the year? (yes) | 11.7±28.79 (0–120) | 24.0 ± 33.79 (0–120) | 0.018 | |
Was the quality of contact with your mentor adequate? (yes) | 39 (52.7) | 47 (63.5) | 0.243 | |
If not, why? | - | |||
Logistical barriers | 14a) | 6b) | - | |
Attitudinal barriers | 12c) | 13d) | - | |
Was your mentor readily available? (yes) | 35 (47.3) | 41 (55.4) | 0.411 | |
Do you think that mentoring is a good idea? (yes) | 65 (87.8) | 66 (89.2) | 1.000 | |
Have you personally benefitted from the relationship? (yes) | 34 (45.9) | 33 (44.6) | 1.000 | |
Do you feel the relationship requires too much of your time? (yes) | 4 (5.4) | 5 (6.7) | 1.000 | |
Do you feel that you don’t really need a mentor? (yes) | 12 (16.2) | 11 (14.9) | 1.000 | |
Qualitative aspects | ||||
What did you enjoy most about mentoring? | No response (n=22); counseling (n=15); interaction (n=10); concern/parental support (n=10); nothing (n=7); settling in (n=5); everything (n=2); advocacy (n=2); all problems directed to one (n=1) | |||
Do you have any concerns about the program? | Lack of time (n=18); lack of commitment (n=7); lack of interest (n=4); less interaction with faculty than near-peers (n=3); clinical faculty mentors (n=2); quality of mentors (n=1) |
Values are presented as mean (range) or number (%).
a) Tried but couldn’t meet (n=3), time constraints (n=11);
b) Too few formal meetings (n=1), time constraints (n=5);
c) Mentor was indifferent (n=10), I did not commit to the program (n=2);
d) Mentor was indifferent (n=9); I did not commit to the program (n=4).
Variable | Faculty mentors’ feedback |
P-value | |
---|---|---|---|
Mentoring 2009 (mentoring by faculty alone) | Mentoring 2010 (faculty-supervised, near-peer mentoring) | ||
Total | 55 | 52 | |
Response | 29 (53) | 28 (54) | |
How many mentoring sessions have you had? | 4.0±5.2 (0–12) | 7.4 ± 8.8 (0–40) | 0.080 |
Was the quality of contact with your mentee adequate? | |||
Yes | 14 (48) | 16 (57) | 0.599 |
If not, why? | |||
Logistical barriers | 9 |
7 |
|
Attitudinal barriers | 7 |
6 |
|
Do you think that mentoring is a good idea? (yes) | 28 (97) | 27 (96) | 1.000 |
Do you believe that the mentee benefitted? (yes) | 14 (48) | 17 (61) | 0.429 |
Questionnaire item | Feedback on faculty mentor | Feedback on near-peer mentor | P-value | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Response | 74/148 (50) | - | ||
How many mentoring sessions have you had in the year? (yes) | 11.7±28.79 (0–120) | 24.0 ± 33.79 (0–120) | 0.018 | |
Was the quality of contact with your mentor adequate? (yes) | 39 (52.7) | 47 (63.5) | 0.243 | |
If not, why? | - | |||
Logistical barriers | 14 |
6 |
- | |
Attitudinal barriers | 12 |
13 |
- | |
Was your mentor readily available? (yes) | 35 (47.3) | 41 (55.4) | 0.411 | |
Do you think that mentoring is a good idea? (yes) | 65 (87.8) | 66 (89.2) | 1.000 | |
Have you personally benefitted from the relationship? (yes) | 34 (45.9) | 33 (44.6) | 1.000 | |
Do you feel the relationship requires too much of your time? (yes) | 4 (5.4) | 5 (6.7) | 1.000 | |
Do you feel that you don’t really need a mentor? (yes) | 12 (16.2) | 11 (14.9) | 1.000 | |
Qualitative aspects | ||||
What did you enjoy most about mentoring? | No response (n=22); counseling (n=15); interaction (n=10); concern/parental support (n=10); nothing (n=7); settling in (n=5); everything (n=2); advocacy (n=2); all problems directed to one (n=1) | |||
Do you have any concerns about the program? | Lack of time (n=18); lack of commitment (n=7); lack of interest (n=4); less interaction with faculty than near-peers (n=3); clinical faculty mentors (n=2); quality of mentors (n=1) |
Questionnaire item | Response of faculty mentors | Response of mentees |
---|---|---|
28/52 (54%) | 74/148 (50%) | |
What, if any, were the advantages of having near-peer mentors? | They learned organizational skills (2); they made time for mentees, were enthusiastic (n=2); they had closer contact (n=4); they know faculty, so they related to faculty mentors better (n=2); they grow with you (n=1); helped students when faculty mentor was busy (n=1) | Effective (n=13); academic help (n=8); learned medical etiquette (4); guidance/decision making/help in settling down (n=7); interaction/bonding/friendship with seniors (n=9); de-stressing/morale building (n=8); always available (n=3); teach us tricks of the trade (n=2); understand our problems (n=2); bridge gap between us and faculty (n=2); build social structure of the college (n=1); organizers are good (n=1); helped both mentors and mentees (n=1) |
Was there anything about near-peer mentors’ inclusion that you found difficult or frustrating? | Some don’t fulfill their promises (n=2); they can’t really mentor (n=1); none (n=9); student mentor doesn’t meet regularly with the faculty mentor, should act as mediator (n=1); improper program implementation (n=1) | Final-year near-peers too busy (n=3); superiority complex of seniors (n=2); day scholar mentor cannot help hostel-dwelling mentee (n=1); waste of time (n=5); not implemented well/mentor never got in touch (n=2) |
Near-peer mentor’s feedback | No. (%) |
---|---|
Response | 30/57 (52) |
Do you think the student mentor program has been of benefit to you? | 29/30 (97) |
Dual (two-way) mentoring | 7 |
Problem solving | 6 |
Responsibility | 5 |
Interaction | 4 |
Confidence | 3 |
Counseling | 2 |
Building relations | 2 |
Self-analysis of mistakes | 1 |
What have been your main frustrations or problem areas in relation to working as a near-peer mentor? | |
Faculty mentor busy | 11 |
Hesitant mentee | 12 |
Planning a meeting | 2 |
Ice-breaking with girls | 1 |
Informal mentoring | 1 |
Near-peer mentors’ reflections | Skill demonstrated/honed |
---|---|
At a personal level, I think it has helped me more than the mentees! That’s because in trying to make them avoid mistakes, I found a lot of things I did that I shouldn’t have, and it forced me to think in retrospect. | Reflective thinking |
The faculty mentor deserves all due respect and in those student mentor-mentee meetings, this part is greatly ignored in fun. Instead, the students should take the opportunity for easily approaching their faculty and having a hand on them in case of distress (which is very rare in other medical colleges in India). | Discovery, respect |
It (the program) has made me realize that there is more to UCMS than lectures, postings, and practicals. I have started LIVING in UCMS rather than just STUDYING in it. | Self-realization, social skills |
The student mentor orientation program should be for 12 months, subject to extension. Even if one person benefits, it’s worth it. | Altruism, analysis |
This program is for building partnerships and mutual respect rather than solving their (the mentees’) problems. | Understanding |
As in the current situation (strict ragging rules), we are losing interaction among seniors and juniors. This program attempted to harmonize things to quite an extent. | Social interaction, remedial |
The indirect benefit (by helping mentees in studies) that I got was a quick revision of embryology, which is helping me in surgery now-a-days. | Teaching, productivity |
Great job, but we need to be constantly striving for more innovation and reaching out to everyone, even those who are shy. | Communication, innovation |
Realized and enjoyed the feeling of being a senior…felt good…and realized that the guidance has to very appropriate as it can have a great impact on the other person’s decisions. | Guide, positivity, self-esteem |
I did not have much interaction with my assigned mentees. However, I did have a lot of interaction with other juniors (unassigned mentees), which helped me enhance my communication and problem solving skills. | Communication, problem solving |
It’s really satisfying to see your mentee pass where most other students have been held back. | Confidence, self-satisfaction, career advancement |
This program intends to do away with ragging and only maintain the so-called benefits of it, i.e., junior-senior interaction. I got to meet a few more juniors who had similar interests without having to look for them and create an uneasy feeling in the beginning. | Social interaction |
There are several first-year students who did not take advantage of this program, which led to a waste of the wonderful resources of students and faculty. So I suggest screening the students, perhaps a month or two later after their admission, for who would really be part of this program, not just on paper, and become great alumni of this college. | Leadership, concern, goal setting |
Values are presented as mean (range) or number (%). Time constraints (n=5), had no contact details (n=4); Missed initial ice-breaker; Mentee hesitation/lack of interest (n=6); role not clear to both parties (n=1) Mentee’s lack of interest.
Values are presented as mean (range) or number (%). Tried but couldn’t meet (n=3), time constraints (n=11); Too few formal meetings (n=1), time constraints (n=5); Mentor was indifferent (n=10), I did not commit to the program (n=2); Mentor was indifferent (n=9); I did not commit to the program (n=4).