BACKGROUND: Effective mentorship is an important component of medical education with benefits to all stakeholders. In recent years, conceptualization of mentorship has gone beyond the traditional dyadic experienced mentor-novice mentee relationship to include group and peer mentoring. Existing theories of mentorship do not recognize mentoring\'s personalized, evolving, goal-driven, and context-specific nature. Evidencing the limitations of traditional cause-and-effect concepts, the purpose of this review was to systematically search the literature to determine if mentoring can be viewed as a complex adaptive system (CAS).
METHODS: A systematic scoping review using Krishna\'s Systematic Evidence-Based Approach was employed to study medical student and resident accounts of mentoring and CAS in general internal medicine and related subspecialties in articles published between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2023 in PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC, Google Scholar, and Scopus databases. The included articles underwent thematic and content analysis, with the themes identified and combined to create domains, which framed the discussion.
RESULTS: Of 5,704 abstracts reviewed, 134 full-text articles were evaluated, and 216 articles were included. The domains described how mentoring relationships and mentoring approaches embody characteristics of CAS and that mentorship often behaves as a community of practice (CoP). Mentoring\'s CAS-like features are displayed through CoPs, with distinct boundaries, a spiral mentoring trajectory, and longitudinal mentoring support and assessment processes.
CONCLUSIONS: Recognizing mentorship as a CAS demands the rethinking of the design, support, assessment, and oversight of mentorship and the role of mentors. Further study is required to better assess the mentoring process and to provide optimal training and support to mentors.

UNASSIGNED: Community partnership is a key strategy for addressing the social determinants of health and achieving health equity. There are few examples of curricula for undergraduate medical education that teach all, rather than self-selected, medical students to collaborate with community members to improve health. We describe the design and implementation of the Community Health Advocacy Initiative (CHAI) curriculum, a new yearlong educational program for medical students at Northwestern University\'s Feinberg School of Medicine.
UNASSIGNED: CHAI aimed to fill the curricular gap in social determinants of health education by providing medical students with the knowledge and skills to improve the health of patients through collaborations with community partners. This longitudinal curriculum included structured faculty mentorship and an applied community experience.
UNASSIGNED: The CHAI curriculum was delivered to 164 second-year medical students in academic year 2021-2022. Faculty mentors rated most students as meeting expectations for application of community partnership principles and demonstration of professionalism. Qualitative analysis of faculty mentor comments demonstrated that medical students exhibited positive outcomes in engaging with community organizations, overcoming barriers, developing feasible and impactful goals, and advancing their own knowledge and skills.
UNASSIGNED: Implementing a community health curriculum for all medical students is feasible and represents an important model for teaching about the importance of community partnerships in addressing the social determinants of health.

BACKGROUND: Integrating complex interventions within healthcare settings can be challenging. Mentoring can be embedded within a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to upskill and support those delivering the intervention. This study aimed to understand, from a realist perspective, how mentoring worked to support implementation fidelity for occupational therapists (OTs) delivering a vocational rehabilitation (VR) intervention within the context of an RCT.
METHODS: A realist evaluation using secondary data (emails, mentoring record forms, interviews) collected as part of an RCT. Three researchers coded the data following content analysis, focused on refining or refuting an initial programme theory by exploring the interactions between context, mechanisms, and outcomes. The research team met to further refine the programme theories.
RESULTS: Data from 584 emails, 184 mentoring record forms, and 25 interviews were analysed following a realist approach. We developed a programme theory consisting of two contexts (trial set-up, ongoing mentoring), nine mechanisms (collective understanding, monitoring, timely support, positive reinforcement, reflective practice, support data completeness, facilitation strategy, shared learning experience, management of research and clinical duties), and three outcomes (improved confidence, improved fidelity, reduced contamination).
CONCLUSIONS: Offering mentoring support to OTs delivering a VR intervention as part of an RCT improves intervention fidelity and reduces the risk of contamination. It improves OTs\' understanding of the differences between their clinical and research roles and increases their confidence and competence in trial paperwork completion and identification of potential contamination issues.

There is increased reliance on newly licensed nurses to fill open healthcare positions. Nurse residency programs (NRPs) provide the training, mentorship, and support newly licensed nurses require to successfully transition to professional practice. Research suggests that NRPs improve nurse retention, clinical outcomes, and organizational outcomes. Sufficient NRP full-time equivalents are needed to ensure adequate support and program management. This article describes how a Colorado hospital system secured additional NRP Coordinator full-time equivalent using a six-step process.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: Peer mentorship can be a potential tool to reduce the disparities in health research capacity between high- and low- and middle-income countries. This case study describes the potential of peer mentorship to tackle two critical issues: bridging health research capacity of doctors from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) and the transformation of human resource for health brain drain into \"brain gain\".
METHODS: In 2021, a virtual peer mentorship group was established by 16 alumni of the University of Benin College of Medical Sciences\' 2008 graduating class, residing across three continents. This program aimed to facilitate research collaboration and skill development among colleagues with diverse research experience levels, fostering a supportive environment for career development in research. The group relied heavily on digital technology to carry out its activities due to the different geographical locations of the group members. Led by experienced peer leaders, the group fostered a collaborative learning environment where members leveraged each other\'s expertise. Within 18 months, we published two research papers in high-impact peer-reviewed global health journals, launched a mixed-methods research study, and conducted training sessions on research design and implementation. Findings from our work were presented at conferences and workshops. However, logistical hurdles, competing priorities, structural constraints, and uneven participation presented challenges.
CONCLUSIONS: The peer mentorship collaboration has achieved some successes so far, and this model can be emulated by other cohorts of medical professionals across LMICs. Despite the group\'s success at a micro- or individual level, there remain significant structural barriers to research capacity building in LMICs that can only be addressed at the meso- and macro-levels by institutions and government, respectively. A systems-level approach is required to develop and support research capacity building and foster global research collaboration and effectively turn brain drain into brain gain.

BACKGROUND: Mentorship is critical to success in postgraduate science, technology, engineering, math, and medicine (STEMM) settings. As such, the purpose of this study is to comprehensively explore the state of mentorship interventions in postgraduate STEMM settings to identify novel practices and future research directions. The selection criteria for reviewed articles included: 1) published between 2002 and 2022, 2) peer-reviewed, 3) in English, 4) postgraduate mentees, 5) a program where mentorship is a significant, explicit focus, and 6) a description of mentee outcomes related to the mentorship intervention. Overall, 2583 articles were screened, and 109 articles were reviewed.
RESULTS: Most postgraduate STEMM mentorship intervention studies lack strong evidence to evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention, with only 5.5% of articles designed as randomized controlled trials. Most mentorship interventions (45.6%) were created for faculty, and few (4%) were for postdoctoral researchers. Also, only 18.8% of interventions focused on underrepresented groups in STEMM. Most interventions (53.7%) prescribed a dyadic structure, and there was more mentorship training for mentors than mentees.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, these findings identify gaps in mentorship interventions and provide step-by-step guidance for future interventions, including a consideration for underrepresented groups and postdoctoral scholars, robust mentorship training, and more randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: The National Framework for Inclusion Health identified the need for collaborative action between the NHS and third sector health to improve access and outcomes for Inclusion Health groups. Clinical psychology trainee placements in homelessness settings could be a valuable pathway to improving access to psychological support for people experiencing homelessness and the provision of clinical services, which is key to developing the workforce and a catalyst for the future recruitment of clinical psychologists in the third sector.
METHODS: A qualitative evaluation was conducted using semistructured interviews to explore the perspectives of clinical psychology trainees, supervisors, staff in homelessness settings and a peer mentor. Twenty-two participants were recruited from two universities and six services across the South East, including 11 clinical psychology trainees, six supervisors, four placement staff and one peer mentor.
RESULTS: Placement staff described the value of a psychological approach but identified some challenges to be overcome. Induction was identified as the key to success. Supervisors recognised the breadth and depth added to trainees\' knowledge and skills alongside significant challenges. Trainees valued the opportunities to work in homelessness settings and develop their understanding of the role. The peer mentor identified collaborative working as especially important.
CONCLUSIONS: Clinical psychology trainee placements are a necessary programme to fulfil the NHS vision for Inclusion Health. These placements equip the health and social care workforce to create excellent and sustainable provisions to improve the physical and mental health of people experiencing homelessness whilst also providing much-needed psychological support for staff.
UNASSIGNED: Psychologically Informed Environments Through Staff Training: Staff training and support within these placements contribute to the development of psychologically informed environments. This not only leads to better outcomes for both staff and clients but also aligns with the objectives of the National Framework for Inclusion Health, fostering sustainable provision for the health needs of people experiencing homelessness (PEH). Enhanced Therapeutic Adaptability: Trainees gain invaluable experience in adapting therapy to meet the diverse needs of clients, benefiting both trainees and clients alike. This adaptability fosters more effective therapeutic relationships and contributes to the improvement of inclusion health provision in the long term. Tailored Therapy for Timely Intervention: Clinical psychology trainee placements in homelessness settings offer therapy that bypasses long waiting times for interventions, crucial for individuals experiencing homelessness. This flexible approach caters to the unpredictable engagement levels of PEH, ensuring timely support aligning with the Health and Care Act 2022 to improve overall health and address health disparities through primary care networks.

UNASSIGNED: Per the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 6.5% of practicing orthopedic surgeons are female and a majority subspecialize in pediatrics, hand, and foot and ankle surgery. The study purpose is to evaluate influences of orthopedic subspecialty selection, specifically factors such as perceived strength, lifestyle, and mentorship influence on subspecialty decisions and to identify if gender plays a role in these perceptions.
UNASSIGNED: An IRB approved cross-sectional study was conducted via email distribution of a REDCapTM survey to U.S. licensed orthopedic surgeons. Data regarding demographics, professional degree, training and current practice location, and perceptions regarding orthopedic surgery was obtained using Likert rating scales. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics with two-tailed student\'s t-tests (α=0.05).
UNASSIGNED: The survey yielded 282 responses (182 females and 100 males). Overall, the distribution of residents (28%), fellows (6%), and attendings (66%) correlates well with the prevalence of each respective physician category in the field of orthopedic surgery. The study demonstrated no difference in subspecialty choice based on mentorship, work-life-balance, career advancement, subspecialty culture, salary potential, family planning, or schedule. However, a statistically significant difference exists regarding stereotypes, perceived strength required, and perception of discrimination from pursuing a specific orthopedic subspecialty. 27% of females and 10% of males reported discouragement from any subspecialty (p<0.05). Adult reconstructive and oncology were most frequently discouraged. Women reported not choosing a subspecialty because of perceived physical demands more often than men (p<0.001). Women reported an increased use of adaptive strategies in the operating room (p<0.001). Women were also more likely to report feeling discouraged from pursuing a subspecialty due to their gender (p<0.001). Both men and women reported mentorship as the most influential factor in subspecialty selection.
UNASSIGNED: Women and men reported different factors were important in their decision of subspecialty. Women were more likely to be discouraged from a subspecialty and experience discrimination based on their perceived strength compared to male peers. Residents, fellows, and attending surgeons valued mentorship as the most influential in their subspeciality choice. This study suggests intrinsic and extrinsic influences that may differentially affect male and female orthopedic surgeons when they choose a subspecialty. Level of Evidence: III.