|How old am I:||19|
|Where am I from:||I was born in Egypt|
|My hair:||Black hair|
|I like to listen:||I like to listen techno|
Choosing the right mentor is crucial for effective mentorship. Yet, many medical students have difficulties finding a suitable mentor. Thus we developed mentoring speed dating MSD as a promising matching tool to connect students and faculty mentors successfully. They conducted four focus groups with mentees and mentors who participated in a mentoring speed dating event and analyzed transcripts using conventional content analysis with inductive categorizing. In addition, three mentoring cohorts two matched via MSD, one matched via conventional online profiles were surveyed on mentorship satisfaction and the 1-year continuance of their mentorship was monitored.
Fifteen mentees and fifteen mentors participated in the focus groups. The authors identified several themes such as short and long term benefits of MSD and fulfillment of expectations. Benefits included finding out about the personal connection, matching expectations, providing an efficient overview of candidates.
MSD is a valuable matching tool with beneficial effects on the mentorship quality. It enhances essential factors in the mentoring relationship such as commitment and satisfaction. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attributionwhich permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Data Availability: Quantitative data are fully available from the University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data. Restrictions for qualitative data are necessary because individuals may be identified by context details.
Requests for the data may be sent to the corresponding author guse uke. The funders had no role in study de, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. Due to the positive effects of mentoring on the professional development of medical students and young physicians, formal mentoring programs have gained popularity within academic medicine [ 1 — 4 ]. Mentoring is a complex phenomenon and numerous definitions exist in the literature.
In the specific context of student-faculty mentoring we follow the approach of Meinel et al. Several benefits of mentoring have been reported for mentees studentsmentors faculty and institutions medical schools [ 1378 ]. Nevertheless, mentoring relationships are time-consuming and challenging when facing multiple demands such as clinical, research and administrative duties [ 910 ].
Thus, the successful matching of mentees and mentors is of great importance for formal mentoring programs to avoid ineffective mentoring experiences [ 11 ]. Formal mentoring does not seem to be as effective as the traditional, informal mentoring where the relationship occurs spontaneously and is based on a specific mutual trust [ 12 — 14 ].
However, the development of the mentee-mentor relationship and satisfaction with mentorship are essential aspects for the success of any mentoring process [ 1516 ]. Mismatches in terms of different values, attitudes or work styles are quite common in mentee-mentor relationships [ 11 ] and often lead to dysfunctionality in terms of less psychosocial and career support [ 1718 ].
Interestingly, the process of matching in formal mentoring programs is neglected in most empirical research [ 18 — 20 ]. Furthermore this mentoring program for medical students offers general advice, guidance and support provided by faculty mentors. The purpose of this study was to gain an in-depth understanding of MSD as an innovative matching tool to connect mentees students and faculty mentors.
Furthermore we aimed to investigate effects of MSD by comparing the mentorship quality and the 1-year continuance of the mentoring of three mentoring cohorts, who were matched either via MSD or chose their mentors via online profiles.
We used a mixed methods approach including method- and data triangulation. Both qualitative focus-groups and quantitative data cross sectional survey were collected. The mentoring cohort chose their faculty mentors by viewing their online profiles only.
In contrast, the mentoring cohort and met their mentors via an innovative method called MSD. The approach is based on speed dating and conceptually addresses some of the matching issues of formal mentoring programs. The matching process was carried out in two stages. First, students were asked to complete an application form stating two preferred main areas of research, with the option to choose from two of five established research centers at the UKE. Each research center was portrayed briefly on internet including online profiles of associated mentors.
Furthermore the application included a self-assessment of their current interest in research on a 6-point Likert scale. Second, students were invited to an inaugural event of the mentoring program for excellent students.
There they met all mentors associated with their preferred area of research during a MSD session. The inaugural event took place on a weekday evening in December and November at UKE and lasted from 5pm till approximately 8. At the beginning the five established research centers at the UKE were presented briefly, followed by an introduction of the MSD procedure.
The MSD event was based on Cook et al.
Students spent 5 minutes with each mentor. Both had the chance for specific questions relevant to mentorship and their ideas of research.
Respectively, mentors received the application of each student who was going to see him, prior to the speed mentoring event. Between the encounters participants had 5 minutes to take notes.
All mentors were seated on the same floor in separate rooms. Rotation schedules were attached to each door.
All students received a pseudonym, which was listed on these schedules. After talking to all mentors of one area of research students left a note with their preferred mentor, second and third choice for the organizers JG, ES of the event. Likewise mentors left a note with the names of their preferred candidates available in rank order or forwarded their choice by to the organizer within three days after the inaugural event.
In case matching was not successful, the organizers of the program recommended mentors with mentorship vacancy and the remaining students made individual appointments until they found a mentor they felt comfortable with. Likewise the mentor had to agree on the mentorship with the mentee, too, before the individual mentoring-relationship started. Not all available mentors have been chosen by mentees. Thus the table includes only mentors with at least one mentee.
Mentors provided different capacity for mentees. We conducted two focus groups that were based on semi-structured interviews with open-ended questions. In total 15 students 5 female and 15 mentors 2 female participated in the focus groups. Informed consent was received before the focus groups started.
According to recommendations, focus-groups were heterogeneous regarding gender. Each session lasted 60—90 minutes [ 24 ] and was led by an experienced moderator.
Furthermore one author JG or GK attended to take notes using a pre-assembled matrix to delineate the sense of consensus within the focus group as suggested by Onwuegbuzie et al. The focus groups were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim according to predefined and accepted transcription rules [ 819 ]. Qualitative research was performed in accordance with the consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research COREQ of Tong et al. All mentoring cohorts, and were asked to complete a set of items with regard to characteristics of their mentoring relationship after six months of participation in the mentoring program for excellent students.
To explore the effect of MSD, the three cohorts were ased to two groups: Cohort was ased to the group without MSD, whereas the cohorts and were ased to the MSD-group. Following our applied definition of mentoring and desirable characteristics of mentors that are recommended by Berk et al.
Items were written to meet established criteria [ 27 ]. All authors reviewed the items several times to verify that questions were understandable and clear until consensus was reached. Participation in the survey was voluntary. Students ed an informed consent to participate.
No personal identification was required. Furthermore the duration of the mentoring relationship was considered as an outcome measure. To assess the 1-year continuance of the mentoring relationship we sent an to all mentees after 12 months of mentorship asking whether they would like to continue the mentoring relationship. In case we did not receive a response after two reminder s we contacted the respective mentor to clarify the current state of their mentoring relationship.
Each focus group was analyzed by using conventional content analyses with inductive categorization. Data analysis started with reading the transcripts repeatedly to gain a sense of the whole. Subsequently three of the authors CM, GK, and JG reviewed the data word by word to identify key concepts and generate labels of codes independent from each other. During this process we developed final definitions for each category and code.
Consensus was reached through considering the matrix, which was completed by one of the researchers CM, GK or JG during the focus groups [ 25 ].