Content area
Background
Mentoring medical students has become a prevalent educational strategy in medical schools with the purpose of their professional development. For a mentoring program, it is essential for its timely evaluation to make it successful in achieving the program's goals. This mixed-method study was designed to evaluate the newly started mentorship program at a medical school through Context Input Process and Product (CIPP) evaluation model.
Methods
We included 182 mentees and 29 mentors who were involved in the mentorship program for the academic years of 2023 and 2024. The quantitative portion of program evaluation was carried out through pre-tested separate surveys for mentors and mentees generated as per CIPP model of evaluation utilizing a 6-point Likert scale. For qualitative analysis, Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed through inductive thematic analysis to generate codes and identify overarching themes.
Results
The quantitative data indicated that only 15–20% of mentees strongly agreed that the program’s goals were achieved. Many mentors reported a generally positive attitude towards the mentorship program and rated the program as good (62.1%) whereas only 17.2% rated the program as very good. The qualitative data revealed unsatisfactory perception from both mentors and mentees due to unclear aims and objectives, matching process of mentees and mentors, inaccessible mentors and mentees to each other and lack of training of mentors.
Conclusion
We found that both mentors and mentees recognized the importance of mentorship in medical training. Based on the results of the CIPP evaluation, the findings of this mixed-method study suggest that the implementation of the mentoring program is not up to the mark, and several areas need improvement including conveying proper aims and objectives, accessibility of mentors and mentees to each other and training of mentors for the program.
Details
Mentors;
Professional Development Schools;
Group Discussion;
Questionnaires;
Informed Consent;
Data Collection;
Educational Methods;
Researchers;
Medical Schools;
Likert Scales;
Medical Education;
Career Counseling;
Interviews;
Mixed Methods Research;
Communication Skills;
Program Evaluation;
Career Development;
Medical Evaluation;
Job Skills;
Medical Students;
Qualitative Research;
College Freshmen;
Data Analysis;
Educational Strategies
1 Dow University of Health Sciences, Department of Forensic Medicine, Karachi, Pakistan (GRID:grid.412080.f) (ISNI:0000 0000 9363 9292)
2 Dow University of Health Sciences, Department of Physiology, Karachi, Pakistan (GRID:grid.412080.f) (ISNI:0000 0000 9363 9292)
3 Dow University of Health Sciences, Department of Medical Education, Karachi, Pakistan (GRID:grid.412080.f) (ISNI:0000 0000 9363 9292)
4 Jinnah Sindh Medical University, Department of Forensic Medicine, Karachi, Pakistan (GRID:grid.415944.9) (ISNI:0000 0004 0606 9084)
5 Liaquat University of Medical & Health Sciences, Department of Physiology, Jamshoro, Pakistan (GRID:grid.411467.1) (ISNI:0000 0000 8689 0294)
6 Dow University of Health Sciences, Department of Radiology, Karachi, Pakistan (GRID:grid.412080.f) (ISNI:0000 0000 9363 9292)