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.
Background
Mentoring of medical students has become a prevalent educational strategy in medical schools with the purposes of offering support and guidance to medical students for their professional development [1]. The mentorship program consist of two stakeholders, the one is highly qualified, empathic and experienced person- the mentor, who guides another person or group of persons- the mentee, in the development and re-examination of their own ideas, learning, personal and professional development [2]. In a mentorship program, a mentor is a proactive partner in a short term or long-term relationship who aids mentees in discovering their potential and achieving their goals [3].
Medical education societies encourage medical schools to have a mentorship program in their curricula. Evidence indicates that formal mentoring programs help medical students plan their careers, increase their research output and academic focus. It has the capacity to improve communication skills, boost confidence, and support professional development goals [4, 5]. Moreover, mentoring allows mentors to reflect on their role as teachers, potentially resulting in their own personal growth [6]. Much literature is available reporting a well-structured and well-established mentorship program in medical schools is effective in bringing students to a lower stress and anxiety levels, lowering attrition rates, promoting teamwork, collaborative skill enhancement and brings positive impact on academic output, personal growth, and career development [7, 8–9].
For a successful mentorship program, a proper matching process, healthy mentor–mentee relationship, development of personal and professional skills, and training of both mentors and mentees regarding aims and objectives of the program are important factors to consider [10, 11–12]. Evaluating different mentorship programs across the medical institutes has identified key challenges like ethical issues including confidentiality, conflict of interest, power, unrealistic expectations, and inaccessibility [13, 14]. For a successful mentorship program, it is important to evaluate its quality with time to measure its effectiveness in which the perception of mentor and mentees are equally important [15], so that timely interventions can be made to make the program more successful and productive.
Although the program at our college-Dow International Medical College (DIMC) has been running for the past two years (since year 2023), it has not been evaluated to identify its strengths and areas for improvement from the perspective of neither mentors nor mentees. Here in this study, we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of mentorship program at our medical college using Context Input Process and Product (CIPP) model of evaluation which is an effective model of evaluation worldwide [16]. Evaluation feedback from mentors and mentees helps gauge their level of engagement, commitment, and overall satisfaction with the program. The findings from the present study will facilitate in further strengthening the program to better serve its purpose and goals.
Methods
Study design and setting
This was a mixed-method study design using a cross-sectional survey and focus group discussions (FGDs). It was conducted at Dow International Medical College, Dow University of Health Sciences (DUHS) Karachi Pakistan between the period of August 2023 to April 2024 following ethical approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the university with IRB number IRB/3221/DUHS/approval/2023/430. Consolidated criteria for Reporting Qualitative studies (COREC) guidelines of EQUATOR were followed for this study [17].
Mentorship program at DIMC
The formal mentorship program at our institute comprises qualified and experienced mentors who continuously monitor the progress of mentees fortnightly. In a five-year bachelor’s degree program, we have a total 750 students (150 students per academic year) enrolled in our institute with a mandatory attendance in mentorship program (15 groups of 10 students in each) with 31 mentors in it allotted randomly. This mentoring program is based in Kram’s mentoring theory which is based on the idea that assisting their mentees psychologically and providing career counseling are the two primary responsibilities of mentors [18]. Kram’s mentoring model provides a systematic way of mentorship which emphasizes career support that helps mentees acquire skills relevant to their job responsibilities. Psychosocial support, on the other hand, aims to increase mentees’ efficacy and confidence through encouraging relationships.
Study participants
The target participants consisted of mentees and mentors involved in mentoring sessions of the undergraduate program of MBBS during years 2023 and 2024. A consecutive sampling was performed after getting written informed consent from the participants. We included 187 mentees in our study calculated by OpenEpi. There were 31 mentors available in our college, 29 were included who consented to participate.
Participants were approached through email invitations and announcements made during lectures. The purpose of the study was clearly explained. Informed consent was taken from participants before gathering data. To avoid any form of coercion, identification of the participants was not declared. The aim was to reassure participants that their participation in the research is voluntary without affecting their academic evaluation.
Sample size calculation
Sample size was calculated by using OpenEpi version 3.01. Hence, taking 95% confidence level and 5% margin of error, the computed sample size was 170. By adding, 10% for expected non-response rate, a sample size of 187 was suggested for mentees [19].
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Mentees
We included the students from first year to fifth year of MBBS program at DIMC who were actively involved in mentorship program at our college. A total of 219 consented to participate in the study in the first attempt of announcement. After reaching the required sample size of 187 eligible participants, the recruitment was stopped. This was reassured that mentees included were from diverse set of mentors. Those who did not consent to participate, did not complete the questionnaire and with whom the pilot study was performed, were excluded from the study.
Mentors
Mentors involved in the mentorship program of the institute since beginning, were included in our study. Those who did not complete the questionnaire or refused to participate were excluded.
Program evaluation through CIPP model
The CIPP evaluation model is a thorough framework for Program, Project, Product, Institution, and System Evaluation. The mentorship program was evaluated through CIPP model in which different components of program were evaluated under the headings of Context, Input Process, and Product (Supplementary file 1). The context evaluation was developed to know the perception regarding the importance and goals of the mentorship program. Input and Process were also evaluated through perceptions regarding mentor–mentee relationship and mode and frequency of mentoring sessions. Finally, the product was evaluated through overall perceptions regarding the mentorship program by taking quantitative and qualitative data from both mentors and mentees.
Data collection tool
The data collection tool used in this study was developed from the available mentorship effectiveness scale developed by the Ad Hoc Faculty Mentoring Committee at Johns Hopkins University [20] and Oregon Mentors and Mass Mentoring Partnership [21]. The mentees questionnaire comprised 10 questions on their perception regarding mentorship program while mentor’s perception performa was comprised of separate 11 questions. The qualitative questions were the same for both groups (Supplementary file 2). The data collection tool was piloted on 2 mentors and 17 mentees other than the included dataset. For the qualitative data, 6 focus groups were conducted each lasting 60–90 min. Each focus group was conducted with five to nine students who responded to an invitation to participate and were able to attend. A separate focus group was conducted with mentors. The FGDs were led by the moderator (principal researcher) who used a semi structured interview guide to facilitate focus group conversations. To ensure anonymity, only the participants’ academic year affiliations and not their personal identifiers, including age or sex, are mentioned in the citations.
Quantitative data analysis
The data collected was entered into MS excel sheet and analyzed through SPSS v22. Descriptive statistics were used to assess the quantitative data from the closed-ended questions of questionnaires, which were then presented as numbers or percentages.
Qualitative data analysis
We analyzed the qualitative data using the thematic analysis framework developed by Braun and Clarke [22], which allows for flexible yet rigorous examination of patterns within textual data. The six-step analytical process involved familiarization, initial coding, theme generation, theme review, defining themes and reporting. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed, and the researcher took notes during the interviews. An inductive thematic analysis was used to code and analyze the data, identify common codes and themes. First, two researchers individually read the transcripts multiple times to grasp the depth of the data and then together discussed ideas that emerged. A third member of the research team reviewed discrepancies and facilitated consensus discussions. The researchers then discussed their coding scheme until they came to an agreement. Subsequently, both the researchers then scrutinized and organized the resulting codes into themes. Phrases were used to generate the codebook, and in some cases, more than one code was also generated from single phrases. To avoid any conflict or bias, it was considered that none of the research team members were part of mentorship program. Reflexivity was maintained throughout the process; researchers engaged in discussions to bracket their own assumptions, acknowledging their dual roles as educators and investigators. Finally, the entire process was aligned with the COREQ (Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research) guidelines to enhance transparency and methodological rigor [17].
Results
The mean age of mentees was 21 ± 3.12 years with 110/182 (60.43%) females. While among the mentors, the mean age was 44 ± 9.12 years and 24/29 (82.75%) were females. There were 5 professors, 4 Associate Professors, 11 Assistant Professors and 9 lecturers as mentors in our study cohort with 9 doctoral, 12 master and 8 bachelor’s degree holders.
Perception of mentees regarding the mentorship program
There were 33 (18.1%) students from year 1 while 23.6%, 24.2%, 21.4%, and 12.6% students from year 2–5 respectively with no significant difference (p > 0.05) in percent participation in each year. Further, on asking their perception regarding the mentorship program on a 6-point Likert scale, 25.27% strongly agreed while 9.34% strongly disagreed regarding accessibility of the mentors to them. Regarding mentors being supporting and encouraging, 25.27% strongly agreed and only 8.79% strongly disagreed with this. Thirteen percent of students strongly agreed to “my mentor motivated me to improve my work productivity” while 20% did not agree. Fifty percent were satisfied with the response/help from the mentors provided to them while 40% were satisfied with resources provided by mentors to them (Fig. 1). There was no statistically significant association between student’s age, gender, and academic year and how students rated the mentoring program.
[See PDF for image]
Fig. 1
The perception of medical students regarding their relationship with mentors. The figure shows the response of medical students on a 6-point Likert scale to the eleven questions asked (n = 182)
Mentee’s focus group discussion
A total of 27 students from all study years were divided into four groups and FGD sessions were conducted among them. There were three main questions which were discussed in FGDs including satisfaction of the program, weakness of the program and recommendations for improvement.
Q1: Are you satisfied with your mentor–mentee relationship?
There were three themes generated by this section, either satisfactory or unsatisfactory. Deeper thematic analysis reveals several sub-themes.
Academic Support and Satisfaction
Mentees seemed satisfied with their relationship with mentors and academic support offered by them. They expressed their contentment over this session and perceived them as useful for academic support.
Mentee 3 quoted: “When it comes to studies, I am fully satisfied with my mentor she has helped me a lot.”
Mentee 12 reported: “When I was in first year I maintained a good relationship with my mentor. It proved to be fruitful, and I received guidance for my studies.”
Lack of Mentor–Mentee Relationship
Many mentees denied the presence of a meaningful relationship with their mentors. Some students revealed the biased and prejudiced attitude of mentors as a reason for their dissatisfaction.
“I would say that there is no relationship”: Mentee 17
“We have no relationship. Whenever we tried to discuss our problems, they directed us to different people and asked us to email them. This is the only conversation we have with our mentors.”-Mentee 23.
Perceived Judgment and Bias
A few students reported judgmental or biased behavior from mentors.
“Sometimes the attitude of the mentor is so judgmental that we avoid going to their session.”-Mentee 14
Q2: Are you satisfied with the benefits of the program?
Most of the students were not satisfied from the benefits of the program due to multiple reasons. Two different sub-themes emerged from students’ responses in the focus group discussions highlighting weaknesses of the program. The codes belonging to this theme are.
Difficult accessibility
Mentees pointed out difficulties in accessibility of mentors.
One of the students from MBBS year 2 stated: “But I do think what would help would be if teachers put up like a sign or their schedule when they are available when they are not because the students actually have issues like it comes up like abruptly so they would want to do a visit to the teacher and they are not there.”
A student of year 3 stated: “The scheduling is not appropriate, and we don’t know where to find our mentors.”
Lack of clarity of purpose
According to most mentees, both the mentors and mentees were unclear about the objective of these sessions:
A fourth-year mentee described: “First of all, it’s very unclear: we don’t know what to expect from the sessions.”
Another mentee added: “I think it is very important for a mentoring program to be successful. The mentors themselves are not too sure what they are supposed to be doing. Are they supposed to be teaching us, are they supposed to be facilitating research or should there be personal counselling sessions.”
Q3: What are your recommendations for improvement of the program?
While discussing the suggestions for improvement, the following sub-themes were generated:
Easy Communication and accessibility
Most of the mentees suggested that the methods of communication and accessibility should be made easy so that more mentees can take advantage of the program.
A third-year mentee suggested: “The availability of the mentor should be ensured, and we should inform about the whereabouts of our mentors so that we can timely approach them or at least we should have their contact number so that we can contact them.”
Another fourth-year mentee stated that: “Also, the faculty should be available easily. There should be an office in which the faculty is available in a particular time slot. Also, the mentees should have email addresses of the mentors so they can contact them to set the time for mentoring sessions. That will be convenient for both.”
Reforms in the Structure of mentoring
The mentees also suggested that changes are needed in the structure of the mentorship program. The structure of the mentoring program was cited as an impeding factor. Mentees expressed their concerns that their mentors are changed every year, and they were unable to build rapport with them. Mentees also suggested that the sessions should be one to one instead of group sessions so that they can talk to their mentors openly.
A second-year mentee stated: “I think what would help is the one-to-one sessions because people aren’t comfortable sharing their goals with anyone and I feel like one-to-one sessions would be helpful.”
Another second-year mentee added: “The mentors are changed after first year so the connection which we had with our mentor was lost. So, we could not build our rapport with a mentor.”
A fourth-year mentee stated: “We should have same mentor in initial 2 years and then later 3 years and, we should be given a chance to select our own mentors.”
Another mentee further added: “I think we should have one to one with our mentors so that we can discuss our problems openly in a safer environment. And can build a rapport with our mentor.”
Training for mentors
The mentees also emphasized the need for training mentors.
A fourth-year mentee said: “There should be a training for mentors…… We go to a mentor to just sign our attendance. We don’t discuss any problems with them. So, I think they should have training that how this mentorship can be helpful for the students. How they can solve the problems.”
Another mentee from third year added: “The mentor should actually be interested in mentoring session and should interact with us, and they also need training, and they should know what they are signing up for…”.
Periodic evaluation
Many mentees suggested periodic evaluation of the mentorship program. The mentees believed that with periodic evaluation the weaknesses of the program can be identified, and improvements can be made.
A third-year mentee said: “There should be a proper evaluation of mentoring program and mentors should be asked what they have done with their mentees, feedback should also be taken back from the mentees every three months.”
Perception of mentors regarding mentorship programs
A sum of 29 mentors participated in our study. We asked the mentors regarding the rating, experience and relationship with mentees during the mentorship program on a 5-point Likert scale. Only 2/29 (2.57%) rated the program as “excellent”, and 5/29 (17.2%) as “Very Good”. While most of them (62.1%) rated as “Good”. On asking about quality of experience, only 1/29 (3.57%) rated as “excellent” while majority (65.5%) rated “Good”. Regarding relationship with mentee, there was a mixed response from the mentors (Table 1).
Table 1. Rating of the mentorship program by the mentors
S. no | Items | Excellent | Very good | Good | Poor | Very poor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | ||
1 | How would you rate the mentorship program? | 2 (6.9) | 5 (17.2) | 18 (62.1) | 3 (10.7) | 1 (3.57) |
2 | How would you describe the quality of your experience as a participant in the program? | 1 (3.57) | 5 (17.2) | 19 (65.5) | 3 (10.7) | 1 (3.57) |
3 | How would you describe your relationship with your mentee? | 7 (24.1) | 11 (37.9) | 9 (32.14) | 1 (3.57) | 1 (3.57) |
The table shows perception of mentors regarding the mentorship program on a 5-point Likert scale (n = 29)
Moving forward, we further asked regarding the perception of mentorship program through binary questions. Twenty-two of twenty-nine (75.86%) were willing to serve as mentors in future while 21/29 (72.41%) were willing to participate in training sessions for mentors. Most mentors (58.7%) were not aware of the responsibilities of a mentor while 62.06% suggested having frequent meetings with the mentees (Table 2). There was no statistically significant association between the mentoring year, level of experience of mentors and how mentors rated the mentoring program.
Table 2. Perception of mentorship program by the mentors
S. No | Item | Response (n/%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
Yes | No | ||
1 | Would you volunteer to serve as a mentor again next year or in the future? | 22 (75.86) | 7 (24.14) |
2 | Did the mentor training session help you prepare for your mentoring experience? | 24 (82.75) | 5 (17.25) |
3 | Would you have liked additional training for mentors? | 21(72.41) | 8 (25.59) |
4 | Were the mentor’s responsibilities clearly defined to you.? | 12 (41.3) | 17 (58.7) |
5 | Do you think that the time you spent with your mentee was sufficient? | 19 (65.5) | 10 (34.5) |
6 | Do you think that the time you spent together was helpful for your mentee? | 25 (86.2) | 4 (13.8) |
7 | Did you learn personally from this relationship? | 21(72.41) | 8 (27.59) |
8 | Do you have preferred to meet more often with your mentee? | 18 (62.06) | 11 (37.94) |
The table shows the perception of mentors regarding mentorship program on a binary questionnaire (n = 29)
Mentors’ focus group discussion
Eight mentors were included in FGDs regarding the qualitative portion of perception regarding mentorship program. Three questions were asked which generated sub-themes discussed below.
Q1. Are you satisfied with your mentor–mentee relation?
In response to questions regarding the mentor–mentee relation, most of them were not satisfied and two sub-themes emerged as discussed below:
Inconsistent and infrequent interactions
The undergraduate mentors stated that the frequency of mentor mentee meetings is unsatisfactory and for effective relationship more frequent meetings are desired.
Mentor 3: “I would like the frequency to be a bit more because I would like to create a bond with my mentee and that would require time.”
Mentors believe that the quality of mentor mentee relationship is time bound, and the time was not sufficient for establishing effectual relationships.
Mentor 2: “I feel that proper mentor and mentee relationship can only be established, provided they have ample time to interact and communicate their needs to one another.”
Frustration with attendance
The mentors expressed their frustration with the attendance of mentees in mentoring sessions.
Mentor 4: “The sessions are scheduled but the mentees do not attempt them.”
Mentor 2: “We make ourselves available for them, but they do not bother to come to us.”
Q2. Are you satisfied with the benefits of mentorship programs?
In response to the research questions regarding satisfaction with the mentorship program, the following responses were gained from the mentors:
Most of the mentors were not satisfied with the current mentoring program and believed that that the program is not mutually beneficial for mentors and mentees.
Mentor 1 stated: “I am not satisfied with the mentoring sessions I think there is lack of clarity in expectations from the mentors as well as mentees, I think mentoring relationship is not mutually beneficial right now.”
Mentor 7 stated: “I am not satisfied with the outcome of program as the aims and objectives are not clear to both mentors and mentees.”
However, 2 mentors expressed their satisfaction with the program and one of them said:
“Yes, the program is beneficial we can give moral support to the students. We have a good time spending with each other.”-Mentor 4.
“It is a great initiative, and it is very essential for the students to feel supported.”-Mentor 8
This discussion further arose concerning the following sub-themes:
Unclear expectations of mentee
Many mentors revealed that the mentees were unaware about the goal of mentorship, and they don’t know what to expect from this relationship. On mentor said that:
Mentor 2: “I think there is lack of clarity in expectations from the mentors as well as mentees.”
The mentees believe that the program is useless as the mentors are unable to solve their problems.
Mentor 6: “They think that there is no use of these mentoring sessions…………., administrative issues of students are not resolved as administration usually do not have any action.”
Ineffective implementation & time constraint
Most of the mentors expressed the reason for their dissatisfaction is that the program is not implemented effectively, and mentors have time constraints. One mentor said:
Mentor 1: “But I don’t think so this program will become successful because most of the mentor don’t have enough time to guide students.”
The scheduling of mentoring sessions is incongruous.
Mentor 5 stated: “The scheduling of the mentoring sessions does not consider any prior engagement of the faculty sometimes.”
Q3: What are your suggestions regarding the improvement of the program?
Answers to this question led to formation of following 4 sub-themes as discussed below:
Effective Implementation
Most of the mentors recommended there should be more frequent mentor mentee meetings, matching of mentor mentee should be by choice and same mentor should continue to mentor students throughout the academic years.
Mentor 2 said: “Mentor–mentee meetings is scheduled once in a module so the frequency should be increased.”
Mentor 6 added: “I think that mentor and mentee relationship should be on choice.”
Mentor 4 further stated: “In my opinion changing of mentor every 2 years will definitely affect the program.”
Administrative collaboration
According to mentors there should be some collaboration between the mentors and administrative departments for solutions to the administrative issues presented by mentees.
Mentor 3 said: “We need to arrange meetings with administrative staff, hostel wardens, and academic coordinators to effectively resolve students’ issues.”
Training and guidance of mentors
The mentors also recognized the need for training sessions for mentors.
Mentor 8 stated: “To make the program beneficial, training of mentors should be carried out along with chief mentor who can guide the mentor how they carry out their sessions.”
d. Periodic evaluation
The mentors also suggested that the mentoring program should be periodically evaluated, and feedback should be taken from mentees to plan improvement strategies.
Mentor 7 said: “Feedback from the both the parties should be asked and incorporated to continuously improve the mentoring experiences.”
Discussion
The findings of this study represent weaknesses in the areas of input, process and output of the mentoring program. The overall perception of the program (product) was not satisfactory as reported by both mentors and mentees. Both stakeholders also identified recommendations for betterment of the program for the future.
The context (C) evaluation identified that both mentors and mentees acknowledged the need for a mentorship program at our institute. They believed that such a program could be beneficial for academic and psychological wellbeing of students. These findings are in accordance with multiple previous reports in which mentees and mentors had agreed on the importance and need of the mentorship program. Fallatah HI et al. emphasized that medical students need mentoring that focuses on career planning in addition to academic support [23]. Cutillas et al. also indicated that formal mentoring programs help medical students plan their careers, increase their research output and academic goals [24]. In the survey results, most mentees reported satisfaction with the guidance provided by mentors. However, FGDs revealed a contrasting perspective. Many students in the focus groups expressed dissatisfaction with the role of the mentors. When examined in detail, mentees indicated that mentor accessibility was problematic and that mentors were often unable to address their concerns effectively. This disparity between the survey results and the focus group discussions may be attributed to the differing nature of these methods; focus groups provide an opportunity for a deeper exploration of participants' thoughts, feelings, and perceptions, which can uncover nuances not captured in survey responses. The mentors and mentees accepted the fact they were not aware about the objectives of the program and the expectations from each other which they were supposed to meet. Previous studies have emphasized and recommended that mentoring program goals should be clearly articulated to participating mentors and mentees and an orientation should be provided at the beginning of each academic year [25, 26–27].
The Input (I) evaluation identified a few weaknesses of our program like inappropriate scheduling of sessions, and insufficient training of mentors. Regarding scheduling of the sessions, the mentors emphasized that the sessions should be coordinated well in advance or flexible scheduling options should be provided so that they could adjust the sessions based on availability of both. They also suggested that communication means like emails should be used for easy accessibility of mentors. Fallatah HI et al. suggested that allocation of suitable amounts of flexible time for mentoring activities is crucial for the success of mentoring program [25]. Evaluation of documents revealed that when the program was initiated a single training session was provided to the mentors. In the mentor survey, the mentors themselves pointed out the need for more training sessions. The mentees also emphasized the need for training mentors. Training should include providing constructive feedback, communication skills, and handling sensitive issues. This notion is supported by many studies in literature which have emphasized the need of continuous training and guidance to mentors which is essential for a successful mentorship program in medical institutes [28, 29–30]. A study identified insufficient training of mentors to be a significant obstacle in the success of the mentoring program [31]. Eller et al. also identified accessibility and faculty development workshops regarding mentoring as key elements of effective mentoring relationships [32].
The Process (P) evaluation revealed that low attendance of the mentees, communication gap and lack of administrative collaboration are major hindrances in making mentorship programs successful. Best practices suggest that mentee attendance improves significantly when programs communicate clear benefits, such as academic guidance, and career planning. A study conducted with mentors of a medical school in Brazil, reported failure in motivating students to participate in mentorship sessions led to discourage the mentors to further continue the mentorship program [33]. Attendance of students poses a challenge in formal mentoring programs due to the complex dynamics involving mentor–mentee relationship, and the institution can play a role in maintaining that [23]. Our study also reports communication gap being a major obstacle in a good mentor–mentee relationship as pointed out by mentors as well as mentees. Various studies have reported proper and timely communication between the mentors and mentees makes a successful mentor–mentee relationship and which ultimately makes a mentorship program effective [34, 35]. Moreover, administrative support being a major pillar of a successful mentorship program [36], was being missing in our study as reported by the mentors.
Moreover, the product (P) evaluation revealed dissatisfaction of mentors and mentees with mentoring relationships and achievement of the goals of program. Most mentees believed that any sort of relationship between mentors and mentees is inexistent. Although the results of this evaluation revealed that the program objectives are not fully achieved as desired, however, both mentor and mentee participants recognized the importance of the program positively. This positive reception regarding the importance of mentorship program and suggested future implications may lead to achieving the goals of program if planned and executed well. Literature has cited that mentors and mentees have perceived many benefits of the mentoring programs, such as relationship building, knowledge exchange, positive impact on professional development, personal satisfaction, and self-reflection goals [23, 24, 32]. The mentees revealed that these sessions have served as valuable opportunities for them to receive guidance and plan their studies effectively in addition to the academic guidance they get. Both mentors and mentees were optimistic that through meticulous planning and effective implementation, program goals can be achieved, yielding outcomes that align with their expectations and bring about beneficial results.
Previous studies have identified similar challenges in mentorship programs. Many prior studies in medical education have reported the common issues in mentorship programs such as mentors’ time constraints, mismatch in expectations, unclear aims and inadequate mentor training [37, 38]. Most prior studies rely on satisfaction surveys or unstructured reflections, not a theory-driven evaluation model. Here we applied the CIPP evaluation framework to a newly implemented mentorship program combining both quantitative and qualitative methods. As the structured evaluation is underreported in South Asian/lower middle-income countries’ (LMICs) medical schools, this study provides a replicable structured method for medical colleges in LMICs to adopt and compare their mentorship programs in future.
Limitations
When interpreting the results of this evaluation, it's important to consider several limitations. This study collected data at a single point in time and demonstrated short-term mentee and mentor experiences and satisfaction. Another limitation was the subjectivity of the data as most of the data was self-reported by mentees and mentors which can introduce information bias in the study as none of the mentoring sessions were observed.
Summary and recommendations
Based on the results of the survey and FGDs with mentors and mentees, this study makes the following recommendations:
Clear Objectives and outcomes: The objectives and outcomes of the program must be conveyed to mentors and mentees at the beginning of the program.
Matching Process: Matching procedure should involve mentees selecting their own mentors in accordance with their objectives, passions, backgrounds, and personalities.
Training for Mentors: Training should be provided to mentors to equip them with the skills and knowledge needed to support and guide their mentees effectively.
Evaluation and Continuous Improvement: Program should establish procedures for periodic evaluation of the mentoring program’s efficacy. Collect feedback from mentors and mentees to determine the program's strengths and weaknesses and gather suggestions to improve the program.
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. There are some weaknesses of the program like unclear aims and objectives, matching process of mentees and mentors, inaccessible mentors and mentees to each other and lack of training of mentors regarding the program. Continuous assessment, feedback and taking proper steps for improvement can make the program more beneficial to both mentees and mentors.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the faculty members and students at Dow International Medical College who participated in the study.
Authors’ contributions
Conception/design of the work: MF, UA, SIH, AAU. Data collection, data analysis and interpretation: AK, UA, BR, SIH. Drafting the article: MF, UA, AK, AAU, BR, AMK, SIH. Critical revision of the article, and final approval: MF, UA, AK, AAU, BR, AMK, SIH. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding
No funding was applied for this study.
Data availability
All data has been included in the study however it is available with the corresponding author and may be provided on request.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan. The approval number was IRB/3221/DUHS/approval/2023/430. Participants were included after informed consent.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
1. Wu, J; Olagunju, AT. Mentorship in medical education: reflections on the importance of both unofficial and official mentorship programs. BMC Med Educ.; 2024; 24,
2. Scholz, A; Gehres, V; Schrimpf, A; Bleckwenn, M; Deutsch, T; Geier, A-K. Long-term mentoring relationships in undergraduate longitudinal general practice tracks–a qualitative study on the perspective of students and general practitioners. Med Educ Online.; 2023; 28,
3. Cellini, MM; Serwint, JR; D'Alessandro, DM; Schulte, EE; Osman, C. Evaluation of a speed mentoring program: achievement of short-term mentee goals and potential for longer-term relationships. Acad Pediatr.; 2017; 17,
4. Roddy, SP. Mentoring and lifelong learning. J Vasc Surg.; 2024; 80,
5. Ehsanian, V; Derijani, F; Khorraminia, M; Eiliaei, S. Implementation and evaluation of a mentoring and counseling program for medical students at Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences. BMC Med Educ.; 2025; 25,
6. Szymańska-Tworek, A. Mentoring as professional development for mentors. Theory Pract Second Language Acquisition.; 2022; 2,
7. Caruso, TJ; Kung, T; Piro, N; Li, J; Katznelson, L; Dohn, A. A sustainable and effective mentorship model for graduate medical education programs. J Graduate Med Educ.; 2019; 11,
8. McKenna, AM; Straus, SE. Charting a professional course: a review of mentorship in medicine. J Am College Radiol.; 2011; 8,
9. Heimann B, Pittenger KK. The impact of formal mentorship on socialization and commitment of newcomers. J Managerial Issues. 1996;8(1):108–17.
10. Ong, YT; Quek, CWN; Pisupati, A; Loh, EKY; Venktaramana, V; Chiam, M; Krishna, LKR. Mentoring future mentors in undergraduate medical education. PLoS One.; 2022; 17,
11. Keinänen, A-L; Lähdesmäki, R; Juntunen, J; Tuomikoski, A-M; Kääriäinen, M; Mikkonen, K. Effectiveness of mentoring education on health care professionals mentoring competence: a systematic review. Nurse Educ Today.; 2023; 121, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2023.105709] 105709.
12. Wolff, M; Deiorio, NM; Miller Juve, A; Richardson, J; Gazelle, G; Moore, M et al. Beyond advising and mentoring: competencies for coaching in medical education. Medic Teach.; 2021; 43,
13. Burgess, A; van Diggele, C; Mellis, C. Mentorship in the health professions: a review. Clin Teach.; 2018; 15,
14. Ghaffari, R; Hassanzadeh, S; Ranjbarzadeh, FS; Golanbar, P; Sarbazvatan, H; Motarebsun, N et al. The challenges of mentorship system at Tabriz University of Medical Sciences and providing solutions from the perspective of mentors, students and collaborators. Res Dev Med Educ.; 2020; 9,
15. Deng, C; Turner, N. Identifying key mentor characteristics for successful workplace mentoring relationships and programmes. Person Rev.; 2024; 53,
16. Burke, E; Hennessy, M. Evaluation of an early career clinical academic training programme using the CIPP model. BMJ Open.; 2021; 11,
17. Alhassan, AI. Analyzing the application of mixed method methodology in medical education: a qualitative study. BMC Med Educ.; 2024; 24,
18. Karhapää, S-J; Ikonen, M. Trust during the mentoring process from the mentor’s perspective. Nordic J Business.; 2023; 72,
19. Skjevik, EPP. Group-based mentoring in undergraduate medical education; 2024;
20. Berk, RA; Berg, J; Mortimer, R; Walton-Moss, B; Yeo, TP. Measuring the effectiveness of faculty mentoring relationships. Acad Med.; 2005; 80,
21. Rose, GL. Enhancement of mentor selection using the ideal mentor scale. Res High Educ.; 2003; 44, pp. 473-94. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1024289000849]
22. Braun, V; Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol.; 2006; 3,
23. Nimmons D, Giny S, Rosenthal J. Medical student mentoring programs: current insights. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2019;10:113–23.
24. Cutillas, A; Benolirao, E; Camasura, J; Golbin, R, Jr; Yamagishi, K; Ocampo, L. Does mentoring directly improve students’ research skills? Examining the role of information literacy and competency development. Educ Sci.; 2023; 13,
25. Fallatah, HI; Soo Park, Y; Farsi, J; Tekian, A. Mentoring clinical-year medical students: factors contributing to effective mentoring. J Med Educ Curric Dev.; 2018; 5, 2382120518757717. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2382120518757717]
26. Hughes, C; Boyd, E; Dykstra, SJ. Evaluation of a university-based mentoring program: mentors’ perspectives on a service-learning experience. Mentor Tutoring Partner Learn.; 2010; 18,
27. Chukwu OA, Nadigel J, Kasaai B, Boateng R, Glazier RH, McMahon M. Understanding the training, mentorship, and professional development priorities of early‑career embedded researchers. Int J Health Plann Manage. 2024;39(5):1277–97.
28. Cohee, BM; Koplin, SA; Shimeall, WT; Quast, TM; Hartzell, JD. Results of a formal mentorship program for internal medicine residents: can we facilitate genuine mentorship?. J Grad Med Educ.; 2015; 7,
29. Vorachek, L; Critchfield, S. The role of mentoring in tenuring and promoting women at the University of Dayton; 2020;
30. Ramani S, Kusurkar RA, Lyon-Maris J, Pyörälä E, Rogers GD, Samarasekera DD, et al. Mentorship in health professions education – an AMEE guide for mentors and mentees: AMEE Guide No. 167. Med Teach. 2023;46(8):999–1011.
31. Jordan, J; Watcha, D; Cassella, C; Kaji, AH; Trivedi, S. Impact of a mentorship program on medical student burnout. AEM Educ Train.; 2019; 3,
32. Eller, LS; Lev, EL; Feurer, A. Key components of an effective mentoring relationship: a qualitative study. Nurse Educ Today.; 2014; 34,
33. Gonçalves, MdCN; Bellodi, PL. Mentors also need support: a study on their difficulties and resources in medical schools. São Paulo Med J.; 2012; 130, pp. 252-8. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1516-31802012000400009]
34. Henry-Noel, N; Bishop, M; Gwede, CK; Petkova, E; Szumacher, E. Mentorship in medicine and other health professions. J Cancer Educ.; 2019; 34, pp. 629-37. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13187-018-1360-6]
35. van den Eertwegh, V; van Dulmen, S; van Dalen, J; Scherpbier, AJ; van der Vleuten, CP. Learning in context: Identifying gaps in research on the transfer of medical communication skills to the clinical workplace. Patient Educ Couns.; 2013; 90,
36. Woods, SK; Burgess, L; Kaminetzky, C; McNeill, D; Pinheiro, S; Heflin, MT. Defining the roles of advisors and mentors in postgraduate medical education: faculty perceptions, roles, responsibilities, and resource needs. J Grad Med Educ.; 2010; 2,
37. Noormahomed, E; Williams, P; Lescano, AG; Raj, T; Bukusi, EA; Schooley, RT; Cohen, CR. The evolution of mentorship capacity development in low-and middle-income countries: case studies from Peru, Kenya, India, and Mozambique. Am J Trop Med Hyg.; 2018; 100,
38. Myers HE, Muhanna M, Maloney ME, Scanlan LG, Ange B, Spearman-McCarthy V, Arora TK. Medical student mentorship for undergraduate students underrepresented in medicine improves confidence and knowledge about medical school application. Cureus. 2024;16(6):e63366.
© The Author(s) 2025. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.