Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Assessing mentoring: A scoping review of mentoring assessment tools in internal medicine between 1990 and 2019.
PLoS One. 2020; 15(5):e0232511.Plos

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Mentoring's success in enhancing a mentee's professional and personal development, and a host organisations' reputation has been called into question, amidst a lack of effective tools to evaluate mentoring relationships and guide oversight of mentoring programs. A scoping review is proposed to map available literature on mentoring assessment tools in Internal Medicine to guide design of new tools.

OBJECTIVE

The review aims to explore how novice mentoring is assessed in Internal Medicine, including the domains assessed, and the strengths and limitations of the assessment methods.

METHODS

Guided by Levac et al.'s framework for scoping reviews, 12 reviewers conducted independent literature reviews of assessment tools in novice mentoring in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, ERIC, Cochrane, GreyLit, Web of Science, Open Dissertations and British Education Index databases. A 'split approach' saw research members adopting either Braun and Clarke's approach to thematic analysis or directed content analysis to independently evaluate the data and improve validity and objectivity of the findings.

RESULTS

9662 abstracts were identified, 187 full-text articles reviewed, and 54 full-text articles included. There was consensus on the themes and categories identified through the use of the split approach, which were the domains assessed and methods of assessment.

CONCLUSION

Most tools fail to contend with mentoring's evolving nature and provide mere snap shots of the mentoring process largely from the mentee's perspective. The lack of holistic, longitudinal and validated assessments propagate fears that ethical issues in mentoring are poorly recognized and addressed. To this end, we forward a framework for the design of 'fit for purpose' multi-dimensional tools.

PRACTICE POINTS

Most tools focus on the mentee's perspective, do not consider mentoring's evolving nature and fail to consider mentoring holistically nor longitudinallyA new tool capable of addressing these gaps must also consider inputs from all stakeholders and take a longitudinal perspective of mentoring.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. Division of Supportive and Palliative Care, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. Division of Supportive and Palliative Care, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.Division of Supportive and Palliative Care, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore.Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. Division of Supportive and Palliative Care, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. Division of Supportive and Palliative Care, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. Division of Supportive and Palliative Care, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. Division of Supportive and Palliative Care, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.Medical Library, National University of Singapore Libraries, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.Department of Family Medicine, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore.Division of Supportive and Palliative Care, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.Education Department, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore.Cancer Research Centre, Marie Curie Palliative Care Institute, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, England, United Kingdom.Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. Education Department, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore. Division of Medical Oncology, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. Division of Supportive and Palliative Care, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. Education Department, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore. Cancer Research Centre, Marie Curie Palliative Care Institute, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, England, United Kingdom. Centre of Biomedical Ethics, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. Division of Cancer Education, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore. PalC, The Palliative Care Centre for Excellence in Research and Education, Singapore, Singapore.

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article
Review

Language

eng

PubMed ID

32384090

Citation

Ng, Yong Xiang, et al. "Assessing Mentoring: a Scoping Review of Mentoring Assessment Tools in Internal Medicine Between 1990 and 2019." PloS One, vol. 15, no. 5, 2020, pp. e0232511.
Ng YX, Koh ZYK, Yap HW, et al. Assessing mentoring: A scoping review of mentoring assessment tools in internal medicine between 1990 and 2019. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(5):e0232511.
Ng, Y. X., Koh, Z. Y. K., Yap, H. W., Tay, K. T., Tan, X. H., Ong, Y. T., Tan, L. H. E., Chin, A. M. C., Toh, Y. P., Shivananda, S., Compton, S., Mason, S., Kanesvaran, R., & Krishna, L. (2020). Assessing mentoring: A scoping review of mentoring assessment tools in internal medicine between 1990 and 2019. PloS One, 15(5), e0232511. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232511
Ng YX, et al. Assessing Mentoring: a Scoping Review of Mentoring Assessment Tools in Internal Medicine Between 1990 and 2019. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(5):e0232511. PubMed PMID: 32384090.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Assessing mentoring: A scoping review of mentoring assessment tools in internal medicine between 1990 and 2019. AU - Ng,Yong Xiang, AU - Koh,Zachary Yong Keat, AU - Yap,Hong Wei, AU - Tay,Kuang Teck, AU - Tan,Xiu Hui, AU - Ong,Yun Ting, AU - Tan,Lorraine Hui En, AU - Chin,Annelissa Mien Chew, AU - Toh,Ying Pin, AU - Shivananda,Sushma, AU - Compton,Scott, AU - Mason,Stephen, AU - Kanesvaran,Ravindran, AU - Krishna,Lalit, Y1 - 2020/05/08/ PY - 2020/02/12/received PY - 2020/04/16/accepted PY - 2020/5/9/entrez PY - 2020/5/10/pubmed PY - 2020/8/1/medline SP - e0232511 EP - e0232511 JF - PloS one JO - PLoS ONE VL - 15 IS - 5 N2 - BACKGROUND: Mentoring's success in enhancing a mentee's professional and personal development, and a host organisations' reputation has been called into question, amidst a lack of effective tools to evaluate mentoring relationships and guide oversight of mentoring programs. A scoping review is proposed to map available literature on mentoring assessment tools in Internal Medicine to guide design of new tools. OBJECTIVE: The review aims to explore how novice mentoring is assessed in Internal Medicine, including the domains assessed, and the strengths and limitations of the assessment methods. METHODS: Guided by Levac et al.'s framework for scoping reviews, 12 reviewers conducted independent literature reviews of assessment tools in novice mentoring in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, ERIC, Cochrane, GreyLit, Web of Science, Open Dissertations and British Education Index databases. A 'split approach' saw research members adopting either Braun and Clarke's approach to thematic analysis or directed content analysis to independently evaluate the data and improve validity and objectivity of the findings. RESULTS: 9662 abstracts were identified, 187 full-text articles reviewed, and 54 full-text articles included. There was consensus on the themes and categories identified through the use of the split approach, which were the domains assessed and methods of assessment. CONCLUSION: Most tools fail to contend with mentoring's evolving nature and provide mere snap shots of the mentoring process largely from the mentee's perspective. The lack of holistic, longitudinal and validated assessments propagate fears that ethical issues in mentoring are poorly recognized and addressed. To this end, we forward a framework for the design of 'fit for purpose' multi-dimensional tools. PRACTICE POINTS: Most tools focus on the mentee's perspective, do not consider mentoring's evolving nature and fail to consider mentoring holistically nor longitudinallyA new tool capable of addressing these gaps must also consider inputs from all stakeholders and take a longitudinal perspective of mentoring. SN - 1932-6203 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/32384090/Assessing_mentoring:_A_scoping_review_of_mentoring_assessment_tools_in_internal_medicine_between_1990_and_2019_ L2 - http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232511 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -