Mentorship in postgraduate training programmes: views of Canadian programme directors
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVES: Many academic training programmes have developed mentorship programmes for postgraduate doctors in training, but little is known about the factors that influence their establishment. METHODS: Canadian postgraduate training directors were surveyed to determine views on mentorship and factors associated with the establishment of these programmes. RESULTS: A total of 199 of 344 (58%) programme directors completed an online survey. Overall, 65% of respondents reported that their training programmes had a mentorship programme and 40% felt there was a need for more structured mentorship in training programmes. Univariate analysis showed that mentorship programmes were present significantly more often in larger programmes, internal medicine-based training programmes, and in programmes where the acting programme director had either been part of a mentorship programme during his or her own training or felt that mentorship had played an important role in his or her professional development. In adjusting for covariates using a logistic regression analysis, only those factors directly attributable to a programme director's personal mentoring experiences remained significantly associated with having a mentorship programme. Those who felt that mentorship had played a role in their own careers (P = 0.008, odds ratio [OR] = 3.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.7-6.6) or who had been part of a mentorship programme during their own training (P = 0.01, OR = 6.6, 95% CI 1.4-30.1) were more likely to have an active mentorship programme at their institution. CONCLUSIONS: A need for more structured mentorship was identified for many training programmes. Overall, programme directors' previous mentoring experiences were independently associated with having a mentorship programme.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle