160: Peer Group Mentoring of Faculty in a Distributed Medical Education Setting
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Medical education is now being delivered in distributed medical education settings in many medical schools in Canada. There are scant financial and manpower resources. Foundational components necessary for faculty development have not been formally established. There was a need to implement a mentorship program to enhance faculty development. The pediatrics department in one such setting undertook a peer group mentoring pilot program to address these needs. The objective of this project was to explore the development of mentoring using a peer group model, and evaluate the benefits of such a model on faculty satisfaction, work-life balance, program and process development, personal and faculty development, as well as research gains. Adjunct faculty in the Department of Pediatrics were asked to be part of a pilot mentor-ship project for faculty in a distributed medical education setting. Research ethics approval was obtained. A collaborative and mixed methods approach was taken. The participants were interviewed at the end of the series of mentorship seminars. Evaluation forms were also collected at the end of each seminar. The group decided on a number of faculty development topics that were relevant to them. The framework for selection of topics was the CanMEDS non-expert roles. The seminars were presented at a regularly scheduled journal club. Participants: 6 to 11; Years in pediatric practice: 17 to 26 years; Number of faculty: 15; M:F – 2:1 The participants felt that the sessions were very helpful and increased collegiality. They remarked that they felt valued and that they were part of selecting the topics for peer group mentoring. Evaluation forms revealed moderate to high scores. This peer mentoring model may provide the stepping stone or the scaffolding on which to build a more conventional mentoring relationship. Benchmarks for the number of faculty achieving assistant professor status in the next five years should be made for those departments who adopt a peer mentoring program. More engagement and willingness to teach medical students and residents; increase research activities; engagement in hospital or medical school leadership; and higher medical student achievement in pediatrics could also be evaluated in the future. There is a lack of funding for this type of research. This pilot project adds to the scant body of work that supports peer or collaborative mentoring as an important pathway to achieving personal, institutional and societal goals.
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.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,009 | 0,019 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,015 | 0,002 |
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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».