Piloting virtual mentorship: Evaluating acceptability and influence on wellness and professional identity in medical oncology (MO).
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
11022 Background: Despite extensive literature on the value of mentorship in academic medicine, little evidence exists to inform mentorship practices in MO. In 2021, the Canadian Association of Medical Oncologists (CAMO) piloted a national, 6-month virtual mentorship program consisting of 2 group mentoring events and additional 1-on-1 mentoring activities, to better support the needs of MO trainees. Feedback was obtained from participants to gain insight into how virtual mentorship might impact physician wellness and formation of professional identity, and to inform future iterations of CAMO’s virtual mentorship strategy. Methods: All Canadian MO residents/fellows were invited to participate in the program. Electronic surveys were completed by participants at baseline, after each group event, and at program completion. Surveys evaluated the program content and format, and used validated questionnaires for evaluating physician wellness/burnout (Stanford Professional Fulfillment Index [SPFI]), and professional identity (Macleod Clark Professional Identity Scale [MCPIS]). Cohort characteristics and survey responses were summarized using descriptive statistics. Procedures for survey data collection and analysis were ethics approved. Results: At baseline, respondents (n = 38) were predominantly female (63%), and < 35 years (76%). 50% were married. On average, 78% of respondents ranked the virtual group mentoring events as meeting expectations. Program strengths identified by participants included meeting mentors outside of their own centre, meeting other trainees from across the country, and learning more about work-life balance/physician wellness. The main critique was insufficient time for interaction. Of the 34 MCPIS respondents, 94% were pleased to belong to the profession of MO, 91% identified positively with members of their profession and 77% felt like a member of the profession themselves. The average score on the SPFI scale was 2.73±0.71 (n = 34). Although 85% of respondents found their work meaningful, 71% satisfying, and 50% felt they were contributing professionally in valued ways, only 38% met criteria for professional fulfilment (score ≥3.00). 27% met criteria for burnout (score ≥1.33), 15% found their work physically exhausting and 9% found their work emotionally exhausting. Conclusions: CAMO’s pilot virtual mentorship program highlights that technology can be successfully leveraged to facilitate mentoring. The majority of MO trainees identified positively with their profession, yet only 38% reached the threshold for professional fulfillment and nearly a third met criteria for burnout. Longitudinal follow-up among mentored trainees is needed to provide insight into whether mentorship may influence physician wellness and professional identity over time.
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 | 0,018 | 0,041 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 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 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 ».