Mentoring for professional development and the future of nutrition and dietetics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mentoring, a supportive and reciprocal learning relationship, is widely recognised across many professions as a professional development tool.1-3 The profession of nutrition and dietetics in Australia values the role mentoring plays in professional development evidenced through the Accredited Practising Dietitian programme.4 Mentoring is a potentially powerful tool for practitioners and researchers. Mentoring appears to have the potential to develop skills, instill confidence and support achievement of professional goals and career directions.3, 5 Mentoring has been recognised as an important strategy to develop the profession of dietetics in Australia,6 America,7 Canada8 and South Africa.9 While the potential value and role of mentoring as contributing to practice improvement has been proposed, there is limited evidence on its effectiveness and outcomes. A recent study investigating the experience and effect of mentoring on professional development in the field of public health and community nutrition identified that mentoring improved confidence, competence (by 15%), enhanced professional support networks and increased capacity for public health nutrition.10 This is the only published study that has attempted to measure the effect and outcomes of mentoring in nutrition and dietetics. The present study identified that the key elements to the success of the mentoring intervention was the attributes and characteristics of the mentor and the mentoring circle format. It also identified the challenges in measuring the effectiveness and outcomes of mentoring programmes. The important attributes of the mentor identified in the present study included having experience in and a passion for the field of practice, facilitating a trusting relationship and providing effective feedback.10 These attributes are supported in the wider literature as important characteristics of the mentor and mentoring relationship. The mentor is a role model who promotes independence, encourages and motivates and is responsible for guiding their mentee through professional circles.11 The mentee also has a key role in determining the direction of the relationship and identifying outcomes.1 The mentoring relationship is based on reciprocity, trust and confidentiality whereby objectivity is maintained and equality promoted.11 The role of the mentor is to support the design of professional development plans, through active listening and asking questions. The mentee must commit to mentoring and driving their own professional development, accept feedback and take responsibility for their learning and development.1, 5, 11, 12 It is important for individuals in our profession to examine their skills as a mentor and advocate for the important role mentoring plays in professional development. While mentoring has traditionally been in the form of a more junior professional being placed with a senior experienced colleague, today peer and group mentoring models are described to increase efficiency and reduce mentor burden, and both formal and informal relationships are recognised.5 Mentoring circles, whereby a group of colleagues form together to support each other learn,13 create a safe and supportive environment for learning in my study.10 Having small groups made up of practitioners with similar roles and levels of experience creates a safe environment for learning. The confidentiality of the group and sharing between peers are also important for learning. As one person cannot provide all the relevant skills and experience throughout a career, multiple mentors may be utlised.14 The nutrition and dietetics profession must seek to acknowledge alternative forms of mentoring, including group formats, peer mentoring and the traditional one-to-one mentoring. We have a profession that is ripe for mentoring. We are at the edge of key research findings and innovative practice and have a business, food and nutrition, that is central to political debates across government, for example, obesity and environmental change. Mentoring has played a role in achieving our current success as a developing profession.14 It is through continued mentoring of our novices, through to our experts, which will enable us to achieve our goals. We must also rise to the challenge of measuring the effectiveness of mentoring relationships. The difficulties of measuring mentoring effectiveness have been acknowledged.15 The positivist paradigm offers little scope in measuring mentoring effectiveness.16, 17 It is generally not practical or ethical to randomise professionals to educational interventions, such as mentoring;16, 18 however, we need to learn from other innovative professional development endeavours, such as inter-professional education,19 and aim to measure the effect of mentoring practitioners on the health of the populations we serve. Qualitative and mixed-methodologies offer an approach to appropriately answer our questions in educational research.17 Using qualitative criteria has been suggested as a way to monitor the effect of mentoring.15 Portfolios offer a potential avenue for measurement of professional development. Portfolios are a collection of material that provide evidence of learning and identify future learning needs and opportunities.20, 21 Portfolios can be reliably used for assessment when qualitative assessment methodologies are applied.20 In the context of mentoring, assessment should be conducted independently to not affect the relationship. Portfolios could be considered as part of the mentoring package for our profession into the future. Mentoring is a potentially powerful experience for the nutrition and dietetics workforce. Mentoring may be viewed as part of a multi-strategy approach to workforce development that facilitates reflective practice in combination with workplace experience. The profession of nutrition and dietetics should embrace mentoring as a key element for continued success.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".