Canadian Hematology Mentorship and Career Counseling Resident Survey (2015-2017)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Residency is a stressful, overwhelming period during which medical trainees work long hours, experience intense work demands, and often have significant anxiety around the future of their career. Those who support residents through their training play a pivotal and formative role in residents' professional development. These individuals may be described as advisors, teachers, or, simply, mentors. Studies demonstrate that formal mentorship during medical training fosters career progression and decision making, academic productivity, stress reduction, and can enhance clinical skills. Despite this, many residents across various subspecialties report inherent deficiencies in mentoring programs. These include residents in internal medicine, ophthalmology, pediatric primary care, and radiation oncology. No study has investigated hematology resident perspectives on mentorship and career planning. We conducted a needs assessment survey to identify deficiencies in current Canadian hematology residency mentoring programs. Consistent with resident perspectives in other subspecialty training programs, we predict that there is a paucity of effective mentorship in hematology residency curriculums that warrants consideration. Methods This research received an exemption from the University of Toronto Research Ethics Committee. All Canadian PGY4, PGY5, and PGY6 residents enrolled in a Royal College of Canada Hematology Training Program were invited to complete an online survey on training experience at the end of their training program in 2015, 2016, and 2017. The survey was hosted on SurveyMonkey. Content domains explored in the survey included academic influences, career goals and aspirations, and resident perceptions on career planning and mentorship. Participation in this research was voluntary and survey responses were collected anonymously. Comparisons were made in study responses based on categorization by age, gender, and level of training. Results Overall, 156 hematology residents responded to the survey (65% response rate). The gender distribution was 45% (N=70) male and 54% (N=84) female. Forty-three percent (N=66) of respondents were 25-29 years of age, 50% (N=78) were 30-34, and 7% (N=11) were 35 years of age or older. Of all survey respondents, 30% (N=46) were in their fourth year of post-graduate medical training, 39% (N=60) were in their fifth year, and 31% (N=47) of respondents were in their sixth year of post-graduate training or higher. Specific to career planning and mentorship (Table 1), 37% (N=56) of respondents reported that career planning was never a part of their training curriculum. Only 30 individuals (20%) reported having an assigned mentor for career planning. 64% (N=96) of residents reported that they had to seek out their own mentorship for career planning and only 61% (N=92) of trainees indicated that they felt they received meaningful advice on career planning from their mentors. No notable statistically significant difference in study responses were found when comparing by age and level of training. When analyzing the influence of mentorship on pursuing further training following residency, women were found to be more concerned on the influence of mentorship than men (2015: median, 3.0 vs. 4.0, P = 0.0049). Location of employment (2015: median, 4.0 vs. 5.0, P = 0.0407; 2016: median, 4.0 vs. 5.0, P = 0.0132) and perceived lack of academic positions (2015: median, 3.0 vs. 5.0, P = 0.0235; 2016: median, 3.0 vs. 4.0, P = 0.0042) also impacted the pursuit of additional graduate training or clinical fellowships. In this regard, the gender associated statistical significance reflected that women are greater influenced than men. Conclusions Results of this preliminary survey confirm that a significant portion of Canadian hematology trainees do not have sufficient career planning and mentorship during their training. This heralds the need for improvement to current Canadian hematology residency curricula as mentorship is instrumental in making sound decisions for advanced training and career exploration at an early stage. Future surveys are planned to clarify additional factors and interventions that may improve mentorship and career counseling for Canadian hematology trainees that can be extrapolated to all programs internationally. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".