Student Peer Mentorship in Prelicensure Nursing Programs: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A scoping review was undertaken to inform the development of a peer mentoring program in the nursing faculty of an official-language francophone minority post-secondary institution in Western Canada. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with mentorship coordinators in seven undergraduate nursing programs across Canada. The results of the semi-structured interviews were used to corroborate the information gathered during the scoping review. Analysis of the scoping review showed that the mentoring programs were designed based on a perceived need expressed by faculty and students. All programs involved a multi-stage implementation and evaluation process. Many articles focused on the benefits of implementing mentoring programs based on the mentees’ and mentors’ perspectives. The scoping review revealed that, in general, the mentoring program reduced mentees’ stress and anxiety, that they felt guided and supported, and that they experienced a sense of well-being in the presence of their mentors; they also found that mentees thought they performed better academically. Several authors found that mentors participating in the mentoring program improved and developed their leadership and communication skills, sense of well-being, and self-confidence. The semi-structured interviews with mentoring coordinators corroborate these findings. This examination revealed that nursing students—mentors and mentees—generally found the peer mentoring program beneficial and that their participation enhanced their learning abilities and individual development. Recommendations include proper orientation for mentors and mentees, including role expectations and clarity. The selection process and pairing of mentors and mentees is essential, and the dyads need to be compatible for the program's success. Open communication between all parties involved and a feedback system must be implemented and encouraged for improvement.
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 | 0.097 | 0.198 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.032 | 0.032 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".