Students’ Perception of Peer- Students Mentoring Program “Big Sibling Mentoring Program” to Complement Faculty Mentoring of First-Year Medical Students in Saudi Arabia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sarah A Alobaid,1 Mohammed Basem Beyari,1 Reem Bin Idris,1 Mohammed H Alhumud,1 Lamia A Alkuwaiz,2 Faisal Alsaif,3 Mansour Aljabry,4 Bandar Aljafen,5 Mona Soliman6 1College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 2Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, McGill University Health Centre, Montréal, Quebec, Canada; 3Fellowship and Residency Training Program, King Khaled Eye Specialist Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 4Pathology Department, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 5Medicine Department, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 6Medical Education & Physiology, Vice Dean of Academic Affairs, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi ArabiaCorrespondence: Mona Soliman, Medical Education and Physiology, College of Medicine, King Saud University, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Tel +966505468581, Email msoliman1@ksu.edu.saBackground: The Big Sibling Program is an innovative peer student mentoring method that was designed and implemented by the students’ council in 2021 to complement the faculty mentoring program of first-year medical students in the College of Medicine, King Saud University, Saudi Arabia. The aim of the study was to evaluate the medical students’ perception of the peer students “Big Sibling” mentoring program and to assess the effectiveness of the program in terms of changes in the behavior and academic performance of the students.Methods: This is a retrospective study that was conducted in 2021. A registration form that includes demographic data, personal information, and academic performance (GPA and extracurricular achievements) was sent to all second- and third-year medical students to select the Big Siblings. A total of 49 mentors “Big Siblings” were accepted (30 males, 19 females) and matched randomly with the little siblings from first-year medical students. A written consent was obtained from the participants. The survey was structured on a 5-point Likert scale, and composed of four sections of closed-ended questions, that includes: the demographic data, the students’ (little sibling) evaluation of the mentorship sessions, the little sibling perception of the Big Sibling Program and its effectiveness of the Big Sibling Program in terms of behavioral or quality effects.Results: Out of 297 first-year medical students, 284 (95.62%) responded. The majority significantly agreed that the Big Sibling was readily available and they personally benefitted from the relationship (94.36%, p< 0.001; 90.14%, p< 0.001). They significantly disagreed that the relationship requires too much time (72.54%, p< 0.001) or that they do not need a mentor (78.87%, p< 0.001). Most significantly agreed that mentoring is a good idea (94.37%, p< 0.001), the program helped reduce their stress (84.51%, p< 0.001), helped them adjust to college (89.44%, p< 0.001), and advance academically (78.52%, p< 0.001). The program also encouraged their involvement in extracurricular activities (58.10%, p< 0.0001), research (43.31%, p< 0.001), and social engagement with peers (71.48%, p< 0.001). Moreover, the majority thought the program significantly improved their self-confidence (73.94%, p< 0.001), self-awareness (84.51%), accountability (54.51%), leadership (54.93%), resilience (71.13%), punctuality (69.01%, p< 0.001), time management (75.70%), stress coping (77.82%), problem-solving (76.76%), and teamwork (75.35%).Conclusion: Peer students’ big Siblings program has succeeded in reducing first-year medical students stress levels, improving their self-confidence, self-awareness, accountability and responsibility, leadership, resilience, punctuality and engaging them in research and extracurricular activities.Keywords: Medical students, big sibling program, mentoring, peer mentoring, mentoring program
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 | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".