Factors influencing mentors’ satisfaction: A study from medical schools in Norway and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phenomenon: The mentoring of undergraduate medical students has been shown to benefit the mentors; however, detailed information on the factors that influence the satisfaction and motivation of mentors remains unclear. Such knowledge can be useful in sustaining group mentorship programs. The aim of this study was to investigate the experiences and perspectives of mentors to ascertain the factors that contribute to satisfaction and motivation. \n Approach: As part of a larger research project, a survey was sent out to mentors at UiT the Arctic University of Norway, the University of Bergen and McGill University (N=461). Descriptive statistics, linear regression and factor analyses were used to examine the data in order to map factors associated with mentor satisfaction. \n Findings: The overall response rate was 59% (n=272/461). Mentors reported a high mean satisfaction score of 4.55 (±0.04, median 5.00) on a five-point Likert scale. Six out of nine statements describing how mentors approach group mentoring were strongly correlated with each other. Through factor analysis of the items, we found a dominating factor labeled “Student-centered mentoring approach” which was strongly associated with the level of satisfaction as a mentor. Additionally, highly satisfied mentors took a greater interest in patient-centered medicine and their students’ personal development. Their groups spent more time discussing students’ clinical experiences, societal poverty and health, and patients’ suffering and sickness. \n Insights: Our findings suggest that high mentor satisfaction, which is important for the pedagogical quality and sustainability of mentor programs, is related to the mentors’ student-centeredness and their interest in topics concerning professionalism. By preparing mentors for their roles and supporting them in developing strategies for establishing good mentoring relationships, the outcomes of group mentoring may be improved both for mentors and students. Interest in students’ personal development and the mentors’ own professional development seem to be indicators of mentors’ satisfaction and should be encouraged in mentorship programs.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".