Mentees’ Perspectives on the factors that influence the choice of Mentors in the Medical Profession https://doi.org/10.60787/NMJ-64-1-151
Main Article Content
Keywords
Mentor, Mentee, Mentorship, Mentee’s Choice, Doctors, Nigeria
Abstract
Background: Mentorship is an age-long act in most fields of learning. It plays a pivotal role in medical education. The strength of any mentorship relationship could have a direct bearing on the character traits of the mentor. We aimed to determine factors that influence the choice of mentors by potential mentees in a formal mentorship relationship among medical doctors in Rivers State, Nigeria.
Methodology: This was a descriptive cross-sectional survey that recruited potential mentees by convenience sampling. A semi-structured questionnaire was distributed via a monkey survey. The tool had sections that addressed mentees' expectations, perceived factors that influence the choice of mentors, and ways to improve the mentors-mentee relationship, using a 5-point Likert scale. Data were analyzed.
Results: Of the 162 mentees recruited, 95 (58.6%) were females. The predominant age group was 31-40 years (40.1%). The majority, 137 (84.6%), practiced in public hospitals, and 102 (63%) were non-specialist doctors. The most common factor that influenced the choice of mentors as indicated by 156 (96.3%) participants was the ability of the mentors to help the mentees advance in their fields and connect them to opportunities. The two most cited areas of interest for mentorship were leadership in health organizations and research. Over 90% of mentees agreed that the roles of effective mentors are discussing possible solutions to difficult issues, identifying opportunities, and sharing personal experiences.
Conclusion: Mentorship enables the targeted development of mentees. When developing mentoring programs and evaluating mentors, it is important to consider mentees' opinions on the factors that impact their choice of mentors.
References
2. Burgess A, van Diggele C, Mellis C. Mentorship in the health professions: a review. Clin Teach 2018; 15:197–202.
3. Mubuuke AG, Mbalinda SN, Munabi IG, Kateete D, Opoka RB, Kiguli S. Knowledge, attitudes and practices of faculty on mentorship: an exploratory interpretivist study at a sub-Saharan African medical school. BMC Med Educ2020;20:192.
4. Sambunjak D, Straus SE, Marusić A. Mentoring in academic medicine: a systematic review. JAMA2006;296:1103–15.
5. Buddeberg-Fischer B, Herta KD. Formal mentoring programmes for medical students and doctors--a review of the Medlineliterature. Med Teach2006; 28:248–57.
6. Overeem K, Wollersheim H, Driessen E, Lombarts K, van de Ven G, Grol R, et al. Doctors’ perceptions of why 360-degree feedback does (not) work: a qualitative study. Med Educ 2009;43:874–82.
7. Van Schaik S, Plant J, O’Sullivan P. Promoting self-directed learning through portfolios in undergraduate medical education: The mentors’perspective. Med Teach2013; 35:139–44.
8. Connor MP, Bynoe AG, Redfern N, Pokora J, Clarke J. Developing senior doctors as mentors: a form of continuing professional development. Report Of an initiative to develop a network of senior doctors as mentors: 1994-99. Med Educ2000;34:747–53.
9. MianA. True mentorship in medicine. Can Fam Physician Med Fam Can2011;57:252.
10. Long J. The dark side of mentoring. Aust Educ Res1997;24:115–33.
11. Ughasoro M, Musa A, Yakubu A, Adefuye B, Folahanmi A, Isah A, et al. Barriers and solutions to effective mentorship in health research and training institutions in Nigeria: Mentors, mentees, and organizational perspectives. Niger J Clin Pract2022;25:215.
12. Buowari D, Ebirim L. Mentoring: A Survey of Resident Doctors in a Developing Country. Yen Med J2021;3:67–74.
13.Iloh GP, Chukwuonye M, Onya O, Godswill-Uko E. Mentoring in a resource-constrained context: A single-institutional cross-sectional study ofthe prevalence, benefits, barriers and predictors among post-graduate medical college fellows and members in South-Eastern Nigeria. Niger Postgrad Med J 2019;26:38.
14. Olorunmoteni O, Esan O, Kareem A, Edward S, Babalola T, Ugowe O. Mentoring practices and needs of paediatric resident doctors in Nigerian training institutions. Niger J Health Sci2019;19:73–80.
15. Akinmokun OI, Akinsulire AT, Odugbemi TO, Odogwu KC, Giwa SO. Mentorship in orthopaedic and trauma residency training programme in Nigeria: the residents’ perspective. Niger J Med J Natl Assoc Resid Dr Niger2016;25:134–41.
16. Okurame DE. Mentoring and preferences: a diagnostic survey for equal mentoring opportunity. Equal Oppor Int2008;27:519–36.
17. Williams MF, Ramanan RA, Feldman MD. Challenges in Mentoring [Internet]. In: Fornari A, Shah DT, editors. Mentoring In Health Professions Education. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2021 [cited 2022 Jul 15]. page 81–90.Available from: https://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-030-86935-9_9
18. Rivers (State, Nigeria) -Population Statistics, Charts, Map and Location. [Assessed on 25 Jun 2022];Available from: https://www.citypopulation.de/php/nigeria-admin.php
19. Briggs DC, Eneh AU, Alikor EAD. Basic neonatal resuscitation: retention of knowledge and skills of primary health care workers in Port Harcourt, Rivers State, southern Nigeria. Pan Afr Med J 2021;38.
20. Plyley T, Cory J, Lorello GR, Flexman AM. A survey of mentor gender preferences amongst anesthesiology residents atthe University of British Columbia. Can J Anesth Can Anesth2019;66:342–3.
21. Osaghae DO. Mentoring in the medical profession: An overview. J Med Biomed Res 2012;11:5–8.
22. Cho CS, Ramanan RA, Feldman MD. Defining the Ideal Qualities of Mentorship:A Qualitative Analysis of the Characteristics of Outstanding Mentors. Am J Med2011;124:453–8.
23.Holmes DR, Warnes CA, O’Gara PT, Nishimura RA. Effective Attributes of Mentoring in the Current Era. Circulation2018;138:455–7.
Article Sidebar
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
This is an open-access journal and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share-Alike License 4.0. This licence allows users to download and share, remix, tweak and build upon the article for non-commercial purposes, so long as the original authorship is acknowledged and the new creations are licensed under identical terms.