Mentoring Programs for Physicians in Academic Medicine: A Systematic Review
Mentoring Programs for Physicians in Academic Medicine: A Systematic Review
复制标题
DOI：
10.1097/acm.0b013e318294f368
复制
发表时间：
2013-07-01
影响因子：
7.4
通讯作者：
Cook, David A.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kashiwagi, Deanne T.;Varkey, Prathibha;Cook, David A.
PurposeMentoring是至关重要的医学领域的专业发展，影响职业选择和教师的保留，因此，作者回顾了指导计划的医生，旨在确定关键组成部分，有助于这些programs' success. MethodTheauthors搜索MEDLINE，EMBASE和Scopus数据库的文章，从2000年1月至2011年5月，描述了指导计划执业医师。作者回顾了16篇文章，描述了18个项目，提取了项目目标、组成部分和结局。他们综合的研究结果，以确定成功programmes.ResultsAll的文章中描述的程序集中在学术医生的关键要素。作者确定了七种指导模式：二元，同行，促进同行，速度，功能，小组和距离。二分体模型是最常见的。作者确定了正式指导计划的七个潜在组成部分：导师准备，规划委员会，导师-学员合同，导师-学员配对，指导活动，正式课程和计划资金。其中，在已发表的报告中，导师-学员配对的形成受到最多关注。学员喜欢选择自己的导师;导师和学员都重视受保护的时间。项目开发的一个障碍是资源有限。书面协议对于设定限制和鼓励对指导关系负责很重要。方案评价主要是主观的，使用当地开发的调查。没有程序报告的长期result.ConclusionsThe作者确定了关键的程序元素，可能有助于成功的医生指导。未来的研究可能会进一步澄清这些元素的使用，并采用标准化的评估方法，以确定辅导的长期影响。
PurposeMentoring is vital to professional development in the field of medicine, influencing career choice and faculty retention; thus, the authors reviewed mentoring programs for physicians and aimed to identify key components that contribute to these programs' success.MethodThe authors searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus databases for articles from January 2000 through May 2011 that described mentoring programs for practicing physicians. The authors reviewed 16 articles, describing 18 programs, extracting program objectives, components, and outcomes. They synthesized findings to determine key elements of successful programs.ResultsAll of the programs described in the articles focused on academic physicians. The authors identified seven mentoring models: dyad, peer, facilitated peer, speed, functional, group, and distance. The dyad model was most common. The authors identified seven potential components of a formal mentoring program: mentor preparation, planning committees, mentor-mentee contracts, mentor-mentee pairing, mentoring activities, formal curricula, and program funding. Of these, the formation of mentor-mentee pairs received the most attention in published reports. Mentees favored choosing their own mentors; mentors and mentees alike valued protected time. One barrier to program development was limited resources. Written agreements were important to set limits and encourage accountability to the mentoring relationship. Program evaluation was primarily subjective, using locally developed surveys. No programs reported long-term results.ConclusionsThe authors identified key program elements that could contribute to successful physician mentoring. Future research might further clarify the use of these elements and employ standardized evaluation methods to determine the long-term effects of mentoring.