2013•Unpublished venueRequires access

What is the Evidence for Mentorship?

Sharon E. Straus, David L. Sackett

Open publisher page 3 citations

Abstract

This introductory chapter of Mentorship in Academic Medicine sets the stage for mentorship discussion providing the definitions and terminology that the authors have used throughout the book. In particular, the chapter outlines the scope for the discussion in the remaining chapters, including what mentorship is and isn't, and helps to provide the “case for mentorship” based on the relevant evidence. The focus of the book is on academic medicine, including clinicians who work in universities and academic health science centres. The book presents some ways to think about mentors, mentees, mentoring strategies and tactics, and how to develop and monitor a mentorship program. Mentorship claims to develop and maintain faculty who are productive, satisfied, collegial, and socially responsible. In a survey of mentors for medical students, mentorship was reported to reinvigorate interest and lead to personal and professional growth.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

This introductory chapter of Mentorship in Academic Medicine sets the stage for mentorship discussion providing the definitions and terminology that the authors have used throughout the book. In particular, the chapter outlines the scope for the discussion in the remaining chapters, including what mentorship is and isn't, and helps to provide the “case for mentorship” based on the relevant evidence. The focus of the book is on academic medicine, including clinicians who work in universities and academic health science centres. The book presents some ways to think about mentors, mentees, mentoring strategies and tactics, and how to develop and monitor a mentorship program. Mentorship claims to develop and maintain faculty who are productive, satisfied, collegial, and socially responsible. In a survey of mentors for medical students, mentorship was reported to reinvigorate interest and lead to personal and professional growth.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 3 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

This introductory chapter of Mentorship in Academic Medicine sets the stage for mentorship discussion providing the definitions and terminology that the authors have used throughout the book. In particular, the chapter outlines the scope for the discussion in the remaining chapters, including what mentorship is and isn't, and helps to provide the “case for mentorship” based on the relevant evidence. The focus of the book is on academic medicine, including clinicians who work in universities and academic health science centres. The book presents some ways to think about mentors, mentees, mentoring strategies and tactics, and how to develop and monitor a mentorship program. Mentorship claims to develop and maintain faculty who are productive, satisfied, collegial, and socially responsible. In a survey of mentors for medical students, mentorship was reported to reinvigorate interest and lead to personal and professional growth.

Key concepts: Mentorship, Terminology, Scope (computer science), Medical education, Engineering ethics, Psychology, Medicine, Engineering

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
What is the Evidence for Mentorship? — Research Paper | ScholarLens