↓ Skip to main content

A systematic review of the literature describing the outcomes of near-peer mentoring programs for first year medical students

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
24 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
151 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
294 Mendeley
Title
A systematic review of the literature describing the outcomes of near-peer mentoring programs for first year medical students
Published in
BMC Medical Education, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12909-018-1195-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Olawunmi Akinla, Pamela Hagan, William Atiomo

Abstract

Transition into higher education has been identified as one of the most stressful periods for learners. Interventions targeting the transition phase such as near- peer mentoring might help address some of these challenges. We were however unable to identify a published systematic review of the literature describing outcomes of near-peer mentoring of medical students during the transition phase into medical school. The aim of this paper is to review the literature and describe the outcomes of near-peer mentoring schemes for first-year medical students in the transition phase. A search of different electronic databases was carried out, using the search terms peer, buddy, mentor*, counsel*, advise*, tutor*, student, medical, school. 1861 articles were identified, however only 5 studies met the inclusion criteria- primary mentees should be first-years, and mentors must be inclusive of second-years but not limited to them. In reporting this paper, the PRISMA guidelines were followed. Published material on near-peer mentoring for medical students is scarce. Three outcomes for peer mentoring were identified- professional and personal development, stress reduction, and ease of transitioning. Incidentally, peer-mentoring was also found to have facilitated the development of personal and professional attitudes in the mentors. The quality of the evaluation methods in the studies was however low to moderate. Near-peer-mentoring is a way of promoting professional and personal development. It is also promising to aid transition and maintain well-being of first-year medical students. However, larger, better quality longitudinal studies, are needed to ascertain its true value for these students.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 24 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 294 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 294 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 39 13%
Student > Bachelor 32 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 20 7%
Researcher 19 6%
Lecturer 18 6%
Other 72 24%
Unknown 94 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 90 31%
Social Sciences 24 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 4%
Psychology 12 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 7 2%
Other 38 13%
Unknown 110 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 June 2021.
All research outputs
#2,166,278
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#313
of 3,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,450
of 329,986 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#15
of 102 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,576 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,986 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 102 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.