Skip to main content

Mentoring in palliative medicine in the time of covid-19: a systematic scoping review

Mentoring programs during COVID-19

Abstract

Introduction

The redeployment of mentors and restrictions on in-person face-to-face mentoring meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic has compromised mentoring efforts in Palliative Medicine (PM). Seeking to address these gaps, we evaluate the notion of a combined novice, peer-, near-peer and e-mentoring (CNEP) and interprofessional team-based mentoring (IPT) program.

Methods

A Systematic Evidence Based Approach (SEBA) guided systematic scoping review was carried out to study accounts of CNEP and IPT from articles published between 1st January 2000 and 28th February 2021. To enhance trustworthiness, concurrent thematic and content analysis of articles identified from structured database search using terms relating to interprofessional, virtual and peer or near-peer mentoring in medical education were employed to bring together the key elements within included articles.

Results

Fifteen thousand one hundred twenty one abstracts were reviewed, 557 full text articles were evaluated, and 92 articles were included. Four themes and categories were identified and combined using the SEBA’s Jigsaw and Funnelling Process to reveal 4 domains - characteristics, mentoring stages, assessment methods, and host organizations. These domains suggest that CNEP’s structured virtual and near-peer mentoring process complement IPT’s accessible and non-hierarchical approach under the oversight of the host organizations to create a robust mentoring program.

Conclusion

This systematic scoping review forwards an evidence-based framework to guide a CNEP-IPT program. At the same time, more research into the training and assessment methods of mentors, near peers and mentees, the dynamics of mentoring interactions and the longitudinal support of the mentoring relationships and programs should be carried out.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Mentoring in Palliative Medicine (PM) [1] has been shown to boost a physician’s career and personal development [2, 3], enhance collaborations [4, 5], and advance the academic standing of the host organisations overseeing mentoring programs [6]. It also shapes a mentee’s “conceptual model from disease and diagnosis to patient goals, prognosis and function”, reinforcing attention upon improving patient care and quality of life [7]. Built upon “personalised and enduring mutually beneficial relationships between an experienced clinician, junior clinicians and/or undergraduates and the host organization” [8], novice mentoring, which is the dominant mentoring approach in PM has been especially compromised by COVID-19 restrictions [9,10,11] including the re-deployment of mentors to the ‘frontlines’ and restrictions on in-person meetings [12]. These limitations have compromised mentoring support [13] and raised the risk of inadequate oversight [14] of mentoring relationships and assessments of progress, potentiating the danger of ethical, legal and professional lapses in mentoring (henceforth ethical issues in mentoring) [15].

Although supplementing novice mentoring with peer [16] and electronic mentoring (e-mentoring), also known as CNEP mentoring (henceforth CNEP) [17], circumvents restrictions on face-to-face meetings, improves timely and holistic support [18] and fosters high quality mentoring relationships [19, 20], problems persist. Therefore, we evaluate the possibility of further supplementing CNEP with mentoring support from senior members of PM’s interprofessional teams (IPT) [21,22,23,24]. Consisting of physicians, nurses, medical social workers, physiotherapists and/or occupational therapists, IPT-based mentoring (henceforth IPT) allows senior healthcare professionals within interprofessional teams [24] to step up to fulfil the usual mentoring role of the senior physician [25]. The use of IPT is further strengthened by evidence that mentoring in nursing [26], medical social work [27], physiotherapy and occupational therapy [28] shares significant commonalities with novice mentoring in medicine [29].

Need for this review

It is with this impetus to address the prevailing threats to novice mentoring [30] and a general lack of data on the use of CNEP and IPT that, a systematic scoping review (SSR) is proposed. The data accrued provides a means of designing and evaluating a combined CNEP and IPT (henceforth CNEP-IPT) mentoring program.

Methodology

In the absence of mentoring data in PM [12, 31,32,33], this systematic scoping review will scrutinize data from specialities associated with Internal Medicine (IM) and Family Medicine (FM) or primary care [34,35,36] settings given evidence that mentoring data from FM and IM may be effectively extrapolated to the PM setting [6, 37,38,39,40,41,42].

To enhance the transparency and reproducibility, Krishna’s Systematic Evidence Based Approach [43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50] (SEBA) is adopted to guide this systematic scoping review. Systematic scoping reviews in SEBA utilise a constructivist perspective to map the complex topics of CNEP and IPT from multiple angles and acknowledge mentoring as a sociocultural construct built from the individual views and experiences of mentees, mentors and the host organization (henceforth stakeholders) [51]. A relativist lens allows for the historical, socio-cultural, ideological, and contextual factors impacting individual views and experiences of stakeholders to be considered within this review [52,53,54,55,56].

SEBA’s use of a systematized approach, supported by medical librarians from the Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine (YLLSoM) at the National University of Singapore and the National Cancer Centre Singapore (NCCS) and local educational experts and clinicians at the NCCS, the Palliative Care Institute Liverpool, YLLSoM and Duke-NUS Medical School (henceforth the expert team), allows for an accountable and reproducible approach to the search and review of data.

SEBA’s use of the principles of interpretivist analysis [52, 54,55,56] enhance reflexivity and discussions in the Systematic and Split Approaches, the Jigsaw Perspective, the Funnelling Process, Analysis of themes from data and non-data driven literature, and the Synthesis of the systematic scoping review that make up SEBA’s six stages [43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50] outlined in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1
figure 1

SEBA Process

The expert team was consulted at each stage of the SEBA process.

Stage 1 of SEBA: systematic approach

  1. i.

    Determining title and background of review

The expert team, stakeholders and the research team collaborated to determine the overall goals of the systematic scoping review and the population, context and concept to be evaluated.

This systematic scoping review in SEBA confines its review of CNEP and IPT amongst physicians and nurses, medical social workers, physiotherapists and/or occupational therapists [7].

  1. ii.

    Identifying the research question

Guided by the population, concept and context (PCC), the teams also determined the primary research question to be “what is known about CNEP and IPT?” The secondary research questions were “what are the features of CNEP and IPT?” and “is CNEP-IPT suitable for the PM setting?”

  1. iii.

    Inclusion criteria

All grey literature, peer reviewed articles, narrative reviews, systematic, scoping and systematic scoping reviews published between 1st January 2000 to 28th February 2021 were included in the PCC and a PICOS format was adopted to guide the research processes [57, 58]. See Table 1.

Table 1 PICOS, inclusion and exclusion criteria
  1. iv.

    Searching

To broaden the search, ensure a structured approach and reduce omission of critical papers, three separate search strategies were formulated to look for articles about CNEP, IPT and e-mentoring respectively. These search terms were developed based on the following definitions. Near-peer and peer mentoring is defined as “informal dynamic advisory relationships within a group of individuals who are similar in experience, education level, and seniority” [59]. E-mentoring is defined as an integration of “synchronous (live video or instant messaging) (60) and asynchronous (email, online discussion board or social media)” communication [30]. IPT refers to “senior, near-peer and/or peer mentors who are medical, nursing, medical social work, physiotherapy and occupational therapy healthcare professionals or students supporting junior healthcare professionals and students in advancing their professional, clinical, personal and academic development” [60].

Searches on seven bibliographic databases (PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Google Scholar and Scopus) and five grey literature databases (GreyLit, OpenGrey, Web of Science, Mednar and OpenDissertations) were carried out and included articles from 1st January 2000 to 28th February 2021. Articles published before year 2000 were not included given evidence that they often failed to clearly delineate distinct mentoring approaches such as leadership, patient, family, adolescent, group, peer, near-peer, novice and e-mentoring [61, 62], and conflate “mentoring” and practices such as teaching, tutoring, coaching, role modelling and supervision.

A manual search of related areas of interest, and an expanded search of the references of the included articles were also carried out. This revealed six additional articles of interest.

The three separate PubMed Search Strategies may be found in Additonal file 1: Appendix A.

  1. v.

    Extracting and charting

Using the abstract screening tool, members of the research team independently reviewed the titles and abstracts found from each database to finalise the list of titles and summaries to be reviewed. Sambunjak, Straus and Marusic’s [63] approach to ‘negotiated consensual validation’ was used to achieve consensus.

Stage 2 of SEBA: Split Approach

To enhance validity of the analysis, the Split Approach [64] was employed. The Split Approach [64] consists of concurrent thematic and directed content analysis of all the included articles by three independent teams. The first team summarised and tabulated the included full-text articles in keeping with recommendations drawn from Wong et al.’s [51] RAMESES publication standards: meta-narrative reviews and Popay et al.’s [53] “Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews”. The tabulated summaries served to ensure that key aspects of included articles were not lost.

Concurrently, three members of the second team independently analysed the included articles using Braun and Clarke’s [65] approach to thematic analysis [64]. In phase 1 of Braun and Clarke’s [65] approach, the research team carried out independent reviews, ‘actively’ reading the included articles to find meaning and patterns in the data [66,67,68,69,70]. In phase 2, ‘codes’ were constructed from the ‘surface’ meaning and collated into a code book to analyse the rest of the articles using an iterative step-by-step process. As new codes emerged, these were associated with previous codes and concepts. In phase 3, the categories were organised into themes that best depict the data. An inductive approach allowed themes to be “defined from the raw data without any predetermined classification” [69]. In phase 4, the themes were refined to best represent the whole data set and were discussed. In phase 5, the research team discussed the results of their independent analysis online and at reviewer meetings. “Negotiated consensual validation” was used to determine a final list of themes [63].

A third team of three researchers employed Hsieh and Shannon’s [71] approach to directed content analysis to independently analyse the included articles. Analysis using the directed content analysis approach involved “identifying and operationalizing a priori coding categories” [71,72,73,74,75,76]. The first stage saw the research team draw categories from Krishna et al.’s [45] study titled “Enhancing Mentoring in Palliative Care: An Evidence Based Mentoring Framework”, to guide the coding of the articles in the second stage. Any data not captured by these codes were assigned a new code [72]. In keeping with deductive category application, coding categories were reviewed and revised as required [76].

Stage 3 of SEBA: Jigsaw Perspective

The Jigsaw Perspective brings together the themes and categories identified in the Split Approach to provide a more holistic perspective of the available data. This process is overseen by the expert team and guided by six principles [77,78,79]:

  1. 1.

    Principle of pragmatism: in ensuring that the focus of the review remains upon the research question,

  2. 2.

    Principle of pluralism: in ensuring that all themes are included in the review,

  3. 3.

    Principle of historicity: in ensuring that the process is reproducible by including the review descriptions of the unfolding narrative,

  4. 4.

    Principle of contestation: in ensuring that all ‘conflicting data’ is considered,

  5. 5.

    Principle of reflexivity: in ensuring that throughout the review, reviewers continually reflect individually and as a team on the emerging findings, and

  6. 6.

    Principle of peer review: in ensuring that emerging findings are peer reviewed through use of the split review, peer reviewed data, and that that the stakeholders agree with the data and interpretation.

The process of creating themes/categories is derived from Phases 4 to 6 of France et al.’s [80, 81]‘s adaptation of Noblit et al.’s [82] seven phases of meta-ethnography. The themes and categories are contextualised by reviewing them against the primary codes and subcategories and/or subthemes they were drawn from [80, 81]. Reciprocal translation determines if the themes and categories can be used interchangeably.

1) Themes identified through Braun and Clarke’s approach to thematic analysis:

  • Characteristics of CNEP and IPT

  • Mentoring Stakeholders

  • Stages of CNEP and IPT

  • Assessment methods and criteria

2) Categories identified through Hsieh and Shannon’s approach to directed content analysis:

  • Mentoring Nature

  • Mentoring Stakeholders

  • Mentoring Relationships

  • Mentoring Approaches

  • Mentoring Assessments

Here the combination of the themes/categories provides triangulation [83], improves audits and enhances the authenticity of the research [84]. The themes/categories were

  • Characteristics

  • Mentoring stages

  • Roles of the host organization

  • Assessments

Stage 4 of SEBA: Funnelling

The themes/categories identified through the Jigsaw Process were reviewed and compared with the tabulated summaries in Additonal file 2: Appendix B to ensure no crucial information was left out.

Adapting Phase 5 of France et al’s [80, 81] approach, we adopted reciprocal translation to juxtapose the themes/categories identified in the Jigsaw Approach with the key messages identified in the tabulated summaries. This juxtaposition of themes/categories is important given that inclusion of grey literature, non-primary data driven articles, opinion pieces, editorials, essays, commentaries, letters, posters, oral presentations, forum discussions, interviews, blogs and surveys (henceforth non-evidence-based data) may sometimes over-generalise issues, conflate practices and fail to account for practical, clinical and contextual considerations. The verified themes/categories from the Funnelling Process then form the ‘line of argument’ process in the synthesis of the discussion portion in Stage 6 of the SSR in SEBA.

Results

A total of 15,121 abstracts were reviewed, 557 full text articles were evaluated, and 92 articles were included. See Fig 2.

Fig. 2
figure 2

PRISMA Flowchart

A summary of the background, theoretical approach and methods, population characteristics, main empirical findings and insights drawn are highlighted in Additonal file 2: Appendix B.

Theme/category 1: characteristics of CNEP and IPT

Similarities

CNEP and IPT provide timely, well-resourced, and high-quality [85,86,87] research [88,89,90], academic [91,92,93,94] and pastoral support [95,96,97] facilitated by a formal mentoring structure overseen by the host organization [98,99,100]. The motivation for most host organizations in supporting CNEP and IPT is to improve patient care and safety [98,99,100] by structuring mentoring programs and establishing guidelines, codes of conduct and standards of practice [101,102,103,104,105,106]. A consistent set of guidelines serve to confine mentoring practices within acceptable standards as mentoring programs try to accommodate to the individual goals [107,108,109], abilities [109, 110] and needs of mentors’ and mentees’ [13, 108, 111, 112], and to nurture a personalized, mentee-centric, non-judgmental, confidential and trusting environment [113,114,115].

The data garnered suggest that the similarities between CNEP and IPT are consistent with the critical aspects of novice mentoring and have likely evolved from novice mentoring roots, serving to emphasize the likelihood that they may be used to support novice mentoring relationships in the COVID-19 era and beyond when access to senior physician mentors is expected to remain limited.

Unique characteristics of CNEP

CNEP pivots on in-person face-to-face mentoring [103, 116,117,118,119] complemented by accessible electronic communication platforms [95, 120, 121] that facilitate synchronous [107, 122, 123] and asynchronous [30, 95, 124] communication. Use of accessible electronic communication platforms [95, 120, 121] allows for the rapid exchange of information [104, 116, 118] which circumvents geographical [107, 120, 125], logistical [107, 120, 124] and scheduling [103, 115, 120] restrictions and allows communication among mentees, near-peers and mentors to adapt according to circumstances and needs [126, 127]. Concurrently e-mentoring provides timely, flexible, and adaptive mentoring support [59, 105, 106, 118, 128].

Near-peer mentors provide mentees with an alternative source of professional, personal, research and clinical support [113,114,115, 128], while they in turn gain learning opportunities [129], confidence [130], communication skills and a chance to ‘pay it forward’ [111, 122, 131]. CNEP also helps attenuate the sense of hierarchy within the program [59, 105, 118].

Unique characteristics of IPT

IPT is reliant on each team member possessing effective interprofessional communication and teamwork skills [24, 90, 130] within an ‘open’ environment, in contrast to traditional hierarchies amongst the various professions [89, 132, 133].

From these findings, it is also evident that while CNEP and IPT possess unique characteristics, these elements are able to build upon each other to enhance the effectiveness of a mentoring program and a holistic mentoring environment.

Theme/category 2: stages of CNEP and IPT

CNEP and IPT both exhibit the presence of mentoring stages first described in novice mentoring, reaffirming the notion that they could be used to support novice mentoring programs. These stages include the pre-mentoring stage, mentoring process and the post-mentoring stage.

Pre-mentoring stage

The pre-mentoring stage includes recruitment of mentors and mentees [107, 112, 134], evaluation of the needs, skills and knowledge of participating mentors and mentees [100, 120, 135], determining appropriate instructional approach and content [7, 131, 136], skills training [122, 131] and communications and assessment platforms [98, 101, 106, 114], and agreeing upon the codes of conduct and standards of practice [130, 134, 137]. These elements are overseen by the host organization [20].

The host organization also determines the matching process [7, 134, 138]. To match mentees with mentors, host organizations often employ ‘criterion based matching’ in CNEP and IPT [24]. ‘Criterion based matching’ determines the complementariness of the mentors’ and mentees’ goals, motivations, specific needs, working styles, interests, hobbies, work-life balance priorities [92, 102, 139] and personality traits [102, 112, 139]. Within CNEP, mentees are often matched to near-peers and mentors of the same specialty [107, 112, 122] to support their academic needs [134].

However, given the venture towards inter-professional mentoring, important considerations in the matching process to best suit the dynamic, complex and multi-level mentoring relationships within CNEP-IPT still remain unclear.

Mentoring process

The mentoring process begins once a mentee and mentor agree to a match and commence on a mentoring relationship with each other [140,141,142,143]. At this stage mentees and mentors seek to build rapport [134] and agree upon specific mentoring goals, expectations, codes of conduct [20, 92, 127], roles and responsibilities [96, 101, 109, 135] and timelines [92, 134, 141]. These meetings are also complemented by synchronous and asynchronous verbal and/or written communication [30, 127].

CNEP programs may employ video conferencing in the initial face-to-face meeting [20, 127, 144].

Post-mentoring stage

The post-mentoring stage involves assessments of the mentoring process [20, 123, 124], the mentoring relationship [100, 123, 145], whether the host organisation has fulfilled its roles and responsibilities [110], and if the mentoring goals were achieved [88, 124, 146]. Such evaluations help direct future improvements to mentoring programs [97, 147, 148] and may occur longitudinally [112, 146, 149].

Theme/category 3: roles of the host organization

The host organizations of CNEP and IPT programs play crucial roles in overseeing and running the mentoring programs. The roles are described in Table 2 for ease of reference.

Table 2 Roles of the Host Organization

Evidently, the role of the host organization is integral in ensuring effective support of complex mentoring relationships within CNEP-IPT and in circumnavigating ethical concerns regarding the misappropriation of mentee’s work, disregard for the needs of mentees, and even bullying [15].

Theme/category 4: assessment methods and criteria

Assessment of CNEP and IPT mentoring programs revolve around the mentee’s perspectives and experiences [107, 111, 125], but have increasingly adopted a more holistic perspective by including mentors [122, 131, 157] and host organizations [110] in assessments. These assessments often take the form of objective or subjective self-assessments using pre- and/or post- questionnaires and surveys [97, 147, 165], interviews [87, 93, 142], formative and summative examinations [127, 153], work-based assessments [86, 87], portfolio assessments [107, 108] and/or journaling [97, 138]. Most of these tools have not been validated [163, 166, 167].

Assessment criteria

The success of IPT mentoring programs is evaluated based on impact on mentor and mentee welfare, effectiveness and efficiency of the program, project outcomes, research output and improvements in patient care [26, 151, 159]. The evaluation criteria for CNEP mentoring programs are summarised in Table 3.

Table 3 A summary of prevailing evaluation criteria for CNEP mentoring

Holistic assessment approaches are especially important in a CNEP-IPT program given the multi-level nature of mentoring and also the large number of stakeholders involved. Longitudinal assessments are also crucial in the continual improvement and development of this novel mentoring approach.

Stage 5 of SEBA: analysis of evidence-based and non-data driven literature

To evaluate the impact of grey literature and opinion, perspectives, editorial, letters and non-data based articles (henceforth non-data driven group) drawn from bibliographic databases upon the systematic scoping review, evidence-based data from bibliographic databases (henceforth evidence-based publications) were separated from the non-data driven group and both groups were thematically analysed separately. The themes from both groups were compared and found to be similar, suggesting that the non-data driven publications are unlikely to steer the systematic scoping review away from evidenced data.

Stage 6 of SEBA: Synthesis of the systematic scoping review

The systematic scoping review produced from consolidating the themes, categories and tabulated summaries was guided by the Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) Collaboration guide [168] and the STORIES (Structured approach to the Reporting In healthcare education of Evidence Synthesis) statement [169].

Discussion

Recent research provides promising accounts of programs adopting a similar CNEP-IPT concept, which employ “systems of mentors” comprising “senior colleagues, teachers, peers, as well as junior colleagues and students” [7, 29, 60, 89], demonstrating a high likelihood of program success, provided deeper research and understanding on the topic can be derived. This systematic review in SEBA provides a structured approach to deliberating important considerations in the designing and evaluation of a CNEP-IPT program.

In answering its primary and secondary research questions, this review suggests that CNEP and IPT mentoring programs share similarities in their practice, structure, stages, mentoring goals, codes of conduct, assessment processes and mentoring environments that ought to allow a melding of these approaches and the creation of a combined CNEP-IPT mentoring program [24, 142, 143, 159]. This combined approach appears equipped to provide timely, personalized, accessible, and holistic support to mentees while ensuring effective policing of compliance to established Codes of Practice and agreed goals, expectations, timelines, and roles and responsibilities of stakeholders. The data here also suggests that a combined CNEP-IPT mentoring program would facilitate effective adaptations to mentoring support amid changing stakeholder related circumstances [13, 108, 111, 112], goals [107,108,109] and availabilities [109, 110].

It is also clear from our findings that a combined CNEP-IPT mentoring program would need to be part of a formal mentoring program, designed, supported, and overseen by the host organization [98,99,100]. This would ensure that mentoring guidelines, roles and responsibilities, and codes of practice are agreed upon [101,102,103,104,105,106], and also that matching processes [7, 134, 138], communication platforms [98, 101, 106, 114] and assessment programs are effectively coordinated [98, 101, 106, 114] to maintain patient care and safety [98,99,100]. This is even more crucial given the unconventional and novel roles of near-peer mentors in providing alternative support for mentees outside of their specific disciplines, which are not as well understood and may be prone to ethical lapses. A formal well-structured program also delineates, guides, and supports progress through the mentoring stages and in the nurturing of an effective mentoring environment [89, 132, 133]. This would then facilitate mentor and mentee training [122, 131] particularly when healthcare professionals from different specialist backgrounds are enlisted to coordinate provision of timely, personalised and appropriate mentoring support while maintaining a consistent mentoring approach [24, 90, 130]. The need for a structured approach in mentor training is especially prevalent as many of the assessment tools remain unvalidated, non-standardised and not holistic and thus reliant upon the knowledge, skills and attitude of the mentors. Concurrently, mentor training would also enhance teamworking within the IPT portion of the mentoring team and amongst near pear mentors to help attenuate the hierarchy within the program [59, 105, 118] and foster more open mentoring relationships [86, 97].

The notion of a synergistic relationship between these mentoring approaches also requires further study given implications upon mentoring dynamics in the presence of multiple stakeholders. Mentoring relationships in CNEP-IPT may be more challenging compared to traditional ones given inherent hierarchical boundaries that exist both in terms of disparities in seniority and qualifications, and also across healthcare disciplines. Yet it is also worth noting that with time and the promotion of inter-professional collaboration and teamwork among stakeholders, CNEP-IPT may help to break down these historical barriers. This gives rise to considerations on how mentors, near peers and mentees can be best matched for the task. As a result, this review suggests that a combined CNEP-IPT mentoring program ought to be designed, supported, overseen and assessed by the host organization and be part of a formal program. Indeed the host organization plays a key role in the effective running of the proposed CNEP-IPT mentoring program with the roles and responsibilities of the host organization set out in Table 2. Should the aforementioned be achieved, a combined CNEP-IPT mentoring program could serve as a platform to nurture interprofessional ties crucial to team-based care in Palliative Medicine.

Limitations

Despite efforts to enhance the reproducibility and transparency of the systematic scoping review, gaps in the methodology and analysis persist. While we have conducted three separate search strategies using a two-tiered approach of both independent searching of selected databases by our expert team and an expanded search of reference lists of publications and manual searches, important papers may still have been missed. Similarly, while use of the ‘Split Approach’ and tabulated summaries in SEBA allowed for triangulation and ensured a holistic perspective was constructed from different and diverse perspectives, inherent biases amongst the reviewers would still impact the analysis of the data and construction of themes. Moreover, SEBA is not evidenced as yet and is time-consuming, raising questions as to its viability and concerns of the need for careful balancing between the promised benefits and the sustainability of continued involvement of the expert teams who were involved in all stages of SEBA.

The use of thematic analysis to review the impact of non-evidence-based data improves transparency in the synthesis of the discussion, however the inclusion of these data may still bias results and provide opinion-based views with a ‘veneer of respectability’ despite a lack of evidence to support them. This raises the question as to whether non-evidence-based data should be accorded the same weight as published literature.

Conclusion

In addressing its research questions, this systematic scoping review in SEBA offers a glimpse into the future of mentoring in PM but also raises a word of caution. While synergy between CNEP and IPT built on a common ancestry rooted in novice mentoring is evident, there are many aspects of the process that require further study. However, evidence of the desire to continue promoting mentoring in these difficult circumstances underscores its reputation and role within PM. We look forward to engaging in this developing field as advances in the understanding of dynamics, support and oversight within these relationships begin to take shape and help mould a structured approach to this form of mentoring within PM and beyond.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article.

Abbreviations

PM:

Palliative Medicine

CNEP:

Combination of a Novice Mentoring, Near Peer, Peer and E-mentoring approach

IPT:

Interprofessional Team

IPT:

Interprofessional Mentoring

SSR:

Systematic Scoping Review

IM:

Internal Medicine

FM:

Family Medicine

SEBA:

Systematic Evidence Based Approach

YLLSoM:

Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine

NCCS:

National Cancer Centre Singapore

PCC:

Population, Concept, Context

PICOS:

Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Study Design

References

  1. Carey EC, Weissman DE. Understanding and finding mentorship: a review for junior faculty. J Palliat Med. 2010;13:1373–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Choo Hwee P, Hwee Sing K, Yong Hwang MK, Mei HY, A. A qualitative study on the experiences and reflections of junior doctors during a palliative care rotation: perceptions of challenges and lessons learnt. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2020;60(549–558):e1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Aslakson R, Kamal A, Gelfman L, et al. “Are you my mentor?” a panel discussion featuring an all-star cast of AAHPM and HPNA mentors and mentees (TH319). J Pain Sympt Manage. 2015;49:342–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Defilippi KM, Cameron S. Promoting the integration of quality palliative care: the South African mentorship program. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2007;33:552–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Zhukovsky DS, Eduardo Bruera MR, Rajagopal RG. B07-B Building the future of palliative care: mentoring our people. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2016;52:E18–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ikbal MF, Wu JT, Wahab MT, Kanesvaran R, Krishna LK. Mentoring in palliative medicine: guiding program design through thematic analysis of mentoring in internal medicine between 2000 and 2015. J Palliat Care Med. 2017;7(5):318.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Wahab MT, Ikbal MF, Wu J, Loo WT, Kanesvaran R, Krishna LR. Creating effective interprofessional mentoring relationships in palliative care-lessons from medicine, nursing, surgery and social work. J Palliat Care Med. 2016;6(06):1.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Wesley L, Ikbal M, Wu JT, Wahab MT, Yeam CT. Towards a practice guided evidence based theory of mentoring in palliative care. J Palliat Care Med. 2017;7(296):2.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Krishna LKR, Neo HY, Chia EWY, et al. The role of palliative medicine in ICU bed allocation in COVID-19: a joint position statement of the Singapore Hospice Council and the Chapter of Palliative Medicine Physicians. Asian Bioethics Rev. 2020;12:205–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ho S, Tan YY, Neo SHS, et al. COVID-19-A Review of the Impact it has made on supportive and palliative care services within a tertiary hospital and cancer centre in singapore. Ann Acad Med Singap. 2020;49:489–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Compton S, Sarraf-Yazdi S, Rustandy F, Krishna LKR. Medical students’ preference for returning to the clinical setting during the COVID-19 pandemic. Med Educ. 2020;54:943–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Singh TS, Singh A. Abusive culture in medical education: Mentors must mend their ways. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2018;34(2):145.

  13. Olaussen A, Reddy P, Irvine S, Williams B. Peer-assisted learning: time for nomenclature clarification. Med Educ Online. 2016;21(1):30974.

  14. Gray K, Annabell L, Kennedy G. Medical students’ use of Facebook to support learning: Insights from four case studies. Med Teach. 2010;32:971–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Klarare A, Hansson J, Fossum B, Fürst CJ, Lundh HC. Team type, team maturity and team effectiveness in specialist palliative home care: an exploratory questionnaire study. J Interprofessional Care. 2019;33:504–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Bernacki R, Sanchez-Reilly S, Carey E, et al. Peer mentoring: an innovative model for professional advancement in hospice and palliative medicine (320). J Pain Symptom Manage. 2010;39:357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Etkind SN, Bone AE, Lovell N, Cripps RL, Harding R, Higginson IJ, et al. The role and response of palliative care and hospice services in epidemics and pandemics: a rapid review to inform practice during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2020;60(1):e31–40.

  18. Cohen S. Mentoring the mentoring relationship in palliative care: a practical guide (508). J Pain Symptom Manag. 2010;39:410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Case AA, Orrange SM, Weissman DE. Palliative medicine physician education in the United States: a historical review. J Palliat Med. 2013;16:230–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Chong JY, Ching AH, Renganathan Y, Lim WQ, Toh YP, Mason S, et al. Enhancing mentoring experiences through e-mentoring: a systematic scoping review of e-mentoring programs between 2000 and 2017. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2020;25(1):195–226.

  21. Krishna LKR. The position of the family of palliative care patients within the decision-making process at the end of life in Singapore. J Ethics Medicine. 2011;27:183.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Krishna LKR, Chin J. Palliative sedation within the duty of palliative care within the Singaporean clinical context. Asian Bioethics Rev. 2011;3:207–15.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Krishna LKR. Best interests determination within the Singapore context. J Nursing Ethics. 2012;19:787–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Levine S, O'Mahony S, Baron A, et al. Training the workforce: description of a longitudinal interdisciplinary education and mentoring program in palliative care. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2017;53:728–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Fausto J, Hirano L, Lam D, Mehta A, Mills B, Owens D, et al. Creating a palliative care inpatient response plan for COVID-19—The UW medicine experience. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2020;60(1):e21–6.

  26. Lin J, Chew YR, Toh YP, Krishna LKR. Mentoring in nursing: an integrative review of commentaries, editorials, and perspectives papers. Nurse Educ. 2018;43:E1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Toh YP, Karthik R, Teo CC, et al. Toward mentoring in palliative social work: a narrative review of mentoring programs in social work. Am J Hospice Palliat Med. 2018;35:523–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Yap H, Chua J, Toh Y, et al. Thematic review of mentoring in occupational therapy and physiotherapy between 2000 and 2015, sitting occupational therapy and physiotherapy in a holistic palliative medicine multidisciplinary mentoring program. J Palliat Care Pain Manage. 2017;2:1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Wu J, Wahab MT, Ikbal MF, et al. Toward an interprofessional mentoring program in palliative care - a review of undergraduate and postgraduate mentoring in medicine, nursing, surgery and social work. J Palliat Care Med. 2016;06:1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Griffiths M, Miller H. E-mentoring: does it have a place in medicine? Postgrad Med J. 2005;81:389–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hinchcliff R, Greenfield D, Moldovan M, et al. Narrative synthesis of health service accreditation literature. BMJ Qual Saf. 2012;21:979–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Boden C, Ascher MT, Eldredge JD. Learning while doing: program evaluation of the Medical Library Association Systematic Review Project. J Med Lib Assoc. 2018;106:284.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Mays N, Roberts E, Popay J. Synthesising research evidence. In: Studying the organisation and delivery of health services: Research methods; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Tapp H, Phillips SE, Waxman D, et al. Multidisciplinary team approach to improved chronic care management for diabetic patients in an urban safety net ambulatory care clinic. J Am Board Fam Med. 2012;25:245–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Rosser WW, Colwill JM, Kasperski J, Wilson L. Progress of Ontario’s family health team model: a patient-centered medical home. Ann Fam Med. 2011;9:165–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Rodriguez HP, Rogers WH, Marshall RE, Safran DG. Multidisciplinary primary care teams: effects on the quality of clinician-patient interactions and organizational features of care. Med Care. 2007;45:19–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Lee FQH, Chua WJ, Cheong CWS, et al. A Systematic Scoping Review of Ethical Issues in Mentoring in Surgery. J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2019;6:2382120519888915.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Hee JM, Yap HW, Ong ZX, et al. Understanding the mentoring environment through thematic analysis of the learning environment in medical education: a systematic review. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34:2190–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Sheri K, Too JYJ, Chuah SEL, et al. A scoping review of mentor training programs in medicine between 1990 and 2017. Med Educ Online. 2019;24:1555435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Tan YS, Teo SWA, Pei Y, et al. A framework for mentoring of medical students: thematic analysis of mentoring programmes between 2000 and 2015. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2018;23:671–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Qiao Ting Low C, Toh YL, Teo SWA, Toh YP, Krishna LKR. A narrative review of mentoring programmes in general practice. Education for. Primary Care. 2018;29:259–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Lim SY, Koh EY, Tan BJ, Toh YP, Mason S, Krishna LK. Enhancing geriatric oncology training through a combination of novice mentoring and peer and near-peer mentoring: a thematic analysis ofmentoring in medicine between 2000 and 2017. J Geriatr Oncol. 2020;11(4):566–75.

  43. Kow CS, Teo YH, Teo YN, et al. A systematic scoping review of ethical issues in mentoring in medical schools. BMC Medical Education. 2020;20:1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Ngiam LX, Ong YT, Ng JX, Kuek JT, Chia JL, Chan NP, et al, Abdurrahman AB, Kamal NH, Cheong CW, Ng CH. Impact of caring for terminally ill children on physicians: a systematic scoping review. Am J Hosp Palliat Med®. 2021;38(4):396–418.

  45. Krishna LKR, Tan LHE, Ong YT, et al. Enhancing Mentoring in Palliative Care: An Evidence Based Mentoring Framework. J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2020;7:2382120520957649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Bok C, Ng CH, Koh JWH, et al. Interprofessional communication (IPC) for medical students: a scoping review. BMC Med Educ. 2020;20:372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Chia EW, Huang H, Goh S, Peries MT, Lee CC, Tan LH, et al. A systematic scoping review of teaching and evaluating communications in the intensive care unit. Asia Pac Schol. 2021;6(1).

  48. Kuek JTY, Ngiam LXL, Kamal NHA, et al. The impact of caring for dying patients in intensive care units on a physician’s personhood: a systematic scoping review. J Philosophy Ethics Humanit Med. 2020;15:1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Ho CY, Kow CS, Chia CH, Low JY, Lai YH, Lauw SK, et al. The impact of death and dying on the personhood of medical students: a systematic scoping review. BMC Med Educ. 2020;20(1):1–6.

  50. Hong DZ, Lim AJ, Tan R, Ong YT, Pisupati A, Chong EJ, et al. A Systematic Scoping Review on Portfolios of Medical Educators. J Med Educ Curric. 2021;8:23821205211000356.

  51. Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, Buckingham J, Pawson R. RAMESES publication standards: meta-narrative reviews. BMC Med. 2013;11:20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Pring R. The ‘false dualism’of educational research. J Philos Educ. 2000;34:247–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, et al. Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. Product ESRC Methods Programme Version. 2006;1:b92.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Crotty M. The foundation of social research: meaning and perspective in the research process. Thousand Oaks: SAGE; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Ford K. Taking a narrative turn: possibilities, challenges and potential outcomes. OnCUE J. 2012;6(1):23–6.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Schick-Makaroff K, MacDonald M, Plummer M, Burgess J, Neander W. What synthesis methodology should i use? a review and analysis of approaches to research synthesis. AIMS Public Health. 2016;3:172–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Peters M, Godfrey C, McInerney P, et al. The Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers' manual 2015: methodology for JBI scoping reviews. In. 2015.

  58. Peters M, Godfrey C, Khalil H, et al. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13:141–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Masters K, Ellaway R. e-Learning in medical education Guide 32 Part 2: Technology, management and design. Med Teach. 2008;30:474–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Periyakoil VS, Von Gunten CF. Mainstreaming palliative care. J Palliat Med. 2007;10:40–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Tan B, Toh YL, Toh YP, Kanesvaran R, Krishna LK. Extending mentoring in palliative medicine-systematic review on peer, near-peer and group mentoring in general medicine. J Palliat Care Med. 2017;7(06).

  62. Sng JH, Pei Y, Toh YP, et al. Mentoring relationships between senior physicians and junior doctors and/or medical students: a thematic review. Med Teach. 2017;39:866–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Sambunjak D, Straus SE, Marusic A. A systematic review of qualitative research on the meaning and characteristics of mentoring in academic medicine. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25:72–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Ng YX, Koh ZYK, Yap HW, et al. Assessing mentoring: A scoping review of mentoring assessment tools in internal medicine between 1990 and 2019. PLoS One. 2020;15:e0232511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3:77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Boyatzis RE. Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code development: sage; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Sawatsky AP, Parekh N, Muula AS, Mbata I, Bui T. Cultural implications of mentoring in sub-Saharan Africa: a qualitative study. Med Educ. 2016;50:657–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Voloch K-A, Judd N, Sakamoto K, et al. Hawaii Med J. 2007;66:102.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Cassol H, Pétré B, Degrange S, et al. Qualitative thematic analysis of the phenomenology of near-death experiences. PLoS One. 2018;13:e0193001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Stenfors-Hayes T, Kalén S, Hult H, et al. Being a mentor for undergraduate medical students enhances personal and professional development. Med Teach. 2010;32:148–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Hsieh H-F, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15:1277–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Neal JW, Neal ZP, Lawlor JA, Mills KJ, McAlindon K. What makes research useful for public school educators? Admin Policy Mental Health Mental Health Serv Res. 2018;45:432–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Wagner-Menghin M, de Bruin A, van Merriënboer JJ. Monitoring communication with patients: analyzing judgments of satisfaction (JOS). Adv Health Sci Educ. 2016;21:523–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Elo S, Kyngäs H. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs. 2008;62:107–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Mayring P. Qualitative content analysis. Companion Qual Res. 2004;1:159–76.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Humble ÁM. Technique triangulation for validation in directed content analysis. Int J Qual Methods. 2009;8:34–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, O K. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q. 2004;82:581–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, et al. Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: a meta-narrative approach to systematic review. Soc Sci Med. 2005;61:417–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 2007;4:e78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. France EF, Wells M, Lang H, Williams B. Why, when and how to update a meta-ethnography qualitative synthesis. Syst Rev. 2016;5:44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. France EF, Uny I, Ring N, et al. A methodological systematic review of meta-ethnography conduct to articulate the complex analytical phases. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19:35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Noblit GW, Hare RD, Hare RD. Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies, sage; 1988.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  83. Tavakol M, Sandars JJMt. Quantitative and qualitative methods in medical education research: AMEE Guide No 90. Part. 2014;II(36):838–48.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Cleland J, Durning SJ. Researching medical education: Wiley; 2015.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  85. Hunter JJ, Rockman P, Gingrich N, Silveira J, Salach L. A novel network for mentoring family physicians on mental health issues using e-mail. Acad Psychiatry. 2008;32:510–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Heidari F. Interprofessional mentoring-exploration of support and professional development for newly qualified staff. Bournemouth University; 2007.

  87. Heidari F, Andrewes C, Galvin KT, Pendlebury R, Graham IW. Shared learning and mentoring for newly qualified staff: Support and education using an interprofessional approach, Bournemouth University, Institute of Health & Community Studies; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Wright D, Fry M, Adams J, Bowen C. Training the next generation of clinical rheumatology researchers: Evaluation of a graduate allied health professional and nurse internship programme. Rheumatology (United Kingdom). 2019;58:iii52.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Clark PG. Why gerontology and geriatrics can teach us a lot about mentoring. Gerontol Geriatr Educ. 2018;39:397–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Hall LW, Headrick LA, Cox KR, et al. Linking health professional learners and health care workers on action-based improvement teams. Qual Manag Health Care. 2009;18:194–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Rowe M, Frantz J, Bozalek V. The role of blended learning in the clinical education of healthcare students: a systematic review. Med Teach. 2012;34:e216–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Pinilla S, Pander T, von der Borch P, Fischer MR, Dimitriadis K. 5 years of experience with a large-scale mentoring program for medical students. GMS Z Med Ausbild. 2015;32:Doc5.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Blatt B, Plack MM, Simmens SJ. preparing interprofessional faculty to be humanistic mentors for medical students: the gw-gold mentor development program. J Contin Educ Heal Prof. 2018;38:117–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Rosenzweig MQ, Klein S, Connolly M, Hoffmann R. Primary care nurse practitioners providing survivorship cancer care. Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2016.

  95. Knoll MA, Jagsi R. Cumulative micro-mentorship: how social media is facilitating the advancement of female physicians. Acad Med. 2019;94:1404–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Akinla O, Hagan P, Atiomo W. A systematic review of the literature describing the outcomes of near-peer mentoring programs for first year medical students. BMC Med Educ. 2018;18(1):1–0.

  97. Barton TD. Clinical mentoring of nurse practitioners: the doctors' experience. Br J Nurs. 2006;15:820–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Masters K, Ellaway RH, Topps D, Archibald D, Hogue RJ. Mobile technologies in medical education: AMEE Guide No. 105. Med Teach. 2016;38:537–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Shenouda JE, Davies BS, Haq I. The role of the smartphone in the transition from medical student to foundation trainee: a qualitative interview and focus group study. BMC Med Educ. 2018;18:175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Underhill C, Koschel A, Szer J, et al. Mentoring in the management of hematological malignancies. Asia-Pacific J Clin Oncol. 2010;6:28–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Patel PD, Roberts JL, Miller KH, Ziegler C, Ostapchuk M. The responsible use of online social networking: who should mentor medical students. Teach Learn Med. 2012;24:348–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Polley C, Cisternino A, Gray A. A novel approach to medical mentoring. Clin Teach. 2020.

  103. Nadir R, Bashir K, Nasir MA, Khan HA. Social Networking Sites (SNSs) in medical education: a student's perspective. Med Educ Online. 2018;23:1524689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Nicolai L, Schmidbauer M, Gradel M, et al. Facebook groups as a powerful and dynamic tool in medical education: mixed-method study. J Med Internet Res. 2017;19:e408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Ellaway R, Masters K. AMEE Guide 32: e-Learning in medical education Part 1: Learning, teaching and assessment. Med Teach. 2008;30:455–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Vogelsang M, Rockenbauch K, Wrigge H, Heinke W, Hempel G. Medical Education for “Generation Z”: Everything online?!–An analysis of Internet-based media use by teachers in medicine. GMS J Med. 2018;35(2).

  107. Walsh K. Online mentoring in medical education. South African Family Practice. 2016;58(sup1):S7–8.

  108. Kalet AL, Sanger J, Chase J, et al. Promoting professionalism through an online professional development portfolio: successes, joys, and frustrations. Acad Med. 2007;82:1065–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Sgro A, Kamel MG, Vuong TH, Ahmed M, Nguyen TH. Online research club: a mentoring program for undergraduate students; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  110. Singleton MH. Evaluation of a College of Medicine Peer-Mentoring Program; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  111. Pinilla S, Nicolai L, Gradel M, et al. Undergraduate medical students using Facebook as a peer-mentoring platform: a mixed-methods study. JMIR Med Educ. 2015;1:e12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Coates WC, Ankel F, Birnbaum A, et al. The virtual advisor program: linking students to mentors via the world wide web. Acad Emerg Med. 2004;11:253–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Hossain IT, Mughal U, Atalla B, Franka M, Siddiqui S, Muntasir M. Instant messaging–one solution to doctor–student communication? Med Educ Online. 2015;20(1):30593.

  114. Pander T, Pinilla S, Dimitriadis K, Fischer MR. The use of Facebook in medical education–A literature review. GMS Z Med Ausbild. 2014;31.

  115. Jaffer U, Vaughan-Huxley E, Standfield N, John NW. Medical mentoring via the evolving world wide web. J Surg Educ. 2013;70:121–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  116. John B. Kinship-King's Social Harmonisation Project. Pilot phase of a social network for use in Higher Education (HE). Bull Group Int Rech Sci Stomatol Odontol. 2012;51:19–22.

    Google Scholar 

  117. Hartnup B, Dong L, Eisingerich AB. How an environment of stress and social risk shapes student engagement with social media as potential digital learning platforms: qualitative study. JMIR Med Educ. 2018;4:e10069.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. Saparova D, Williams JA, Inabnit CK, Fiesta M. Information behavior shift: How and why medical students use Facebook. In: Proceedings of the 76th ASIS&T Annual Meeting: Beyond the Cloud: Rethinking Information Boundaries, American Society for Information Science; 2013. p. 171.

    Google Scholar 

  119. Warren K, Keyes D. Use of an innovative web-based mentoring tool to guide residents and faculty in design of original clinical research. Acad Emerg Med. 2012;19:S403.

    Google Scholar 

  120. Schichtel M. A conceptual description of potential scenarios of e-mentoring in GP specialist training. Educ Prim Care. 2009;20:360–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  121. Invest EJC. Mentoring in medicine; 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  122. Laurence CE, Jones JR, Stone SN, et al. Feasibility and impact of a student-led, semi-structured, near-peer student guides program on navigating through medical school. Med Sci Educ. 2020:1–10.

  123. Hodgson JC, Hagan P. Medical Education Adaptations During a Pandemic: Transitioning to Virtual Student Support. Med Educ. 2020.

  124. Alamro AS, Schofield S. Supporting traditional PBL with online discussion forums: a study from qassim medical school. Med Teach. 2012;34:S20–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  125. Martin P, Kumar S, Lizarondo L. Effective use of technology in clinical supervision. Internet Interv. 2017;8:35–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  126. Luckhaupt SE, Chin MH, Mangione CM, et al. Mentorship in academic general internal medicine. Results of a survey of mentors. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20:1014–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  127. Schichtel M. Core-competence skills in e-mentoring for medical educators: a conceptual exploration. Med Teach. 2010;32:e248–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  128. Forgie SE, Duff JP, Ross S. Twelve tips for using Twitter as a learning tool in medical education. Med Teach. 2013;35:8–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  129. Rastegar Kazerooni A, Amini M, Tabari P, Moosavi M. Peer mentoring for medical students during COVID-19 pandemic via a social media platform. Med Educ. 2020.

  130. O'Mahony S, Baron A, Ansari A, et al. Expanding the interdisciplinary palliative medicine workforce: a longitudinal education and mentoring program for practicing clinicians. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2020.

  131. Prunuske A, Houss B, Wirta KA. Alignment of roles of near-peer mentors for medical students underrepresented in medicine with medical education competencies: a qualitative study. BMC Med Educ. 2019;19:417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  132. Nancarrow SA, Borthwick AM. Dynamic professional boundaries in the healthcare workforce. Sociol Health Illness. 2005;27:897–919.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  133. Orchard CA, Curran V, Kabene S. Creating a culture for interdisciplinary collaborative professional practice. Med Educ Online. 2005;10:4387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  134. Actrn. From Medical Students to Junior Doctors - Feasibility of a Mentor supported transition through the “Resident Ready Networkâ€. http://www.who.int/trialsearch/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=ACTRN12619001184167 2019.

  135. Shah S, Topf J. Mentorship in the digital age: Nephrology social media collective internship. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2019;14:294–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  136. Youmans QR, Adrissi JA, Akhetuamhen A, et al. The STRIVE initiative: a resident-led mentorship framework for underrepresented minority medical students. J Grad Med Educ. 2020;12:74–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  137. Colbert GB, Topf J, Jhaveri KD, et al. The social media revolution in nephrology education. Kidney Int Rep. 2018;3:519–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  138. Bellman L. Evaluation of a multi-professional mentoring scheme in primary health care. J Interprofess Care. 2003;17:402–3.

    Google Scholar 

  139. Phillips G, Lee D, Shailin S, O'Reilly G, Cameron P. The pacific emergency medicine mentoring program: a model for medical mentoring in the Pacific region. Emerg Med Australasia. 2019;31:1092–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  140. Ta NH. Inspiring the next generation of medical students–a successful widening access programme at Norwich medical school (NMS); 2019.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  141. Kim EJ. Working effectively with long-distance mentors. Int J Women's Dermatol. 2020;6:68–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  142. Bouchonville MF, Hager BW, Kirk JB, Qualls CR, Arora S. Endo echo improves primary care provider and community health worker self-efficacy in complex diabetes management in medically underserved communities. Endocr Pract. 2018;24:40–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  143. Armstrong PW, Ezekowitz C, Michelakis E, et al. Innovative strategic Canadian research training from TomorrOw's Research Cardiovascular Health Care Professionals (TORCH). Clin Invest Med. 2004;27:33–41.

    Google Scholar 

  144. Schafer M, Pander T, Pinilla S, et al. A prospective, randomised trial of different matching procedures for structured mentoring programmes in medical education. Med Teach. 2016;38:921–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  145. Rogers KM, Childers DJ, Messler J, et al. Glycemic control mentored implementation: creating a national network of shared information. Joint Comm J Qual Patient Safe. 2014;40:111–8.

    Google Scholar 

  146. Pollack TM, Nhung VTT, Vinh DTN, et al. Building HIV healthcare worker capacity through telehealth in Vietnam. BMJ Glob Health. 2020;5.

  147. Lait J, Suter E, Arthur N, Deutschlander S. Interprofessional mentoring: enhancing students' clinical learning. Nurse Educ Pract. 2011;11:211–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  148. Cotter JJ, Coogle CL, Parham IA, et al. Designing a multi-disciplinary geriatrics health professional mentoring program. Educ Gerontol. 2004;30:107–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  149. Smith JD, Jones P, Fink J. Peer mentoring: evaluation of a new model of clinical placement in the Solomon Islands undertaken by an Australian medical school. Rural Remote Health. 2015;15.

  150. Bramble M, Maxwell H, Einboden R, et al. Exploring and improving student engagement in an accelerated undergraduate nursing program through a mentoring partnership: an action research study. Int J Nurs Educ Scholarsh. 2018;15.

  151. Goff DA, Karam GH, Haines ST. Impact of a national antimicrobial stewardship mentoring program: insights and lessons learned. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2017;74:224–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  152. Scott SE, Cook S, Farmer MA, et al. The rising physicians program: a novel approach for mentoring medical students. Mil Med. 2019;184:E164–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  153. Kamin C, Glicken A, Hall M, Quarantillo B, Merenstein G. Evaluation of electronic discussion groups as a teaching/learning strategy in an evidence-based medicine course: a pilot study. Educ Health Abingdon Carfax Publish Limited. 2001;14:21–32.

    Google Scholar 

  154. Cheong CWS, Chia EWY, Tay KT, et al. A systematic scoping review of ethical issues in mentoring in internal medicine, family medicine and academic medicine. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2019:1–25.

  155. Hollinderbäumer A, Hartz T, Ückert F. Education 2.0-How has social media and Web 2.0 been integrated into medical education? A systematical literature review. GMS Z Med Ausbild. 2013:30.

  156. Cartledge P, Miller M, Phillips B. The use of social-networking sites in medical education. Med Teach. 2013;35:847–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  157. Raiman L, Antbring R, Mahmood A. WhatsApp messenger as a tool to supplement medical education for medical students on clinical attachment. BMC Med Educ. 2017;17:7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  158. Rohrer JD, Devine H, Foulkes A, et al. Developing a neurology mentoring programme for trainees. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2014;85:A14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  159. Ponte PR, Hayman LL, Berry DL, Cooley ME. A new model for postdoctoral training: the nursing postdoctoral program in cancer and health disparities. Nurs Outlook. 2015;63:189–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  160. Jiwa A, Fardanesh A, Stavropoulou-Tatla S. Comment on: Medical student mistreatment by patients in the clinical environment–a student perspective. Singap Med J. 2019;60:606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  161. Jalali A, Sherbino J, Frank J, Sutherland S. Social media and medical education: exploring the potential of Twitter as a learning tool. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2015;27:140–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  162. Bahner DP, Adkins E, Patel N, et al. How we use social media to supplement a novel curriculum in medical education. Med Teach. 2012;34:439–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  163. Kind T, Patel PD, Lie D, Chretien KC. Twelve tips for using social media as a medical educator. Med Teach. 2014;36:284–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  164. Frei E, Stamm M, Buddeberg-Fischer B. Mentoring programs for medical students-a review of the PubMed literature 2000-2008. BMC Med Educ. 2010;10:32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  165. Pearce H, Blainey D. Nurse mentors for preregistration house officers. Hosp Med. 1999;60:127–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  166. Sandars J, Homer M, Pell G, Croker T. Web 2.0 and social software: the medical student way of e-learning. Med Teach. 2008;30:308–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  167. Sutherland S, Jalali A. Social media as an open-learning resource in medical education: current perspectives. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2017;8:369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  168. Thistlethwaite J, Hammick M. The Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) collaboration: into the next decade. Med Teach. 2010;32:880–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  169. Gordon M, Gibbs T. STORIES statement: publication standards for healthcare education evidence synthesis. BMC Med. 2014;12:143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

This manuscript was presented at the National University Singapore Higher Education Campus Conference (e-HECC) 2020 under the title “Mentoring in Palliative Medicine in The Time of Covid-19: A Systematic Scoping Review on Combined Novice, Peer, Near-Peer, E-Mentoring and Inter-Professional Mentoring”.

The authors would also like to dedicate this paper to the late Dr. S Radha Krishna whose advice and ideas were integral to the success of this study and the late Maia Olivia Akhlil whose life inspires us to always strive to be better without losing sight of those who matter.

Funding

No funding was received for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

SG, RSMW, ELYQ, KZYC, WQL, ADRN, XHT, CSK, YHT, EGL, AP, EJXC, NHAK, LHET, KTT, YTO, MC, ASIL, AMCC, SM, LKRK were involved in data curation, formal analysis, investigation, preparing the original draft of the manuscript as well as reviewing and editing the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Min Chiam.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

NA

Consent for publication

NA

Competing interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1.

Search Strategies for PubMed.

Additional file 2.

Summary of Included Articles.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Goh, S., Wong, R.S.M., Quah, E.L.Y. et al. Mentoring in palliative medicine in the time of covid-19: a systematic scoping review. BMC Med Educ 22, 359 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03409-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-022-03409-4

Keywords

  • Mentoring
  • Interprofessional Mentoring
  • E-mentoring
  • Peer Mentoring
  • Near-peer mentoring
  • Palliative Medicine