Skip to main content

Implementing surgical mentorship in a resource-constrained context: a mixed methods assessment of the experiences of mentees, mentors, and leaders, and lessons learned



A well-qualified workforce is critical to effective functioning of health systems and populations; however, skill gaps present a challenge in low-resource settings. While an emerging body of evidence suggests that mentorship can improve quality, access, and systems in African health settings by building the capacity of health providers, less is known about its implementation in surgery. We studied a novel surgical mentorship intervention as part of a safe surgery intervention (Safe Surgery 2020) in five rural Ethiopian facilities to understand factors affecting implementation of surgical mentorship in resource–constrained settings.


We designed a convergent mixed-methods study to understand the experiences of mentees, mentors, hospital leaders, and external stakeholders with the mentorship intervention. Quantitative data was collected through a survey (n = 25) and qualitative data through in-depth interviews (n = 26) in 2018 to gather information on (1) intervention characteristics including areas of mentorship, mentee-mentor relationships, and mentor characteristics, (2) organizational context including facilitators and barriers to implementation, (3) perceived impact, and (4) respondent characteristics. We analyzed the quantitative and qualitative data using frequency analysis and the constant comparison method, respectively; we integrated findings to identify themes.


All mentees (100%) experienced the intervention as positive. Participants perceived impact as: safer and more frequent surgical procedures, collegial bonds between mentees and mentors, empowerment among mentees, and a culture of continuous learning. Over 70% of all mentees reported their confidence and job satisfaction increased. Supportive intervention characteristics included a systems focus, psychologically safe mentee-mentor relationships, and mentor characteristics including generosity with time and knowledge, understanding of local context, and interpersonal skills. Supportive organizational context included a receptive implementation climate. Intervention challenges included insufficient clinical training, inadequate mentor support, and inadequate dose. Organizational context challenges included resource constraints and a lack of common understanding of the intervention.


We offer lessons for intervention designers, policy makers, and practitioners about optimizing surgical mentorship interventions in resource-constrained settings. We attribute the intervention’s success to its holistic approach, a receptive climate, and effective mentee-mentor relationships. These qualities, along with policy support and adapting the intervention through user feedback are important for successful implementation.

Peer Review reports


Designing and implementing surgical mentorship is a novel component of efforts to strengthen surgical systems in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Lack of training is partially responsible for the scarcity of surgical, obstetric, and anesthesia providers in LMICs [1, 2]. In 2015, the Lancet Commission on Global Surgery placed surgical workforce development on top of the health, welfare, and economic development agenda [3]. Building the capacity of surgical systems through mentorship is a promising strategy to improve access and quality of care [4, 5]. However, implementation of surgical mentorship in African healthcare settings has not been thoroughly analyzed [6]. In this paper, we examine factors affecting implementation of the Safe Surgery 2020 (SS2020) mentorship intervention in Ethiopia to draw insights about optimizing surgical mentorship in resource-constrained settings.

Ethiopia is a country of approximately 109 million people and ranks 173 out of 189 countries on the Human Development Index [7]. Its low surgical provider density (0.6 specialist surgical providers per 100,000) contributes to one of the lowest surgical rates in the world – 148 surgeries per 100,000—with most specialists based in large cities [8]. Much of the burden of emergency and essential surgery is placed on lower-level hospitals. In 2010, the Ethiopian Federal Ministry of Health (FMOH) introduced Integrated Emergency Surgical Officers (IESO) to handle emergency obstetric, gynecological, and surgical cases at primary hospitals and health centers [9].

Responding to unmet surgical needs, the FMOH pioneered Saving Lives through Safe Surgery (SaLTS) in 2015 [9], making Ethiopia one of the first LMICs to nationally prioritize access to safe, essential, and emergency surgical care. A baseline assessment of surgical capacity in Ethiopia revealed that, besides having a large unmet burden of surgically treatable disease, many health facilities faced difficulties providing essential services due to various limitations, including shortage of surgical, anesthesia, and obstetric clinicians [10] A key pillar of the SaLTS initiative, therefore, involved developing and implementing a national leadership and surgical mentorship program [11].

Mentorship is a common professional development process across industries and professions [12]. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine define mentorship as a relationship “in which individuals work together over time to support the personal and professional growth, development, and success of the relational partners through the provision of career and psychosocial support” [13]. Mentorship can range from dyadic to team-based, formal to informal, peer to hierarchical, co-located to virtual, among other dimensions [14, 15]. In Africa, mentorship interventions have embedded mentors in health facilities, deployed visits by mobile mentors, involved teams of mobile multidisciplinary mentors, coupled facilities, and appointed focal mentors within facilities [6]. Mentoring can supplement—and is distinct from—coaching, advising, teaching, tutoring, advocacy, sponsorship, and role modeling, in that mentorship involves building complex, emotionally deep, and longitudinal alliances [15, 16]. In healthcare, mentorship is known to influence personal and professional development, as well as research productivity [17]. Desirable surgical mentor characteristics include “acting as a professional role model, being supportive of and involved in the trainee’s progress, serving as a trusted evaluator of the mentee, and being a leader in their field” [18]. Mentees prefer mentors with an interest in them as a mentee and those who have gone through mentoring training [19]. While coaching is a validated method to enable surgeons to acquire both technical and non-technical skills in high-income countries [20], surgical mentorship in LMICs has received less attention, with studies calling attention to the need to address inadequate mentorship [21].

Studying surgical mentorship in the LMIC context matters because of differences from high-income settings in training culture, availability of mentors, institutional resources and support, and differences in geographic, environmental, and social contexts that may constitute unique illnesses [22, 23]. Mentorship in LMICs is inequitably hindered by challenges including brain drain, lack of innovation hubs and platforms, and funding at the systems level [24]. These differences are important for adoption and institutionalization of mentorship among the surgical workforce. For example, a study of mentorship interventions in five sub-Saharan African countries found that contextually adapting mentorship and coaching interventions was necessary to improve management quality and skill transfer [25]. Similar studies include a variety of approaches to mentoring – including mobile, virtual, and within-facility mentorship – to target improvements in laboratory management, maternal and child health services, infectious disease management, cataract surgery, and managerial performance [6]. More research is needed on the role of surgical mentorship in improving access to safe and high-quality care in LMICs.

SS2020 is a global collaborative initiative that aims to strengthen surgical systems in LMICs through capacity building. The SS2020 mentorship intervention in Ethiopia was designed with government and local stakeholders to aid the development of technical and non-technical skills among surgical, anesthesia, and obstetric providers. We studied the SS2020 mentorship intervention to understand factors affecting implementation. By analyzing the experiences of mentees, mentors, hospital leaders, and key stakeholders with the SS2020 mentorship intervention, our study aims to generate learnings about how to optimize surgical mentorship in LMICs.

Our conceptual framework draws upon prior research on factors associated with effective implementation of innovations [26,27,28,29,30] and mentorship interventions in LMICs [31,32,33,34,35,36,37], and our own experience with the mentorship intervention. We focused on two dimensions of implementation—intervention characteristics and organizational context—because they are important in the surgical setting and amenable to modification. To analyze the data, we identified three sub-questions: 1) What characteristics of the intervention provided support and what factors posed challenges? 2) What are the supportive and challenging factors related to the organizational context? and 3) What is the perceived impact of the mentorship program?

Mentorship intervention

In 2017, SS2020 introduced a multicomponent intervention to improve access to safe, high-quality surgical care in five rural hospitals in Tigray. SS2020 included three components – (1) leadership training; (2) safety protocols, data quality training, and an infrastructure grant; and (3) mentorship [7]. The aims of mentorship were to build the capacity of surgical teams, problem-solve with limited resources, and strengthen the surgical ecosystem.

SS2020 collaborated with the Surgical Society of Ethiopia, FMOH, and Regional Health Bureau (RHB) to design the intervention and conduct on-site visits, and aligned with the Ethiopian Hospitals Alliance for Quality’s hospital clusters for sustainability [8]. Initially, one mentor coordinator and one mentor per hospital were recruited from Ayder Regional Hospital based on reputation, clinical experience, and interpersonal skills. Mentors from the Surgical Society of Ethiopia and the Ethiopian Society of Anesthesiologists provided backstopping and supportive supervision. The mentor training curriculum included a week-long leadership session with mentees and two days of mentorship training. Following leadership training, mentees developed a quality improvement plan targeting surgical volume and safety in their facilities. Based on early experience, the mentorship team evolved to a multidisciplinary model [38].

The typical mentor visit was one day per month where mentors: (1) discussed priorities with hospital management; (2) reviewed progress on surgical improvement plans with mentees, discussed challenges, and answered questions; (3) provided side-by-side mentorship on clinical procedures, safety and teamwork practices, and data monitoring, and problem-solving through resource mobilization and patient consultations; (4) identified gaps and discussed next steps; (5) debriefed with hospital management; (6) and reported to the RHB.

Early visits focused on establishing relationships and trust between mentors and mentees, then developing technical and non-technical skills in mentees and advocating to hospital management and RHB for resources. Monitoring implementation included a standardized checklist to track activities and outcomes such as surgical volume, Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC) use, complications, and postsurgical infections.


Study design

We used a convergent mixed-methods study design [39,40,41] to understand the factors affecting implementation of a surgical mentorship intervention. Quantitative data were collected through surveys to understand experiences with the mentorship intervention. Qualitative data were collected using in-depth interviews to expand our understanding and gather contextual and implementation information. We received ethical approval from the Ethiopian Public Health Institute and the Institutional Review Board at Harvard Medical School reviewed the project and gave it an exemption determination. We followed reporting guidelines for qualitative research [42].


Our setting was Tigray, Ethiopia, selected by the FMOH for SS2020 intervention. The RHB and Jhpiego selected five rural hospitals based on their commitment to quality improvement and proximity to Ayder Regional Hospital. Surgery was provided by non-specialist providers including IESOs, nurse anesthetists, and nurses.


We used an information-rich [43], purposeful sample [44] of participants with direct mentorship intervention experience. Our sample included (1) surgical team mentees, including IESOs, anesthetists, and nurses; (2) a multidisciplinary mentorship team including a general surgeon, an obstetrician/gynecologist (as required), an orthopedic surgeon (as required), an anesthetist, a senior OR nurse, and the mentor coordinator; (3) hospital leaders including hospital administrators or medical directors; and (4) key stakeholders involved in the intervention design who could provide history and context.

The eligible sample included: 3 surgical providers and 1.2 anesthetists per hospital (on average); 1 administrator and 1 medical director per hospital; 5 mentors and 1 mentor coordinator; and 3 key stakeholders. There were no dedicated OR nurses as they rotated from the hospital wards. Our sample size was guided by information power [45]. We aimed to interview 2–3 surgical team members, 1 hospital leader, 3 mentors and a mentor coordinator, and 3 stakeholders.

Data collection and analysis

Data collection

We administered a paper-based survey to mentees and hospital leaders onsite 32 months after initiation of the intervention to ensure sufficient exposure to the intervention. The survey was based on mentorship literature in African settings and innovation implementation in healthcare, developed by the research team (SA, MS, AE, SW) in consultation with stakeholders, and pilot-tested in five facilities in Ethiopia. The 57 items focused on: (1) intervention characteristics including areas of mentorship, mentee-mentor relationships, and mentor characteristics (2), organizational context including facilitators and barriers to implementation (3), perceived impact, and (4) respondent characteristics (Additional File 1). Hospital leaders and surgical team leaders identified the participants. We did not collect identifiers or offer incentives for completion.

We conducted in-depth, semi-structured, one-on-one interviews 32 months onsite after initiation of the intervention. Interview protocols for mentees, mentors, leaders, and stakeholders explored (1) intervention characteristics including which areas of mentorship were most valued and mentee-mentor relationships, (2) facilitators and barriers to implementation, and (3) perceived impact (Additional File 2). We invited all survey participants to interview, however 6 could not participate due to time constraints. In addition, we interviewed mentors and key stakeholders. Interviews were approximately 45–60 min and conducted in a private space in English by a senior researcher (SA) and an Ethiopian research team member (SW) who provided Tigrinya translation. SA has a doctoral degree in health policy and management with experience in implementation and qualitative research. Stakeholder interviews were conducted by telephone by a research assistant (MS, OA or LD) who hold master’s degrees in public health with experience in qualitative research.

Interviews were conducted individually except for 1 interview conducted with 2 interviewees due to their schedule constraints. Participants provided verbal consent before interviews. No interviewees refused or dropped out of interviews. We documented our observations and insights in field notes. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed. Transcripts were quality checked and uploaded to NVivo V.11 (QSR International, Melbourne, Australia) for coding.

Data analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the percentage of responses on the Likert scale for each survey question. The denominator for each response was the number of responses to the question. Given the sample size (n = 25), statistical testing was not conducted. All analyses were performed using Stata (version 16.0, StataCorp LLC. College Station, TX).

We analyzed qualitative data inductively to understand factors (supportive and challenging) affecting implementation related to (1) intervention characteristics and (2) organizational context. We also examined perceived impact. First, two researchers (MS and OA) reviewed three transcripts to develop a preliminary codebook inductively based on our conceptual framework [46, 47]. The coding team had discussions to arrive at a unified codebook and used it to code nine new transcripts. Codes were validated against new text and refined until no new codes emerged (i.e. code saturation) [48]. Inter-rater reliability between two coders found substantial agreement (kappa = 0.76) [49], and all 26 transcripts were analyzed using the final codebook. Three researchers (SA, MS, and NZ) reviewed coded data, inductively extracted emerging themes based on categorization and connectively between codes, and finalized themes including minor themes [50,51,52], through iterative discussions.

The qualitative and quantitative data were integrated to identify patterns and themes. Coauthors reviewed themes and identified lessons emerging about factors affecting implementation of a surgical mentorship intervention in low-resource settings.


Hospital and respondent characteristics are presented in Table 1. The typical hospital was a rural hospital performing on average 33.8 surgeries per month. Survey respondents (n = 25) included mentees (n = 20, 80%) and hospital leaders (n = 3; 12%). Interviewees (n = 26) included mentees (n = 16/26, 61%), mentors (n = 4/26, 15%), hospital leaders (n = 3/26, 12%), and external stakeholders (n = 3/26, 12%).

Table 1 Characteristics of intervention hospitals and participants, 2018

Below, we present our quantitative and qualitative results, including 3 themes and 16 constituent subthemes. Table 2 provides quotations illustrating our themes, edited for conciseness.

Table 2 Illustrative quotations on factors that support and challenge the mentorship intervention and perceived impact

Factors supporting implementation

Intervention characteristics

Systems focus of the mentorship intervention

Interview participants noted mentorship took a holistic approach by improving technical and non-technical skills and strengthening the surgical ecosystem. For example, to improve surgical quality, mentors trained mentees on safety, teamwork, and communication practices on the SSC and coached them in the OR (operating room). To reduce inappropriate referrals out, mentors introduced a register to track surgeries and referrals and devised an action plan with strategies including mentoring on a greater range of surgeries, mobilizing resources, and communicating with mentees regarding inappropriate referrals.

Mentors worked to strengthen the surgical ecosystem by providing technical expertise and advocated for equipment, staffing, water, and electricity needs to the RHB. In surveys, there was less discrepancy between what mentees desired and received on staff mobilization: 48% (n = 12/25) said it was greatly important and 40% (n = 10/25) said it was received to a great extent. There was more discrepancy regarding resource mobilization: 36% (n = 9/25) said it was greatly important and 20% (n = 5/25) said it was received to a great extent (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Areas of Mentorship—Prioritized and Received. Mentees prioritized clinical skills and knowledge the most. It was also the area of most discrepancy between what mentees prioritized and received—92% identified it as “greatly important” but only 44% reported it was received “to a great extent”

Multidisciplinary mentorship team

A topic discussed less frequently but with high concern from participants was the importance of a multidisciplinary mentorship team. Interviewees stated mentorship began with one mentor per hospital, so surgical providers also mentored anesthetists and nurses. Nurse mentees reported feeling left out and unsatisfied because their profession was not well represented in the mentorship team, therefore mentorship did not address their issues adequately. Over time, the model shifted to a multidisciplinary team. Mentees expressed a high level of satisfaction with this approach.

Psychological safety

Mentees consistently reported relationships were collaborative and non-hierarchical; mentors approached them as friends. Mentors gave nonjudgmental feedback and had a no blame, no shame attitude. For example, mentees explained they now track the number of surgical site infections, but before mentorship it was considered shameful. Leaders noted friendly, nonjudgmental, and safe relationships created receptiveness to feedback and an environment of learning.

Mentor characteristics

Mentor characteristics were important to mentees. In survey results, over 80% of mentees identified ‘courtesy and respect’, ‘belief in capabilities of mentees’, ‘knowledgeable in the field’, ‘trust’, ‘constructive feedback’, ‘interpersonal skills’, and ‘role model in providing surgical services’ as “greatly important” qualities in an effective mentor (Additional File 3). Four sub-themes emerged in interviews.

Generosity with time, knowledge, and money

Mentees and leaders repeatedly noted mentors’ generosity with time, knowledge, and money. Mentors were highly respected senior specialists with heavy workloads but used their knowledge to teach and encourage mentees to improve access to safe, high-quality surgical care. Mentors were also generous with their financial resources, sometimes purchasing equipment with their own money.


Mentees and leaders described they valued accessibility of mentors outside their regular visits. Mentors followed up on resolving problems, advised patient consultations and referrals, and guided difficult cases. Mentees appreciated that mentors responded to their calls regardless of the time. One mentee recalled how their mentor guided them step-by-step over the phone during an operation on a complicated case.

Understanding of local context

A less common but notable theme was understanding of local context. Mentors and key stakeholders discussed the importance of understanding the region’s culture, hospital infrastructure, and outcomes. One mentor mentioned the need to understand the internal context of facilities and why providers practiced in certain ways.

Interpersonal skills

Mentees and leaders emphasized mentors’ interpersonal skills. They described them as kind, good listeners, and having integrity. Mentees explained they trusted their mentors because they were open, honest, and spoke candidly.

Organizational context

Receptive implementation climate

Mentees, mentors, and leaders commonly expressed how mentees desired to improve access to surgical services and patient outcomes. They were eager for mentors to perform procedures with them, provide feedback, discuss cases, and problem-solve. Hospital leaders valued mentors’ role in promoting learning, mobilizing resources, and advising. One mentee explained that from their perspective, 90% of the mentees were motivated, but 10% were not because mentorship created additional work without incentives.

Challenges to implementation

Intervention characteristics

Insufficient clinical training

In surveys, the largest reporting discrepancy was in clinical mentorship: 92% (n = 23/25) identified it as “greatly important” but only 39% said their clinical skills improved “to a great extent” (Fig. 2). Mentees discussed the duration of mentorship visits, emergencies, and fluxes in surgical volume hindered time for side-by-side surgical mentorship. Some mentors and key stakeholders recommended clinical training before mentorship because mentees’ pre-service clinical knowledge and fundamental skills were insufficient.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Perceived Impact of the Mentorship Intervention. Over 70% of mentees reported three areas that had improved ‘to a great extent’: increased confidence (75%), SSC implementation (75%), and improved job satisfaction (71%)

Inadequate support for mentors and insufficient dose

A common area for improvement suggested by key stakeholders was the need for greater mentor support. Mentoring was perceived as a service provided by senior physicians or as an extracurricular activity. However, mentoring requires training, adequate compensation, recognition, and backup support at their home hospitals. The lack of support resulted in some attrition of mentors, affecting continuity. Mentees desired more time; mentors explained that logistics such as transportation arrangements made it difficult for them to stay longer.

Organizational context

Challenging implementation context

The greatest barrier to implementation discussed was the challenging implementation context including workforce, infrastructure, and organizational culture. One mentee explained that while the goal was to increase surgical volume, all surgeries would be cancelled if their only anesthetist was ill. Mentors described challenges with high turnover; nurses rotated through ORs and were transferred constantly. The lack of supplies and equipment made it difficult for mentees to implement best practices. Finally, mentors and external stakeholders explained that some facilities had weak safety cultures; they did not discuss cases as a team, review data, or use evidence-based safety practices consistently.

Lack of a clear understanding of the mentorship intervention

A few interviewees explained a lack of understanding about the mentorship intervention. Some mentees thought the role of mentors was to mobilize resources; others feared consequences of mistakes because they did not understand the purpose of mentorship, and a few mentees expected incentives for additional work. Mentors experienced compassion fatigue as expectations for resources were high and unrealistic.

Perceived impact

All mentees (100%, n = 24/24) experienced the intervention as positive, 79% (n = 19/24) were satisfied and 87% (n = 21/24) supported continuing the intervention (Additional File 4). The majority of mentees said their surgical practices changed due to mentorship (84%, n = 21/25) and that their hospital made changes as a result of the program (76%, n = 19/25) (Additional File 5). Over 70% of mentees reported that confidence (75%, n = 18/24), SSC implementation (75%, n = 18/24), and improved job satisfaction (71%, n = 17/24) all improved “to a great extent”. (Fig. 2). The qualitative results provided deeper insights about the perceived impact of mentorship.

Safer and more frequent provision of surgical care

Mentees consistently discussed how mentorship helped implement evidence-based safety practices. Before the intervention, these practices were not used or performed consistently causing poor surgical care and outcomes. Participants believed standardization of these practices, better teamwork and communication, and improvements in the surgical ecosystem helped mentees improve surgical volume, outcomes, safety culture, and communication with patients. Mentees attributed this to mentorship because mentors continuously emphasized, demonstrated, and encouraged best practices.

Establishment of collegial bonds between mentees and mentors

A few mentees and mentors noted collegial relationships lasted beyond onsite interactions. Mentors continued to consult difficult cases after mentorship and encouraged mentees to seek advice when needed. Mentors said this helped reduce referrals out and provided opportunity to continue building confidence in mentees.

Empowered mentees

Mentees commonly conveyed a greater sense of empowerment. They explained that, previously, challenges in providing surgical care at facilities were not their responsibility, but now felt ownership of problems and wanted to solve them. Mentors discussed mentees had greater confidence and agency. This sense of empowerment went beyond individuals to teams taking ownership for the care of patients. Mentees perceived leadership was more invested in improving surgical services and outcomes of surgical care.

Inculcation of a culture of continuous learning

Participants highlighted that mentorship inculcated a culture of continuous learning. Mentors demonstrated the data collection systems, explained their importance, trained mentees in their use, and ensured they were followed. Mentees reported this helped identify mistakes and strategize on areas of improvement. Mentors reported mentoring allowed them to learn; one discussed the importance of mentees and mentors learning from each other by putting the patient at the center. Another explained mentorship allowed them to better understand the context of rural facilities. This impact was significant and inspired others at the national level.


Statement of principal findings

Our results suggest mentorship is a promising strategy for building capacity of surgical providers in resource-constrained settings. Participants perceived safer care, increased surgical volume, amicable bonds between mentees and mentors, empowered mentees, and a culture of continuous learning as impacts of the intervention. Over two-thirds of mentees reported an increase in confidence and job satisfaction. The intervention’s holistic approach, effective mentee-mentor relationships, and receptive climate contributed to its success.

Interpretation of results within the context of the wider literature

In LMICs, research on the role of mentorship in surgery is at a nascent stage [53, 54] and surgical mentorship program implementation has not been sufficiently analyzed to guide policy and practice; this is important to successfully design and implement mentorship programs [6]. We found results from implementing SS2020 mentorship in Ethiopia similar to Tanzania [5], with strong support from mentees and similar perceived impacts, including safer care, strengthened surgical ecosystems, increased confidence, and stronger learning cultures in both countries. Common supportive features included a holistic approach, multidisciplinary mentorship team, psychologically safe relationships, mentors that were friendly, accessible, and understanding of the local context, and a receptive implementation climate. Common challenges included resource constraints, inadequate mentor support, insufficient dose, and resistance to change.

Implications for policy, practice and research

We offer lessons to intervention designers, policy makers, and practitioners about optimizing surgical mentorship in LMICs (Table 3).

Table 3 Lessons learned for future implementation of surgical mentorship programs in LMICs

Intervention characteristics

The intervention’s holistic approach was critical. The context was challenging, with limited workforce, resource constraints, and a weak safety culture. A single vertical intervention would not have succeeded; instead, the entire surgical system required intervention through building technical and non-technical skills, strengthening infrastructure, and changing the culture [55,56,57].

Mentees valued psychological safety with mentors where they could ask questions, speak up, or admit mistakes. Studies have linked psychological safety with improved learning and performance [58,59,60,61]; future interventions should focus on fostering this quality in mentor training for optimal effectiveness.

Mentees prioritized clinical knowledge and skills the most, similar to findings in Tanzania, but the discrepancy between what was desired versus received differed. In Ethiopia, 92% of mentees wanted clinical skills but only 44% said it was received compared to Tanzania (96% and 76%, respectively). Fewer Ethiopian mentees (39%) reported their clinical skills improved to a great extent compared to Tanzanian mentees (74%). The combined effect of training and mentorship may be more effective [62] and future surgical mentorship programs should consider clinical training before mentorship and clinical mentorship during visits [63, 64].

Innovative and cost-effective options for increasing dose should be explored. Research suggests in-person mentorship is valuable for building relationships, understanding local context, and learning tacit knowledge [55]. Approaches include embedded mentorship, where mentors work within a mentee facility for a defined period [65, 66]; a focal mentor, where an experienced provider within the facility provides mentorship [67]; and coupled facilities, where a higher-performing facility mentors a lower-performing facility [32, 53]. Blended mentorship, which combines in-person and virtual options such tele-mentoring, WhatsApp, and SMS can increase dose, complement learning, strengthen relationships, and provide real-time support [68,69,70,71,72,73].

Learning and adaptation of the mentorship intervention is important for improving the intervention’s design. Feedback from mentees and mentors can inform adaptation; a monitoring plan with output indicators regarding mentoring visits, provider behaviors, and patient outcomes can provide insight about impact [74]. Through learning and adaptation, a model of surgical mentorship can be successfully scaled up.

Organizational context

A receptive implementation climate was key for the intervention’s success. A situation analysis helped tailor the intervention by understanding context, identifying priorities, gaining leadership support, and preparing for change [75, 76]. However, adequate resources are needed for implementation. While mentors addressed resource constraints, only 20% of mentees perceived those resources were mobilized, suggesting resources were a significant challenge. Providing resources has potential to improve adherence to safety standards [77, 78] and access [79,80,81].

Institutionalizing mentorship requires policy support, alignment with national reforms, integration within health systems, and, over time, a culture of mentorship. Mentorship requires collaboration, engagement, and support from stakeholders such as government, professional societies, academic medical institutions, and senior surgical professionals; they can provide technical and professional support, promote mentorship, and mobilize resources [38]. Regional authorities should be involved from inception to understand challenges faced by surgical teams.

Future research

To understand the impact of mentorship on surgical access and quality and its sustainability, experimental and longitudinal research design should be considered in the future. Further research is necessary to understand factors such as optimal dose, the importance of readiness for change for success [82], and which contextual factors, resources, and structures are important. Research can inform the optimal design of the intervention, how to adapt it based on the implementation context, uncover best practices, and measure impact [83,84,85,86]. This research can support effective policy and practice by elucidating how and where resources should be spent, and can be used as the basis for effectively scaling up for impact.

Strengths and limitations

The key strength of our study is its mixed-methods design and primary data collection from participants, but there were limitations. We could not collect data from SS2020 sites in the Amhara region due to conflict; our findings need to be confirmed with a larger sample in more diverse contexts and follow-up. Our survey should be refined for future research based on the research question and conceptual framework. Respondents may have given more positive responses, however, using an experienced qualitative researcher and collecting data from different respondents at each site may have minimized bias [87]. Our findings may have been confounded by participants’ experiences with other SS2020 interventions.


We conducted a mixed-methods evaluation regarding the experiences of mentees, mentors, hospital leaders, and key stakeholders to generate lessons on optimizing the design and implementation of surgical mentorship interventions in resource-constrained settings. Our findings suggest mentorship may build capacity in surgical providers, increase confidence and job satisfaction, and instill a culture of continuous learning in low-resource settings. A holistic approach, a receptive implementation climate, effective mentee-mentor relationships, adaptation through user-feedback, and policy support to institutionalize and build a culture of mentorship are important to the intervention’s success.

Availability of data and materials

The dataset analyzed during the current study is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.



Federal Ministry of Health


Integrated Emergency Surgical Officers


Operating Room


Regional Health Bureau


Saving Lives through Safe Surgery


Safe Surgery 2020


Surgical Safety Checklist


  1. Ozgediz D, Kijjambu S, Galukande M, Dubowitz G, Mabweijano J, Mijumbi C, et al. Africa’s neglected surgical workforce crisis. Lancet. 2008;371:627–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Hoyler M, Finlayson SR, McClain CD, Meara JG, Hagander L. Shortage of doctors, shortage of data: a review of the global surgery, obstetrics, and anesthesia workforce literature. World J Surg. 2014;38:269–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Meara JG, Leather AJ, Hagander L, Alkire BC, Alonso N, Ameh EA, et al. Global Surgery 2030: evidence and solutions for achieving health, welfare, and economic development. Lancet. 2015;386:569–624.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Schwerdtle P, Morphet J, Hall H. A scoping review of mentorship of health personnel to improve the quality of health care in low and middle-income countries. Global Health;13:77.

  5. Alidina S, Tibyehabwa L, Alreja SS, et al. A multimodal mentorship intervention to improve surgical quality in Tanzania’s Lake Zone: a convergent, mixed methods assessment. Hum Resour Health. 2021;19:115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Feyissa GT, Balabanova D, Woldie M. How effective are mentoring programs for improving health worker competence and institutional performance in Africa? A systematic review of quantitative evidence. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2019;12:989–1005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Conceicao P. Human development report 2020: the next frontier – human development and the Anthropocene. 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Holmer H, Lantz A, Kunjumen T, Finlayson S, Hoyler M, Siyam A, et al. Global distribution of surgeons, anaesthesiologists, and obstetricians. Lancet Glob Health. 2015;2:S9-11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Federal Ministry of Health of Ethiopia National Safe Surgery Strategic Plan. Saving Lives Through Safe Surgery. 2017.

  10. Iverson KR, Garringer K, Ahearn O, Alidina S, Citron I, Esseye S, et al. Mixed-methods assessment of surgical capacity in two regions in Ethiopia. Br J Surg. 2019;106:e81–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Burssa D, Teshome A, Iverson K, Ahearn O, Ashengo T, Barash D, et al. Safe surgery for all: early lessons from implementing a National Government-Driven Surgical Plan in Ethiopia. World J Surg. 2017;41:3038–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hunt DM, Michael C. Mentorship: a career training and development tool. Acad Manag Rev. 1983;8:475–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The science of effective mentorship in STEM. 2020.

  14. Kashiwagi DT, Varkey P, Cook DA. Mentoring programs for physicians in academic medicine: a systematic review. Acad Med. 2013;88:1029–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Geraci SA, Thigpen SC. A review of mentoring in academic medicine. Am J Med Sci. 2017;353:151–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Comeau DL, Derbew MD, Mariam DH. Influential mentors: a guidebook for building mentoring skills and capacity. 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Sambunjak D, Straus SE, Marusić A. Mentoring in academic medicine: a systematic review. JAMA. 2006;296(9):1103–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Entezami P, Franzblau LE, Chung KC. Mentorship in surgical training: a systematic review. Hand (N Y). 2012;7:30–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Sinclair P, Fitzgerald JE, Hornby ST, Shalhoub J. Mentorship in surgical training: current status and a needs assessment for future mentoring programs in surgery. World J Surg. 2015;39:303–13. discussion 314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. El-Gabri D, McDow AD, Quamme SP, Hooper-Lane C, Greenberg CC, Long KL. Surgical coaching for advancement of global surgical skills and capacity: a systematic review. J Surg Res. 2020;246:499–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Conradie A, Duys R, Forget P, Biccard BM. Barriers to clinical research in Africa: a quantitative and qualitative survey of clinical researchers in 27 African countries. Br J Anaesth. 2018;121(4):813–21. Epub 2018 Jul 19 PMID: 30236243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lescano AG, Cohen CR, Raj T, Rispel L, Garcia PJ, Zunt JR, et al. Strengthening mentoring in low- and middle-income countries to advance global health research: an overview. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2019;100:3–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Are C, Senthil M, Jayaryaman S, Wenos C, Pramesh CS, D’Ugo D, Charles A. Promoting surgical research in the Global South. Surgery. 2021;170(5):1587–8. Epub 2021 Mar 10 PMID: 33712308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Hansoti B, Kalbarczyk A, Hosseinipour MC, Prabhakaran D, Tucker JD, Nachega J, Wallis L, Stiles JK, Wynn A, Morroni C. Global health mentoring toolkits: a scoping review relevant for low- and middle-income country institutions. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2019;100(1_Suppl):48–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Manzi A, Hirschhorn LR, Sherr K, Chirwa C, Baynes C, Awoonor-Williams JK, AHI PHIT Partnership Collaborative. Mentorship and coaching to support strengthening healthcare systems: lessons learned across the five population health implementation and training partnership projects in sub-Saharan Africa. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17:831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Klein KJ, Knight AP. Innovation implementation: overcoming the challenge. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2005;14(5):243–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Greenhalgh T, Robert G, Macfarlane F, Bate P, Kyriakidou O. Diffusion of innovations in service organizations: systematic review and recommendations. Milbank Q. 2004;82(4):581–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;7(4):50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kitson A, Harvey G, McCormack B. Enabling the implementation of evidence based practice: a conceptual framework. Qual Health Care. 1998;7(3):149–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Klein KJ, Conn AB, Sorra JS. Implementing computerized technology: an organizational analysis. J Appl Psychol. 2001;86(5):811–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Manzi A, Magge H, Hedt-Gauthier BL, Michaelis AP, Cyamatare FR, Nyirazinyoye L, Hirschhorn LR, Ntaganira J. Clinical mentorship to improve pediatric quality of care at the health centers in rural Rwanda: a qualitative study of perceptions and acceptability of health care workers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;20(14):275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Bradley E, Hartwig KA, Rowe LA, Cherlin EJ, Pashman J, Wong R, Dentry T, Wood WE, Abebe Y. Hospital quality improvement in Ethiopia: a partnership-mentoring model. Int J Qual Health Care. 2008;20(6):392–9. Epub 2008 Sep 10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Anatole M, Magge H, Redditt V, Karamaga A, Niyonzima S, Drobac P, Mukherjee JS, Ntaganira J, Nyirazinyoye L, Hirschhorn LR. Nurse mentorship to improve the quality of health care delivery in rural Rwanda. Nurs Outlook. 2013;61(3):137–44. Epub 2012 Nov 16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Magge H, Anatole M, Cyamatare FR, Mezzacappa C, Nkikabahizi F, Niyonzima S, Drobac PC, Ngabo F, Hirschhorn LR. Mentoring and quality improvement strengthen integrated management of childhood illness implementation in rural Rwanda. Arch Dis Child. 2015;100(6):565–70. Epub 2014 May 12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Manzi A, Hirschhorn LR, Sherr K, Chirwa C, Baynes C, Awoonor-Williams JK, AHI PHIT Partnership Collaborative. Mentorship and coaching to support strengthening healthcare systems: lessons learned across the five population health implementation and training partnership projects in sub-Saharan Africa. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(Suppl 3):831.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Nakanjako D, Byakika-Kibwika P, Kintu K, Aizire J, Nakwagala F, Luzige S, Namisi C, Mayanja-Kizza H, Kamya MR. Mentorship needs at academic institutions in resource-limited settings: a survey at Makerere University College of Health Sciences. BMC Med Educ. 2011;29(11):53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Ssemata AS, Gladding S, John CC, Kiguli S. Developing mentorship in a resource-limited context: a qualitative research study of the experiences and perceptions of the makerere university student and faculty mentorship programme. BMC Med Educ. 2017;17(1):123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. National SaLTS Mentorship Guideline. Ministry of Health of Ethiopia. 2017.

  39. Creswell JW, Klassen AC, Plano Clark VL, Smith KC. Best practices for mixed methods research in the health sciences. Vol. 2013. Bethesda (Maryland): National Institutes of Health;2011. p.541-5.

  40. Curry LA, Krumholz HM, O’Cathain A, Clark VL, Cherlin E, Bradley EH. Mixed methods in biomedical and health services research. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2013;6(1):119-23.

  41. Curry L, Nunez-Smith M. Mixed methods in health sciences research: a practical primer. Thousand Oaks: Sage publications; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19:349–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Patton MQ. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Palinkas LA, Horwitz SM, Green CA, Wisdom JP, Duan N, Hoagwood K. Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and policy in mental health and mental health services research. 2015;42:533–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Malterud K, Siersma VD, Guassora AD. Sample size in qualitative interview studies: guided by information power. Qual Health Res. 2016;26(13):1753–60. Epub 2016 Jul 10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Curry LA, Nembhard IM, Bradley EH. Qualitative and mixed methods provide unique contributions to outcomes research. Circulation. 2009;119:1442–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Corbin J, Strauss A. Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks: Sage publications; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Hennink MM, Kaiser BN, Marconi VC. Code saturation versus meaning saturation: how many interviews are enough? Qual Health Res. 2017;27(4):591–608. Epub 2016 Sep 26 PMID: 27670770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2012;22:276–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Creswell J. Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches. Los Angeles: SAGE; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Miles MB, Huberman AM, Saldaña J. Qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook. 3rd ed. London: SAGE; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Saldaña J. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. London: SAGE; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Judson K, Courtright P, Ravilla T, Khanna R, Bassett K. Impact of systematic capacity building on cataract surgical service development in 25 hospitals. BMC Ophthalmol. 2017;17(1):96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Pittalis C, Brugha R, Crispino G, Bijlmakers L, Mwapasa G, Lavy C, et al. Evaluation of a surgical supervision model in three African countries-protocol for a prospective mixed-methods controlled pilot trial. Pilot Feasibility Study. 2019;5:25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Alidina S, Menon G, Staffa SJ, Alreja S, Barash D, Barringer E, et al. Outcomes of a multicomponent safe surgery intervention in Tanzania’s Lake Zone: a prospective, longitudinal study. Int J Qual Health Care. 2021;29:33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Alidina S, Chatterjee P, Zanial N, Alreja SS, Balira R, Barash D, et al. Improving surgical quality in low-income and middle-income countries: why do some health facilities perform better than others? BMJ Qual Saf. 2021:bmjqs-2020–011795. Epub ahead of print.

  57. Impact report: improving access to safe surgery for millions of people around the World. Safe Surgery 2020. Available at: Accessed 3 Feb  2021.

  58. Edmondson A. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Adm Sci Q. 1999;44(2):350–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Edmondson AC. Speaking up in the operating room: how team leaders promote learning in interdisciplinary action teams. J Manag Stud. 2003;40:1419–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Edmondson AC. Framing for learning: lessons in successful technology implementation. Calif Manage Rev. 2003;45:34–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Newman A, Donohue R, Eva N. Psychological safety: a systematic review of the literature. Hum Resour Manag Rev. 2017;27:521–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Weaver MR, Crozier I, Eleku S, et al. Capacity-building and clinical competence in infectious disease in Uganda: a mixed-design study with pre/post and cluster-randomized trial components. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(12):e51319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. WHO recommendations for clinical mentoring to support scale-up of HIV care, antiretroviral therapy and prevention in resource-constrained settings. World Health Organization.

  64. Xiong X, Carter R, Lusamba-Dikassa PS, Kuburhanwa EC, Kimanuka F, Salumu F, et al. Improving the quality of maternal and newborn health outcomes through a clinical mentorship program in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: study protocol. Reprod Health. 2019;16:147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Maruta T, Motebang D, Mathabo L, Rotz PJ, Wanyoike J, Peter T. Impact of mentorship on WHO-AFRO Strengthening Laboratory Quality Improvement Process Towards Accreditation (SLIPTA). Afr J Lab Med. 2012;1(1):6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Nkwawir S, Batumani N, Maruta T, Awasom C. From grass to grace: how SLMTA revolutionised the Bamenda Regional Hospital Laboratory in Cameroon. Afr J Lab Med. 2014;3(2):203, 6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Tang JH, Kaliti C, Bengtson A, Hayat S, Chimala E, MacLeod R, et al. Improvement and retention of emergency obstetrics and neonatal care knowledge and skills in a hospital mentorship program in Lilongwe. Malawi Int j Gynaecol Obstetr. 2016;132(2):240–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Douglass K, Williams A. Faculty development program for emergency medicine physicians in India: a pilot program. AEM Educ Train. 2018;3:33–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Belcher HME, Piggott DA, Sanders RA, Trent M. Research accountability groups and mentoring minutes: the M3 approach to promote public health infectious diseases research for diverse graduate students. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 2019;89:390–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Di Frances CD, Childs E, Fetterman JL, Villanti AC, Stanton CA, Russo AR, et al. Implementing and evaluating a mentor training to improve support for early-career scholars in tobacco regulatory science. Nicotine Tob Res. 2020;22:1041–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Weber-Main AM, Shanedling J, Kaizer AM, Connett J, Lamere M, El-Fakahany EE. A randomized controlled pilot study of the University of Minnesota mentoring excellence training academy: a hybrid learning approach to research mentor training. J Clin Transl Sci. 2019;3:152–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. van der Windt M, van der Kleij RM, Snoek KM, Willemsen SP, Dykgraaf RHM, Laven JSE, et al. Impact of a blended periconception lifestyle care approach on lifestyle behaviors: before-and-after study. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22:e19378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Hossain I, Mugoya I, Muchai L, et al. Blended learning using peer mentoring and WhatsApp for building capacity of health workers for strengthening immunization services in Kenya. Glob Health Sci Pract. 2021;9(1):201–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Mentoring for Human Capacity Development: Implementation Principles and Guidance. USAID. 2018.

  75. Aarons GA, Hurlburt M, Horwitz SM. Advancing a conceptual model of evidence-based practice implementation in public service sectors. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011;38:4–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Moullin JC, Dickson KS, Stadnick NA, et al. Systematic review of the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework. Implement Sci. 2019;14:1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Kwok AC, Funk LM, Baltaga R, Lipsitz SR, Merry AF, Dziekan G, Cionau G, Berry WR, Gawande AA. Implementation of the World Health Organisation Surgical Safety Checklist, including introduction of pulse oximetry, in a resource-limited Setting. Ann Surg. 2013;257:633–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Kim RY, Kwakye G, Kwok AC, Baltaga R, Ciobanu G, Merry AF, et al. Sustainability and long-term effectiveness of the WHO surgical safety checklist combined with pulse oximetry in a resource-limited setting: two-year update from Moldova. JAMA Surg. 2015;150:473–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Luboga S, Macfarlane SB, von Schreeb J, Kruk ME, Cherian MN, Bergström S, et al. Increasing access to surgical services in sub-saharan Africa: priorities for national and international agencies recommended by the Bellagio Essential Surgery Group. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Stephens T, Mezei A, O’Hara NN, Potter J, Mugarura R, Blachut PA, et al. When surgical resources are severely constrained, who receives care? Determinants of access to orthopaedic trauma surgery in Uganda. World J Surg. 2017;41:1415–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Hoskins NN, Cunicelli MA, Hopper W, Zeller R, Cheng N, Lindsey T. The value surgical services bring to critical access hospitals. Cureus. 2021;13:e14367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Hayirli TC, Meara JG, Barash D, Chirangi B, Hellar A, Kenemo B, et al. Development and content validation of the safe surgery organizational readiness tool: a quality improvement study. Int J Surg. 2021;89:105944.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. The Importance of Global Health Research. Unite for Sight. Cited 26 June, 2022.

  84. Birbeck GL, Wiysonge CS, Mills EJ, Frenk JJ, Zhou XN, Jha P. Global health: the importance of evidence-based medicine. BMC Med. 2013;11(1):1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Casey D, Clark L, Gould K. Developing a digital learning version of a mentorship training programme. Br J Nurs. 2018;27(2):82–6. PMID: 29368565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Langat, A. No answer: Kenya’s gender-based violence hotline fails to connect. Devex. 2019.  Cited 26 June, 2022.

  87. Bergen N, Labonté R. “Everything is perfect, and we have no problems”: detecting and limiting social desirability bias in qualitative research. Qual Health Res. 2020;30:783–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


We would like to thank the Saving Lives through Surgery (SaLTS) team within the Medical Services General Directorate at the Federal Ministry of Health, the Tigray Regional Health Bureau and the leaders of SS2020 intervention hospitals for their support of the Safe Surgery 2020 mentorship study. We would like to thank the Surgical Society of Ethiopia, Ethiopian Society of Anesthesiologists, and Ayder Regional Hospital for their collaboration and mentors for the project. We would like to especially thank the mentors for their commitment and dedication to strengthening surgical services in rural communities – without them this intervention would not have been possible: Dr. Girmay Hagos Araaya, Dr. Reiye Esayas Mengesha, Dr. Ybrah Berhe Zelelew, Dr. Hagos Gidey, Dr. Berhe Gebre Silasie, Haftom Berhane, Tadesse Teklit, Sr. Medhin Gebre Tensae. We would like to thank the surgical team members and hospital leaders who gave so generously of their time for interviews. We would like to offer our sincere thanks to Sophie Blumert for her editing assistance. We are grateful to Dr. Christina Smiraglia and Professor Aisha Yousafzai for their advice on the qualitative analysis. We would like to acknowledge and thank all organizations and individuals who participated in our consultation on the design of Safe Surgery 2020 as well as those organizations and individuals who have contributed to the larger Safe Surgery 2020 initiative including Assist International, Dalberg, Jhpiego, Life Box, Project ECHO, the Sterile Processing Education Charitable Trust, and the World Federation of Societies of Anaesthesiologists.


This work was supported by the GE Foundation [28045607]. GE Foundation was not involved in the study design, data collection and analysis, the decision to submit the findings for publication, or the drafting of the manuscript. David Barash, as an individual, had a role in the preparation, review, and approval of the manuscript and is an author on this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



SA conceptualized and designed the study, collected, analyzed, and interpreted the data, and drafted the manuscript. MMS conceptualized and designed the study, collected, analyzed, and interpreted the data, and drafted the manuscript. TAA conceptualized the study and drafted the manuscript. AEM conceptualized and designed the study, and drafted the manuscript. OA collected and analyzed the data and drafted the manuscript. BGA substantively revised the manuscript. AB substantively revised the manuscript. ADB conceptualized the study and substantively revised the manuscript. DB conceptualized and substantively revised the manuscript. DGB conceptualized the study and substantially revised the manuscript. EB conceptualized the study and substantially revised the manuscript. SB analyzed and interpreted the data and substantially revised the manuscript. MD substantively revised the manuscript. LD collected data and drafted the manuscript. DG substantively revised the manuscript. TKG substantively revised the manuscript. TCH drafted the manuscript. JGM conceptualized the study and substantially revised the manuscript. SJS analyzed and interpreted the data and substantially revised the manuscript. SEW designed the study, collected data, and substantially revised the manuscript. NZ analyzed and interpreted data and drafted the manuscript. ZBZ substantively revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Authors’ information

Not applicable.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shehnaz Alidina.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

We received ethical approval from the Ethiopian Public Health Institute (Ref. 098/2018). The Institutional Review Board at Harvard Medical School deemed this study “exempt”. As our research posed minimal risk to study participants, a verbal consent process was approved by both IRBs. Before each interview, the participant(s) were provided with information about the study in English or Tigrinya. Consent was obtained in a private room after the potential subject demonstrated an understanding of the study purpose and indicated interest in participating. Consent was verbally given by each participant enrolled which then appears in the interviewee’s transcript. The opening explanation to the survey explained consent and noted that completion of the survey implied consent.

Consent for publication

No individual person’s data is presented in this article.

Competing interests

The Program in Global Surgery and Social Change, Jhpiego, and Dalberg Advisors receive funding from the GE Foundation for the Safe Surgery 2020 project. Shehnaz Alidina, Olivia Ahearn, Tigistu Adamu Ashengo, Erin Barringer, Sehrish Bari, Abebe Beleke, Andualem Beyene, Laura Drown, Teruwork Gultie, Tuna Hayirli, Abraham Endeshaw Mengistu, Meaghan Sydlowski, Samson Essaye Workineh, Noor Zanial, and Zebanay Bitew Zeleke had financial support from GE Foundation for the submitted work. Dereje Gulilat and Andualem Beyene were part of the Surgical Society of Ethiopia which received funding from the GE Foundation for the mentorship intervention. David Barash is employed by GE Foundation, which funded this work. Bizuayehu Gashaw Andualem, Daniel Gebre Michael Burssa, Millard Deribew, Steven J. Staffa, and John G. Meara have nothing to declare. The authors have had no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.

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.

Ethiopia mentorship survey.

Additional file 2.

Interview protocols.

Additional file 3.

Mentor and mentoring relationships and characteristics.

Additional file 4.

Overall experience, satisfaction and recommendations for continuation.

Additional file 5.

Percentage of respondents reporting changes as a result of mentorship.

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 The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( 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

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Alidina, S., Sydlowski, M.M., Ahearn, O. et al. Implementing surgical mentorship in a resource-constrained context: a mixed methods assessment of the experiences of mentees, mentors, and leaders, and lessons learned. BMC Med Educ 22, 653 (2022).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: