Background Mentoring’s pivotal role in nurturing professional identity formation (PIF) owes much to its combined use with supervision, coaching, tutoring, instruction, and teaching. However the effects of this combination called the ‘mentoring umbrella’ remains poorly understood. This systematic scoping review thus aims to map current understanding. Methods A Systematic Evidence-Based Approach guided systematic scoping review seeks to map current understanding of the ‘mentoring umbrella’ and its effects on PIF on medical students and physicians in training. It is hoped that insights provided will guide structuring, support and oversight of the ‘mentoring umbrella’ in nurturing PIF. Articles published between 2000 and 2021 in PubMed, Scopus, ERIC and the Cochrane databases were scrutinised. The included articles were concurrently summarised and tabulated and concurrently analysed using content and thematic analysis and tabulated. The themes and categories identified were compared with the summaries of the included articles to create accountable and reproducible domains that guide the discussion. Results A total of 12201 abstracts were reviewed, 657 full text articles evaluated, and 207 articles included. The three domains identified were definitions; impact on PIF; and enablers and barriers. The mentoring umbrella shapes PIF in 3 stages and builds a cognitive base of essential knowledge, skills and professional attitudes. The cognitive base informs thinking, conduct and opinions in early supervised clinical exposure in Communities of practice (COP). The COPs’ individualised approach to the inculcation of desired professional characteristics, goals, values, principles and beliefs reshapes the individual’s identity whilst the socialisation process sees to their integration into current identities. Conclusion The mentoring umbrella’s provides personalised longitudinal support in the COP and socialisation process. Understanding it is key to addressing difficulties faced and ensuring holistic and timely support.

Background: Mentoring provides mentees and mentors with holistic support and research opportunities. Yet, the quality of this support has been called into question amidst suggestions that mentoring is prone to bullying and professional lapses. These concerns jeopardise mentoring's role in medical schools and demand closer scrutiny. Methods: To better understand prevailing concerns, a novel approach to systematic scoping reviews (SSR) s is proposed to map prevailing ethical issues in mentoring in an accountable and reproducible manner. Ten members of the research team carried out systematic and independent searches of PubMed, Embase, ERIC, ScienceDirect, Scopus, OpenGrey and Mednar databases. The individual researchers employed 'negotiated consensual validation' to determine the final list of articles to be analysed. The reviewers worked in three independent teams. One team summarised the included articles. The other teams employed independent thematic and content analysis respectively. The findings of the three approaches were compared. The themes from non-evidence based and grey literature were also compared with themes from research driven data. Results: Four thousand six titles were reviewed and 51 full text articles were included. Findings from thematic and content analyses were similar and reflected the tabulated summaries. The themes/categories identified were ethical concerns, predisposing factors and possible solutions at the mentor and mentee, mentoring relationship and/or host organisation level. Ethical concerns were found to stem from issues such as power differentials and lack of motivation whilst predisposing factors comprised of the mentor's lack of experience and personality conflicts. Possible solutions include better program oversight and the fostering of an effective mentoring environment. Conclusions: This structured SSR found that ethical issues in mentoring occur as a result of inconducive mentoring environments. As such, further studies and systematic reviews of mentoring structures, cultures and remediation must follow so as to guide host organisations in their endeavour to improve mentoring in medical schools.

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.