Introduction Mentoring has become a prevalent educational strategy in medical education, with various aims. Published reviews of mentoring report very little on group-based mentorship programs. The aim of this systematic review was to identify group-based mentorship programs for undergraduate medical students and describe their aims, structures, contents and program evaluations. Based on the findings of this review, the authors provide recommendations for the organization and assessment of such programs. Methods A systematic review was conducted, according to PRISMA guidelines, and using the databases Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and ERIC up to July 2019. Eight hundred abstracts were retrieved and 20 studies included. Quality assessment of the quantitative studies was done using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI). Results The 20 included studies describe 17 different group mentorship programs for undergraduate medical students in seven countries. The programs were differently structured and used a variety of methods to achieve aims related to professional development and evaluation approaches. Most of the studies used a single-group cross-sectional design conducted at a single institution. Despite the modest quality, the evaluation data are remarkably supportive of mentoring medical students in groups. Discussion Group mentoring holds great potential for undergraduate medical education. However, the scientific literature on this genre is sparse. The findings indicate that group mentorship programs benefit from being longitudinal and mandatory. Ideally, they should provide opportunities throughout undergraduate medical education for regular meetings where discussions and personal reflection occur in a supportive environment.

Background Active learning situations such as simulation-based education (SBE) are found to trigger a wide range of emotions among students. Facilitators have an important educational role in SBE which include being attentive and adaptive to students’cognitive and affective responses. Although the importance of emotions in SBE is recognized in facilitator guidelines, little is known about how facilitators accommodate student affect. Hence, this study explores facilitators’ strategies for addressing students’ emotions in SBE. Method Individual interviews with nine facilitators were performed and transcripts were subjected to qualitative analyses in accordance with interpretive description approach. Results Findings show that facilitators are attentive to and continuously assess students’ emotional responses in SBE. Both positive emotions, such as interest and surprise, and negative emotions such as anxiety are cultivated, yet adapted to the perceived needs of the individual student. Psychological safety was seen as a prerequisite for optimal learning, regardless of the students’ previous level of knowledge. Furthermore, significant learning was seen as something that might also arise from uncomfortable experiences, such as students realizing their own mistakes or uncertainty. Hence facilitators were found to balance levels of difficulty, emotional arousal and psychological safety during the various phases of SBE. Conclusion Facilitators recognize the emotional dimension of learning in SBE and have numerous strategies for accommodating students’ emotions. This study highlights the complexity of the facilitator’s role in adapting training to individual cognitive and emotional needs. These findings have implications for facilitator training which should include awareness of the role of emotions in learning and strategies for observing and accommodating training to meet emotional needs.

No abstract

Norwegian universities closed almost all on-campus activities on the 12 March 2020 following a lockdown decision of the Norwegian government in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Online and digital teaching became the primary method of teaching. The goal of this study was to investigate how the transition to digital education impacted on medical students enrolled at the University of Bergen (UiB). Key points were motivation, experience of learning outcomes, and fear of missing out on important learning. Using an online questionnaire, students were asked to evaluate the quality of both lectures and taught clinical skills and to elaborate on their experience of learning output, examination, and digital teaching. Answers from 230 students were included in the study. Opinions on the quality and quantity of lectures offered and their experience of learning output varied based on gender, seniority and the amount of time spent on part time jobs. Students at UiB were generally unhappy with the quality of teaching, especially lessons on clinical skills, although both positive and negative experiences were reported. Securing a satisfying offer of clinical teaching will be important to ensure and increase the student experience of learning output in the time ahead.