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

Abstract

BackgroundThe aim of mentorship is to build the mentees capacity, enhance their skills and improve their ability to produce desired outcomes. However, the mentoring relationship is vulnerable to a number of challenges that may undermine its effectiveness and sustainability. We aimed to explore the experiences and perceptions of student and junior faculty mentees and senior faculty mentors at the Makerere University College of Health Sciences and identify the key factors defined by mentees and mentors as necessary for a successful mentorship program.MethodsA qualitative design involving focus group discussions (FGDs) and key informant interviews (KII) was used. A total of eight KII and four FGDs were conducted, audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Open coding of the transcripts was performed, and major themes were identified through multiple readings based on thematic analysis.ResultsSix key themes were shared by the mentees and mentors including: 1) defining the role of the mentor; 2) desired characteristics of a mentor and a mentoring relationship, with an emphasis on mutual trust and respect; 3) overlapping roles of mentors and supervisors; 4) issues with the process for identifying mentors, including the benefits and drawbacks of the mentee selecting mentor vs. being assigned a mentor; 5) current barriers to mentoring, including lack of knowledge about current program, lack of formal structure, uncertainly about who should initiate relationship, and unclear roles and expectations and 6) recommendations for the future development of mentoring programme, including the need for a formalized programme, and training adapted to the local context.ConclusionsThe mentees and mentors described the role of the mentor and desired characteristics of mentors and a mentoring relationship similarly. Most concerns about mentoring occurred when current mentoring programmes and practices were not well aligned with these desired characteristics. Recommendations for future development of mentoring included greater formalization of mentoring with mentoring programmes based on shared expectations and adapted to the local context.

Championing women working in health across regional and rural Australia – a new dual-mentorship model

“…Traditional hierarchical mentoring with unidirectional mentor-mentee relationships have worked well in large research institutes and shown transformative mentorship for junior faculty in the short [ 36 ] and long-term [ 37 ]. However, these relationships in regional settings can be time-consuming and challenging when mentors are faced with demands of working multiple roles (clinical, research, teaching) and having overlapping roles as mentors and supervisors [ 38 ]. We were not able to identify published literature that describes a dual-mentor model (i.e.…”

Strengthening Mentoring in Low- and Middle-Income Countries to Advance Global Health Research: An Overview

“…Having time for mentoring in LMICs is often viewed as a luxury, and therefore, the development of mentoring capacities should be coupled by institutional commitment to the implementation of mentoring programs and recognition of the critical contribution of mentoring activities. In summary, the adoption of mentoring practices in LMICs is not a straightforward process of uptake and introduction but instead a complex implementation science issue requiring adaptation of existing approaches into different academic settings 13 (Table 1), until the needed structural change takes place.…”

“…Low- and middle-income countries and their regions share many commonalities but also present substantial cultural differences resulting from their individual characteristics and their specific past colonial influences. The oppressive histories in many countries have contributed to research and education structures with authoritarian approaches, 13,16 which in turn are additional obstacles for effective mentoring. Culture distills a deeply rooted respect for hierarchy and seniority (Table 1), which is echoed in medicine, academics, and research, 17 as well as strict formality in communication and dialog to the point that challenging the opinions of a senior scientist or faculty can often be considered offensive or inappropriate.…”

On-site clinical mentoring as a maternal and new-born care quality improvement method: evidence from a nurse cohort study in Nepal

“…Available studies mostly focus on institutional mentoring for medical or nursing students [14][15][16][17]. Several studies have examined mentors' and mentees' perceptions of their experiences, challenges and needs [18,19]. A recent study on the effectiveness of on-site mentoring in Indian maternity clinics examined the impact of mentoring on nurses' knowledge and clinics' readiness to provide services but did not consider the effectiveness of mentoring on provider practices [20].…”