The STRIVE Initiative: A Resident-Led Mentorship Framework for Underrepresented Minority Medical Students

Abstract

Background Underrepresented minority (URM) trainees face unique challenges in academic medicine. Near-peer mentorship is an under-described method to support URM trainees. Objective We created and evaluated the Student to Resident Institutional Vehicle for Excellence (STRIVE) program in a large urban medical school and associated residency programs. Methods All URM residents were invited to participate in the STRIVE mentorship program consisting of 3 pillars of programming: medical school curriculum review sessions, panel discussions, and social events for medical students. The program was evaluated through participation rates and a 7-item survey delivered in May 2019 after 3 years of implementation. Results The STRIVE initiative conducted 25 events. Thirty-five of 151 eligible (23%) URM residents participated as mentors for an average of 50 of 110 eligible (45%) URM medical students annually. Resident mentors participated for an average of 3 to 4 hours each year. Twenty of 32 eligible resident mentors (63%) completed the survey. Ninety-five percent (19 of 20) of survey respondents agreed that STRIVE made them a better mentor; 90% (18 of 20) reported that they would have appreciated an equivalent program during their medical school training; and 75% (15 of 20) agreed that the program helped them address the challenges of underrepresentation in medicine. Conclusions Over a 3-year period, STRIVE required a modest amount of resident time and was valued by the URM residents and medical students who participated in the program.

Narrated Dissection Videos and Peer‐Mentoring to Enhance Anatomy Performance of Underrepresented Minority Students in Physical Therapy Education

“…Other factors may include students' educational background and the quality of their foundation in anatomy, environmental factors, such as access to conductive learning environments, the presence of non‐educational stressors or responsibilities (jobs, children), and course‐related variables, such as the amount of time spent in the cadaver laboratory (Rainey, 2001). Several authors have attributed other non‐cognitive contributors to URM medical students success in addition to mere academic markers (Tekian et al, 2001a; Scheckler et al, 2004; Kosoko‐Lasaki et al, 2006; Youmans et al, 2020). Presence, “knowing the mentee's story,” and “focus on the profession” were identified by Scheckler et al (2004) as the most successful non‐cognitive benefits of the mentoring program at the University of Wisconsin Medical School.…”

“…Presence, “knowing the mentee's story,” and “focus on the profession” were identified by Scheckler et al (2004) as the most successful non‐cognitive benefits of the mentoring program at the University of Wisconsin Medical School. In a recent investigation at the Northwestern University School of Medicine, URM students stated that the “family atmosphere” within the peer‐mentorship sessions was the greatest contributor to these students' success while in medical school (Youmans et al, 2020). Social support, as expressed by mentees, is a contributor to building camaraderie and problem‐solving skills not only for students but for URM faculty members as well (Kosoko‐Lasaki et al, 2006).…”

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

“…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 ].…”

“… 1.7 Sustain mentoring programs by providing financial, administrative, logistical support, thereby sustaining a suitable mentoring environment. These include: - protected mentoring time [ 7 , 26 – 30 , 59 , 89 , 111 , 122 , 124 , 125 , 127 , 131 , 136 , 148 , 150 , 151 , 153 – 155 ] for minimum meeting frequencies to be achieved comfortably [ 30 , 100 , 108 , 109 , 113 , 119 , 122 , 123 , 125 , 130 , 134 , 145 , 146 , 149 , 153 , 154 ] - formal recognition for mentors’ and mentees’ efforts [ 7 , 24 , 26 – 29 , 151 , 159 ] through promotions, awards, and reduced workloads [ 7 , 24 , 26 – 28 , 151 , 159 ]. - independent, fair and transparent recognition for near-peers [ 110 , 111 , 122 , 131 ] - coordinate the various stages of mentoring [ ...…”

“…- independent, fair and transparent recognition for near-peers [ 110 , 111 , 122 , 131 ] - coordinate the various stages of mentoring [ 7 , 24 , 26 – 28 , 151 , 159 ] - create a safe environment for mentees to voice their concerns and feedback, forward ideas and share experiences [ 7 , 24 , 26 – 28 , 124 , 134 , 151 , 159 ] - providing suitable mentoring environments for interprofessional collaboration on research and academic projects [ 26 , 27 , 151 , 159 ] - introducing the use of electronic platforms for mentoring such as e-mail [ 85 , 152 , 158 ], social networking [ 14 , 103 , 104 , 111 , 116 , 119 , 122 , 130 , 136 , 145 , 157 ], instant messaging, tele-conferencing, discussion forums and micro-blogging [ 14 , 85 , 99 , 100 , 104 , 105 , 111 , 116 , 119 , 122 , 123 , 128 , 129 , 134 ...…”