↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#24 of 3,958)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
12 news outlets
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
44 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
186 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
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
Published in
BMC Medical Education, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12909-017-0962-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrew S. Ssemata, Sophia Gladding, Chandy C. John, Sarah Kiguli

Abstract

The 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. A 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. Six 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. The 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 186 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 186 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 12%
Researcher 18 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 9%
Student > Bachelor 16 9%
Other 15 8%
Other 45 24%
Unknown 53 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 36 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 27 15%
Social Sciences 19 10%
Psychology 7 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 3%
Other 30 16%
Unknown 61 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 94. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 February 2024.
All research outputs
#448,898
of 25,386,440 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#24
of 3,958 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,366
of 317,609 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#2
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,386,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,958 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,609 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.