Impact of a Mentoring Program in a Brazilian Medical School:

changes acknowledged by the students

Bellodi, Patricia L and Martins, Milton A

Center for the Development of Medical Education (CEDEM)

University of São Paulo Medical School - FMUSPBrazil

Why a Mentoring Program?

The medical training is also stressful in Brazil, specially at certain points of the academic life-cycle:

• the arrival in the university

• the distance between the basic courses and the

clinical application itself

• experiencing death

• the initial contact with the hospital environment

• the first contact with patients and

• the choice of the specialty

Contextualizing FMUSP

• 1080 students• Undergraduate Course = 6 academic years• FMUSP new curriculum

core + electiveshumanistic coursesMentoring Program

FMUSP: the main Brazilian Medical School

Objectives

General

• To designate, for students of all the academic years, a mentor that will follow them throughout the course.

Specific•To improve contact between teachers and students

•To favor the exchange of experiences among students

•To follow the students' progress in the medical course

•To identify problems in the course

•To integrate academic and personal aspects of student life

 Mentor’s Profile

•Faculty member or doctor in one of the teaching hospitals

•Involved in undergraduate teaching with a good rapport with the students

•Available for the students whenever necessary

•Willing to participate of the initial training and to be supervised

•Available for 1 monthly meeting (mentoring group) and 1 monthly meeting (supervision)

• Appropriate professional and ethical behavior to be a “model”

Structure

• Coordination Committee

• Technical team (1 psychologist and 1 administrator)

•100 mentors

(a mentor for every 10-12 students)

•12 supervisors (psychological knowledge about groups)

(a supervisor for every 10 mentors in average)

•Students’ groups

(10 to 12, at least one of every year, randomly assembled)

Student’s Evaluation

Methodology

• forums in classrooms

• application of a questionnaire

(open+ended questions + Likert scales)

• the students were asked to evaluate:

the mentor

the mentoring group

themselves in the program

changes due to the program

the structure and dynamics of the program

the program as a whole

The questionnaire

Return

41%

59%

answers(n=444)

Return in the different years

41%44%

51%

57% 58%

18% 18%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1st 2nd 3th 4th 5th 6th total

My Mentor My Mentor PerformancePerformance

3%6%9%

37%

45%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

very satisfactory

satisfactory fairlysatisfactory

unsatisfactory without opinon

My MentorMy Mentor88%

78%

86%

77%

69%

88%

12%17%

10%

17%

25%

9%4% 4% 6% 6%

3%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1st 2nd 3th 4th 5th 6th

very satisf +

satisf

fairly satisf +

unsatisfact

noopinion

Mentor CharacteristicsMentor Characteristics

17%

9%

19%

9%9%

4%6%

20%

71%75%

87%91%

73%

6%3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

pleasant in the contact

guides the students well

a kind person

leads the group well

available

strongly agree +

agree

disagree +

strongly disagree

no opinion

My Mentoring GroupMy Mentoring Group

5%14%

28%

15%

38%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

very satisfactory

satisfactory fairlysatisfactory

unsatisfactory

no opinon

Group CharacteristicsGroup Characteristics

42%

55% 63%

48%

36%

27%

10% 9% 10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Present Participative Supportive

strongly agree

+ agree

disagree +

strongly disagree

noopinon

My Mentoring Group

56%59%

50%

38%

53% 53%

41%37%

46%

53%

38%42%

3%7% 5% 4%

9%5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1st 2nd 3th 4th 5th 6th

very satisf+satisfact

fairly satisf+ unsatisfact

noopinon

You at the meetingsYou at the meetings

51%

34%

10%

5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

interested, active

shy in the beginning

passive,uninterested

lost in the activity

no answer

Do you attend the meetings?

no answer3%

always attends

42%

attends sometimes

38%

frequently absent

17%

Attendance*

56%

43%38%

49%

22%

13%10% 12%

20%15%

34% 34%30%

40% 42%

32%

41%

50%

4% 4%1%

4% 3% 3%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1st 2nd 3th 4th 5th 6th

alwaysattends

frequently absent

attendssometimes

noanswer

*p < 0,001

Self evalutionSelf evalution

21%

48%

19% 8%4%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

very satisfactory

satisfactory fairlysatisfactory

unsatisfactory noopinion

Impact of the program

Changes?

yes40%

no60%

16%

23%

16%7%

1% 11%8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

more

motivation

better

knowledgeof the course

friendship better coping

withstress

better

academic

performance

positive view

ofMedicine

other

Which changes?Which changes?

Changes?*

55%

43%

37%35%

25%22%

45%

57%60%

65%

72%

78%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1st 2nd 3th 4th 5th 6th

yes

no

* p<0,001

A compulsory model?

19%

76%

5%

noyes

no answer

Part of the schedule?

27%

68%

5%

yesno

no answer

Defined themes?

60%

2%

35%

3%

noyes

mixed

no answer

Mentoring Program Mentoring Program as a wholeas a whole

1%2%13%

33%

44%

7%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

excellent good reasonable bad without

opinion

without

answer

Mentoring Program as a whole

15%

2%

9%6%

0%

9%

48%

42%46%

42%

31%

44%

28%

36%

30%

39%

28% 28%

4%

18%

8%13% 13% 13%

6%1% 3% 4% 6% 6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1st 2nd 3th 4th 5th 6th

excellent

good

reasonable

bad

no opinon

Conclusion• The students’ opinions are heterogeneous regarding their satisfaction with the program

• For the 1st year students the Mentoring Program is specially significant

• For the internship years students the program is not working very well

• The mentors’ selection was adequate, but group dynamics and guidance training is still necessary

• Many students do not attend the meetings on a regular basis and that really frustrates the mentors

• The students busy schedule and the fact that the program is compulsory are possible sources of difficulties and resistance

• Students’ lack of interest and maturity were considered to be the cause of failure of some groups

The Mentoring Program in 2003

The Mentoring Program in 2003 aims for the enhancement of its activity.

The general objectives have reached an important part of the students but

efforts should be continually made towards improving the students’ participation and,

in order to do it new guidelines are being discussed.

An optional scheme with credits as an incentive for the students is currently being considered by the Coordination Committee.

The future

"... a project is not a simple representation of the future, of the tomorrow, of the possible, of an idea; it is the future to be done, a tomorrow to be built, a possibility waiting to become a reality, an idea to be transformed in action ".

Barbier, 1993