CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 16Mentoring and Academic DevelopmentInnovations in Medical EducationDiversity and Career in Medicine

Peer Mentoring by Medical Students for Medical Students: A Scoping Review

Open access
Preovolos, Christos, Grant, Abby, Rayner, Morgan, Fitzgerald, Kylie, Ng, Louisa·2024·Medical Science Educator
DOI 10.1007/s40670-024-02108-7PMC PMC11699085
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Medical school transitions pose challenges for students. Mentoring programs may aid students, but evidence supporting peer/near-peer mentoring in medical school is unclear. Our review explores peer mentoring’s benefits, elements for success and challenges. Searches in major databases yielded 1676 records, resulting in 20 eligible studies involving 4591 participants. Longitudinal (n = 15) and shorter, focused programs were examined. Mentors and mentees reported psychosocial, professional and academic benefits. Essential elements included matching, orientation and clear goals, with training crucial yet balanced to avoid mentor overload. Social congruence underpinned successful peer mentoring, particularly benefiting under-represented groups. Challenges include balancing mentor load and logistics.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s40670-024-02108-7

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Mentoring effectiveness can be influenced by the compatibility between mentors and mentees, including differences in communication styles, expectations, and learning needs.

    “mentoring effectiveness can be influenced by the compatibility between mentors and mentees, including differences in communication styles, expectations, and learning needs [22].”

    From Development of a Clinical Clerkship Mentor Using Generative AI and Evaluation of Its Effectiveness in a Medical Student Trial Compared to Student Mentors: 2-Part Comparative Study (2025) · cites this paper as [22]

    The Discussion identifies matching mentors and mentees on shared characteristics, such as clinical experience or demographics, as important to program success. The Introduction also describes benefits of shared language and understanding, but the paper does not specifically link differences in communication styles, expectations, or learning needs between a pair to mentoring effectiveness. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [17]Chatterton E, Anis F, Atiomo W, Hagan P. Peer mentor schemes in medical school: their need, their value and training for peer mentors. Student Engagement in Higher Education Journal. 2018;2(2):47–60.
  2. [19]Nebhinani N, Dwivedi N, Potaliya P, Ghatak S, Misra S, Singh K. Perception of medical students for faculty and peer mentorship program: an exploratory study from north-western india. J Indian Assoc Child Adolesc Ment Health. 2021;17(3):143–53.
  3. [22]Khamesipour F, Khoshgoftar Z, Khajeali N, Yakub M. A systematic review of the literature describing the outcomes of near-peer mentoring and near-peer teaching and learning programs for medical students in Iran. Acad J Health Sci. 2022;37(3):11–7.
  4. [39]Yusoff MSB, Fuad A, Noor A, Azwany Y, Hussin Z. Evaluation of medical students’ perception towards the BigSib Programme in the School of Medical Sciences. USM Educ Med J. 2010;2:2–11.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Preovolos, C., Grant, A., Rayner, M., Fitzgerald, K., & Ng, L.
Affiliations
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • The Royal Melbourne Hospital (AU)
Corresponding author
Preovolos, Christos
ORCID
Venue
Medical Science Educator
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2024-07-04
Volume
34
Issue
6
Pages
1577-1602
ISSN
2156-8650 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1007/s40670-024-02108-7
PMC
PMC11699085
OpenAlex
W4400317261
Cited by
16
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 8
FWCI
1.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Medical Science Educator (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
University of Melbourne
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mentoring and Academic Development
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Diversity and Career in Medicine
Keywords
peer mentoring, near-peer mentoring, medical students, mentor-mentee matching, mentor training, underrepresented groups, psychosocial benefits, academic and professional development

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review