Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 371

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Issues in the Mentor–Mentee Relationship in Academic Medicine: A Qualitative Study

Straus, Sharon E., Chatur, Fatima, Taylor, Mark·2009·Academic Medicine

Abstract

PURPOSE: To explore the phenomenon of the mentor-mentee relationship and to characterize this relationship among people who have obtained early career support from a government funding agency, in order to facilitate the development of future mentorship programs. METHOD: A qualitative study was completed involving clinician scientists who were awarded early career support from a provincial funding agency (Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada) and their mentors. Individual, semistructured interviews were completed, and transcripts of interviews were analyzed using a grounded theory approach. RESULTS: Interviews with 21 population health or clinician investigators (mentees) and seven mentors were completed from October to December 2006. Several themes were identified including the experience with mentorship, experience of being assigned a mentor versus self-identification, roles of a mentor, characteristics of good mentoring, barriers to mentorship, and possible mentorship strategies. Participants believed mentorship to be important, but several experienced significant difficulty with finding mentors and establishing productive relationships. CONCLUSIONS: Challenges exist within academic medicine around ensuring that clinician scientists receive appropriate mentorship. Strategies to enhance the mentorship process were identified, including the development of formal mentorship initiatives, the creation of workshops organized by funding agencies in partnership with universities, and the development and evaluation of a mentorship training initiative for mentors and mentees. These findings can be applied to any academic health sciences institution.

Overview

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 · 10.1097/acm.0b013e31819301ab

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 17 references

Cited by

See all 371

Metadata

Authors
Straus, S. E., Chatur, F., & Taylor, M.
Venue
Academic Medicine
Published
2009-01
Volume
84
Issue
1
Pages
135-139
ISSN
1040-2446 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2171799758
Cited by
371
References
17
FWCI
17.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Issues in the Mentor–Mentee Relationship in Academic Medicine: A Qualitative Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/acm.0b013e31819301ab
The paper
Straus, S. E., Chatur, F., & Taylor, M. (2009). Issues in the Mentor–Mentee Relationship in Academic Medicine: A Qualitative Study. Academic Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0b013e31819301ab

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.