The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Mentoring Programs for Physicians in Academic Medicine: A Systematic Review
Abstract
PURPOSE: Mentoring is vital to professional development in the field of medicine, influencing career choice and faculty retention; thus, the authors reviewed mentoring programs for physicians and aimed to identify key components that contribute to these programs' success. METHOD: The authors searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus databases for articles from January 2000 through May 2011 that described mentoring programs for practicing physicians. The authors reviewed 16 articles, describing 18 programs, extracting program objectives, components, and outcomes. They synthesized findings to determine key elements of successful programs. RESULTS: All of the programs described in the articles focused on academic physicians. The authors identified seven mentoring models: dyad, peer, facilitated peer, speed, functional, group, and distance. The dyad model was most common. The authors identified seven potential components of a formal mentoring program: mentor preparation, planning committees, mentor-mentee contracts, mentor-mentee pairing, mentoring activities, formal curricula, and program funding. Of these, the formation of mentor-mentee pairs received the most attention in published reports. Mentees favored choosing their own mentors; mentors and mentees alike valued protected time. One barrier to program development was limited resources. Written agreements were important to set limits and encourage accountability to the mentoring relationship. Program evaluation was primarily subjective, using locally developed surveys. No programs reported long-term results. CONCLUSIONS: The authors identified key program elements that could contribute to successful physician mentoring. Future research might further clarify the use of these elements and employ standardized evaluation methods to determine the long-term effects of mentoring.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Mentorship in Medicine and Other Health Professions
Henry-Noel, N., Bishop, M., Gwede, C. K., Petkova, E., & Szumacher, E. (2019) · Journal of Cancer Education · doi:10.1007/s13187-018-1360-6 · Cited by 264
Carapinha, R., Ortiz-Walters, R., McCracken, C. M., Hill, E. V., & Reede, J. Y. (2016) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000001284 · Cited by 77
Otchere-Darko, A. A., Sarkar, A., & Roy, D. (2026) · International Journal Of Community Medicine And Public Health · doi:10.18203/2394-6040.ijcmph20263180
Metadata
- Authors
- Kashiwagi, D. T., Varkey, P., & Cook, D. A.
- Venue
- Academic Medicine
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2013-07
- Volume
- 88
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 1029-1037
- ISSN
- 1040-2446 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2120855906
- Cited by
- 387
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 27.71
- 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: Mentoring Programs for Physicians in Academic Medicine: A Systematic Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/acm.0b013e318294f368
- The paper
- Kashiwagi, D. T., Varkey, P., & Cook, D. A. (2013). Mentoring Programs for Physicians in Academic Medicine: A Systematic Review. Academic Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0b013e318294f368
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.