Article type
Abstract
Background:
The increasing emphasis on an evidence base for clinical decision making has resulted in the development of multiple tools and guidelines to standardize the evidence synthesis process. This in turn has made mentorship essential for healthcare professionals and students seeking to engage in evidence synthesis as both producers and users of evidence. It is important for equity considerations to be incorporated into these mentoring programs to prevent the exclusion of underrepresented groups.
Objective:
This review focused on the lessons learned from these mentorship programs and their applicability to evidence synthesis mentorship.
Methods:
A scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews. The protocol was published as a preprint in figshare. The search included studies published in the last 10 years, with no language restrictions. The databases searched were Ovid Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, Embase, LILACS, and Scopus. All identified citations were uploaded into Covidence and screened at the title and abstract and full-text stages by 2 independent reviewers. Data on study and mentoring program characteristics and lessons learned were extracted from the included studies, and a narrative synthesis was used to describe the lessons learned.
Results:
Fifty-three mentorship programs were analyzed, and several themes arose from the lessons learned as identified by the study authors. These themes included equity considerations such as expanding mentorship program offerings to languages other than English and providing accessible options such as virtual programs, although many preferred in-person training. Furthermore, practice opportunities need to be provided alongside theory, and the use of peer mentors or paired mentors was a helpful model. Flexibility was vital in order to accommodate individual needs. With regard to nonresearch skills, mentoring, especially for specific disciplines, often included a focus on leadership, networking, and socialization into the formal and informal expectations of the professional community. Standardized evaluation tools are needed to assess outcomes of programs and compare effectiveness.
Conclusion:
The lessons learned from this scoping review are important for improving equity for those engaged in evidence synthesis capacity building, and this will ultimately improve patient and population health outcomes globally.
The increasing emphasis on an evidence base for clinical decision making has resulted in the development of multiple tools and guidelines to standardize the evidence synthesis process. This in turn has made mentorship essential for healthcare professionals and students seeking to engage in evidence synthesis as both producers and users of evidence. It is important for equity considerations to be incorporated into these mentoring programs to prevent the exclusion of underrepresented groups.
Objective:
This review focused on the lessons learned from these mentorship programs and their applicability to evidence synthesis mentorship.
Methods:
A scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews. The protocol was published as a preprint in figshare. The search included studies published in the last 10 years, with no language restrictions. The databases searched were Ovid Medline, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, Embase, LILACS, and Scopus. All identified citations were uploaded into Covidence and screened at the title and abstract and full-text stages by 2 independent reviewers. Data on study and mentoring program characteristics and lessons learned were extracted from the included studies, and a narrative synthesis was used to describe the lessons learned.
Results:
Fifty-three mentorship programs were analyzed, and several themes arose from the lessons learned as identified by the study authors. These themes included equity considerations such as expanding mentorship program offerings to languages other than English and providing accessible options such as virtual programs, although many preferred in-person training. Furthermore, practice opportunities need to be provided alongside theory, and the use of peer mentors or paired mentors was a helpful model. Flexibility was vital in order to accommodate individual needs. With regard to nonresearch skills, mentoring, especially for specific disciplines, often included a focus on leadership, networking, and socialization into the formal and informal expectations of the professional community. Standardized evaluation tools are needed to assess outcomes of programs and compare effectiveness.
Conclusion:
The lessons learned from this scoping review are important for improving equity for those engaged in evidence synthesis capacity building, and this will ultimately improve patient and population health outcomes globally.