...

'E-Harmony' in the Colleges peer mentoring system: analyzing and... effectiveness of Vanderbilt Medical School’s Big/Little peer mentoring program.

by user

on
Category: Documents
1

views

Report

Comments

Transcript

'E-Harmony' in the Colleges peer mentoring system: analyzing and... effectiveness of Vanderbilt Medical School’s Big/Little peer mentoring program.
'E-Harmony' in the Colleges peer mentoring system: analyzing and improving the
effectiveness of Vanderbilt Medical School’s Big/Little peer mentoring program.
Jana Bregman, Sarah Coggins, Mitchell Odom, and Amy Fleming, MD
Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN
Background
Mentoring is fundamental to the overall wellbeing of
medical students and the L.C.M.E. states that “there should
be formal mechanisms for student mentoring and
advocacy.”
Peer mentoring is often overlooked in favor of a more
traditional faculty-student relationship. At Vanderbilt
University School of Medicine (VUSM) peer mentoring is a
critical component of the Wellness Committee’s agenda
and is intricately linked to The Colleges, Vanderbilt's
learning communities.
Matriculating first year students
(VMS I) are matched with a second year mentor (VMS II),
simultaneously determining their assignment to one of
VUSM’s four Colleges.
Conclusions
Results
1. Compared to students exposed to the previous method used in 2011-12, students exposed to the
new matching system in 2012-13 reported higher overall satisfaction with the Big-Little Program and
with their peer mentoring relationships.
Overall Satisfaction with the
Big-Little Program
2011-­‐12 While every effort has been made to produce advantageous
peer mentor matches in previous years, recent feedback from
current medical students suggests that a significant number
are not satisfied with either the mentoring program or with the
adequacy of their match.
Not at all 2012-­‐13 Slightly Moderately VMS II, 2011-­‐12 (% responding) VMS II, 2012-­‐13 (% responding) Overall saHsfacHon with my relaHonship with my LiOle: 53.64 73.21 19.5 3.56 Key: in blue, the percentage of students responding “quite” or “very” saRsfied in red, the percentage of students responding “slightly” or “not at all” saRsfied Do you foresee the relaHonship 2.44 (No) 3.57 (No) with your LiOle conHnuing? 60.96 (Yes, only for duraHon of 37.5 (Yes, only for duraHon of medical school) medical school) Quite 36.58 (Yes, beyond medical school) Very •  Compared to the previous matching system,
students matched using our personalized
survey reported higher overall satisfaction
with the Big-Little program.
•  It is possible that this increased satisfaction is
due to more frequent interactions between
Big-Little pairs, fewer barriers to the peer
mentoring relationship, and a stronger
foundation of common interests.
•  There is evidence to suggest that the new
matching system promotes more successful
peer mentoring matches than the previous
system.
55.36 (Yes, beyond medical school) There is obvious need for improvement in the matching
process.
Big-Little “families” from Batson College
Materials and Methods
Future Directions
• 
•  In May 2012, a “satisfaction survey” was distributed to VMS I and VMS II
students from the 2011-12 school year to gauge perceptions of the BigLittle program. (VMS I n=81, VMS II n=41, RR=58.4%)
•  In September 2012, two months after big-little pairs were revealed, the
original satisfaction survey was redistributed to VMSI and VMSII of the
2012-2013 school year to gauge initial perception of the new matching
process. (VMS I n= 81, VMS II n= 56, RR = 65.5%)
Frequency of Big-­‐LiQle InteracRons 70 50 VMS II, 2011-­‐12 40 VMS II, 2012-­‐13 30 20 10 Perceived Barriers to the Big-­‐LiQle RelaRonship VMS I, 2011-­‐12 60 % responding yes % responding yes With the previous matching strategy (2011-12):
•  Limited data on incoming VMS I students was available, such as
gender, home state, undergraduate institution, major, and Facebook
profiles.
•  Students were matched by personal requests from VMS IIs, or by
common geographic, ethnic, or educational backgrounds alone.
•  With our new, formalized matching strategy (2012-13):
•  In May 2012, VMS I and IIs completed an
extensive online
“matching survey” on REDCap software, which was also used to
generate personalized reports of VMS I and VMS II responses.
Matches resulted from compatible reports.
•  Factors considered most important in matching students involved data
on hobbies, personality characteristics, personal values, and
educational backgrounds. Personal requests were honored. For the
12 students who failed to complete the survey, Facebook profiles were
consulted.
•  Great care was taken to balance religion, race, gender, and
educational background among the four advisory colleges.
2. Factors influencing success of the Big-Little peer mentoring relationship.
VMS I, 2012-­‐13 50 40 30 •  Optimizing the matching survey to include
those factors that are most predictive of a
successful peer mentoring match.
•  Reevaluating students’ perceptions of the
Big-Little relationship in the spring semester
of 2013.
20 References
10 0 0 Once (will not Once/semester meet again) Monthly Several Hmes/
month Weekly Too LiOle Lack of in Common Time Too Few School Events Lack of Interest (mine) Lack of Interest (my big) None 3. Students agreed on the extent of peer mentoring’s influence on academics, social life, and future career development
regardless of the method used to match students with a peer mentor.
Perceived importance of peer mentoring in: VMS I and II, 2011-­‐12, % responding VMS I and II, 2012-­‐13, % responding Academics 38.52 41.6 40.97 25.5 22.49 22.6 53.27 41.6 87.7 79.6 7.36 5.1 Social Life Future Career Key: in blue, the percentage of students responding “quite” or “very” important in red, the percentage of students responding “slightly” or “not at all” important • 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Buddeberg-Fischer, B, E Frei and M Stamm. Mentoring
programs for medical students – a review of the PubMed
literature 2000-2008. BMC Medical Education 2010, 10:32.
Drolet BC, and SM Rodgers. A comprehensive medical
student wellness program-design and implementation at
Vanderbilt School of Medicine. Acad Med 2010. 85:1.
103-110.
Liason Committee on Medical Education. Functions and
Structure of a Medical School. LCME 2012. http://
www.lcme.org/functions.pdf
Sprengel, AD and Li Job. Reducing student anxiety by
using peer mentoring with beginning nursing students.
Nurse Educator 2004, 29:6. 246-250.
Wellness & Student Life Committee. Medical Student WellBeing. American Medical Student Association 2012. http://
www.amsa.org/AMSA/Homepage/About/Committees/
StudentLife/ WellBeing.aspx
Fly UP