'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