Impact of a Mentoring Program in a Brazilian Medical School: changes acknowledged by the students Bellodi, Patricia L and Martins, Milton A Center for the Development of Medical Education (CEDEM) University of São Paulo Medical School - FMUSP Brazil

Why a Mentoring Program? The medical training is also stressful in Brazil, specially at certain points of the academic life-cycle: the arrival in the university the distance between the basic courses and the clinical application itself experiencing death the initial contact with the hospital environment the first contact with patients and the choice of the specialty

Contextualizing FMUSP 1080 students Undergraduate Course = 6 academic years FMUSP new curriculum core + electives humanistic courses Mentoring Program FMUSP: the main Brazilian Medical School

Objectives General To designate, for students of all the academic years, a mentor that will follow them throughout the course. Specific To improve contact between teachers and students To favor the exchange of experiences among students To follow the students' progress in the medical course To identify problems in the course To integrate academic and personal aspects of student life

Mentor’s Profile Faculty member or doctor in one of the teaching hospitals Involved in undergraduate teaching with a good rapport with the students Available for the students whenever necessary Willing to participate of the initial training and to be supervised Available for 1 monthly meeting (mentoring group) and 1 monthly meeting (supervision) Appropriate professional and ethical behavior to be a “model”

Structure Coordination Committee Technical team (1 psychologist and 1 administrator) 100 mentors (a mentor for every students) 12 supervisors (psychological knowledge about groups) (a supervisor for every 10 mentors in average) Students’ groups (10 to 12, at least one of every year, randomly assembled)

Student’s Evaluation Methodology forums in classrooms application of a questionnaire (open+ended questions + Likert scales) the students were asked to evaluate: the mentor the mentoring group themselves in the program changes due to the program the structure and dynamics of the program the program as a whole

The questionnaire

Return in the different years 41% 44% 51% 57% 58% 18% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1st2nd3th4th5th6thtotal

My Mentor Performance 3% 6% 9% 37% 45% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% very satisfactory fairly satisfactory unsatisfactorywithout opinon

My Mentor 88% 78% 86% 77% 69% 88% 12% 17% 10% 17% 25% 9% 4% 6% 3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1st2nd3th4th5th6th very satisf + satisf fairly satisf + unsatisfact no opinion

Mentor Characteristics 17% 9% 19% 9% 4% 6% 20% 71% 75% 87% 91% 73% 6% 3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% pleasant in the contact guides the students well a kind person leads the group well available strongly agree + agree disagree + strongly disagree no opinion

My Mentoring Group 5% 14% 28% 15% 38% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% very satisfactory fairly satisfactory unsatisfactory no opinon

Group Characteristics 42% 55% 63% 48% 36% 27% 10% 9% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% PresentParticipativeSupportive strongly agree + agree disagree + strongly disagree no opinon

My Mentoring Group 56% 59% 50% 38% 53% 41% 37% 46% 53% 38% 42% 3% 7% 5% 4% 9% 5% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1st2nd3th4th5th6th very satisf + satisfact fairly satisf + unsatisfact no opinon

You at the meetings 51% 34% 10% 5% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60% interested, active shy in the beginning passive, uninterested lost in the activity no answer

Do you attend the meetings? no answer 3% always attends 42% attends sometimes 38% frequently absent 17%

Attendance* 56% 43% 38% 49% 22% 13% 10% 12% 20% 15% 34% 30% 40% 42% 32% 41% 50% 4% 1% 4% 3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1st2nd3th4th5th6th always attends frequently absent attends sometimes no answer *p < 0,001

Self evalution 21% 48% 19% 8% 4% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% very satisfactory fairly satisfactory unsatisfactoryno opinion

Impact of the program

16% 23% 16% 7% 1% 11% 8% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% more motivation better knowledge of the course friendship better coping with stress better academic performance positive view of Medicine other Which changes?

Changes?* 55% 43% 37% 35% 25% 22% 45% 57% 60% 65% 72% 78% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1st2nd3th4th5th6th yes no * p<0,001

A compulsory model?

Part of the schedule?

Defined themes?

Mentoring Program as a whole 1% 2% 13% 33% 44% 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% excellentgoodreasonablebadwithout opinion without answer

no opinon

Conclusion The students’ opinions are heterogeneous regarding their satisfaction with the program For the 1 st year students the Mentoring Program is specially significant For the internship years students the program is not working very well The mentors’ selection was adequate, but group dynamics and guidance training is still necessary Many students do not attend the meetings on a regular basis and that really frustrates the mentors The students busy schedule and the fact that the program is compulsory are possible sources of difficulties and resistance Students’ lack of interest and maturity were considered to be the cause of failure of some groups

The Mentoring Program in 2003 The Mentoring Program in 2003 aims for the enhancement of its activity. The general objectives have reached an important part of the students but efforts should be continually made towards improving the students’ participation and, in order to do it new guidelines are being discussed. An optional scheme with credits as an incentive for the students is currently being considered by the Coordination Committee.

The future "... a project is not a simple representation of the future, of the tomorrow, of the possible, of an idea; it is the future to be done, a tomorrow to be built, a possibility waiting to become a reality, an idea to be transformed in action ". Barbier, 1993