Browsing by Author "Nowell, L."

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Peer Mentoring in Medical Residency Education: A Systematic Review
    (The Association of Faculties of Medicine of Canada, 2020-10-11) Pethrick, H.; Nowell, L.; Oddone-Paolucci, E.A.; Lorenzetti, L.; Jacobsen, Michele; Clancy, T.; Lorenzetti, D.L.
    Background: Medical residents may experience burnout during their training, and a lack of social support. This can impact their overall wellbeing and ability to master key professional competencies. We explored, in this study, the extent to which peer mentorship promotes psychosocial wellbeing and the development of professional competencies in medical residency education. Methods: We searched six databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Academic Research Complete, ERIC, Education Research Complete) for studies on peer mentoring relationships in medical residency. We selected any study where authors reported on outcomes associated with peer mentoring relationships among medical residents. We applied no date, language, or study design limits to this review. Results: We included nine studies in this systematic review. We found that medical residents received essential psychosocial supports from peers, and motivation to develop academic and career competencies. Medical residents in peer-mentoring relationships also reported increased overall satisfaction with their residency training programs. Conclusions: Peer-mentoring relationships can enhance the development of key professional competencies and coping mechanisms in medical residency education. Further rigorous research is needed to examine the comparative benefits of informal and formal peer mentoring, and identify best practices with respect to effective design of peer-mentorship programs.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Postdoctoral scholars’ perspectives about professional learning and development: a concurrent mixed-methods study
    (Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2020-05-13) Nowell, L.; Ovie, G.; Kenny, N.; Jacobsen, Michele
    Postdoctoral scholars pursue diverse career paths requiring broad skill sets; however, little is known about postdoctoral scholars’ perspectives about their professional learning, and development needs. The objective of this mixed-methods study was to identify current professional learning and development opportunities used by postdoctoral scholars to obtain the required broad skills sets of value for a changing career landscape. A concurrent mixed-methods design was utilized including a cross sectional survey and qualitative interviews. Analysis was conducted using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis; quantitative and qualitative findings were then triangulated for convergent themes. Key findings indicate that although postdoctoral scholars engage in a variety of professional learning, the perceived usefulness of these sessions varies widely, and the types of professional learning and development that they engage in, may not best support the realities of their future careers. Given the significant resources often required to support professional learning and development initiatives, a deeper understanding and alignment of postdoctoral scholars needs with provided opportunities may help to ensure scarce resources are invested in the most useful and effective strategies. © 2020, The Author(s).
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    The Role of Peer Mentors in Promoting Knowledge and Skills Development in Graduate Education
    (Hindawi Limited, 2020-11-08) Lorenzetti, D.L.; Nowell, L.; Jacobsen, Michele; Lorenzetti, L.; Clancy, T.; Freeman, G.; Oddone Paolucci, E.
    The objective of this study was to explore the role of peer mentorship in facilitating graduate student resiliency, knowledge acquisition, and development of academic competencies. We conducted a qualitative case study, using in-person interview data from sixty-two students recruited from four professional faculties (Education, Medicine, Nursing, and Social Work) at a large Canadian University. We identified four broad themes derived from a thematic and constant comparative analysis of interview data: (1) knowledge sharing, (2) skills development, (3) academic milestones, and (4) program supports. Graduate students reported that peer mentorship promoted the development of learning environments that emphasized community, collaboration, and shared purpose. Students believed that peer mentors facilitated their access to essential procedural and disciplinary knowledge and helped them to develop academic and research skills and achieve key academic milestones. While the majority of the students interviewed had not participated in any formal peer-mentoring program, they recommended that any future program incorporate mentorship training and include access to collaborative spaces and targeted opportunities for students to develop these relationships. © 2020 Diane L. Lorenzetti et al.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Tools for assessing health research partnership outcomes and impacts: a systematic review
    (2023-01-05) Mrklas, K. J.; Boyd, J. M.; Shergill, S.; Merali, S.; Khan, M.; Nowell, L.; Goertzen, A.; Pfadenhauer, L. M.; Paul, K.; Sibley, K. M.; Swain, L.; Vis-Dunbar, M.; Hill, M. D.; Raffin-Bouchal, S.; Tonelli, M.; Graham, I. D.
    Abstract Objective To identify and assess the globally available valid, reliable and acceptable tools for assessing health research partnership outcomes and impacts. Methods We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Plus and PsycINFO from origin to 2 June 2021, without limits, using an a priori strategy and registered protocol. We screened citations independently and in duplicate, resolving discrepancies by consensus and retaining studies involving health research partnerships, the development, use and/or assessment of tools to evaluate partnership outcomes and impacts, and reporting empirical psychometric evidence. Study, tool, psychometric and pragmatic characteristics were abstracted using a hybrid approach, then synthesized using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. Study quality was assessed using the quality of survey studies in psychology (Q-SSP) checklist. Results From 56 123 total citations, we screened 36 027 citations, assessed 2784 full-text papers, abstracted data from 48 studies and one companion report, and identified 58 tools. Most tools comprised surveys, questionnaires and scales. Studies used cross-sectional or mixed-method/embedded survey designs and employed quantitative and mixed methods. Both studies and tools were conceptually well grounded, focusing mainly on outcomes, then process, and less frequently on impact measurement. Multiple forms of empirical validity and reliability evidence was present for most tools; however, psychometric characteristics were inconsistently assessed and reported. We identified a subset of studies (22) and accompanying tools distinguished by their empirical psychometric, pragmatic and study quality characteristics. While our review demonstrated psychometric and pragmatic improvements over previous reviews, challenges related to health research partnership assessment and the nascency of partnership science persist. Conclusion This systematic review identified multiple tools demonstrating empirical psychometric evidence, pragmatic strength and moderate study quality. Increased attention to psychometric and pragmatic requirements in tool development, testing and reporting is key to advancing health research partnership assessment and partnership science. PROSPERO CRD42021137932