Virtual Mentoring for Medical Physicists: Results of a Global Online Survey.

Jacob Van Dyk, Matt Jalink, L John Schreiner, Robert Jeraj
Author Information
  1. Jacob Van Dyk: Departments of Oncology and Medical Biophysics, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada.
  2. Matt Jalink: Department of Public Health Sciences, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
  3. L John Schreiner: Departments of Oncology and Physics, Engineering Physics and Astronomy, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
  4. Robert Jeraj: Department of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.

Abstract

Purpose: Medical physics professional development is limited in parts of the globe and can be aided by virtual mentoring. A global online perception survey was conducted to elucidate the characteristics of the preferred virtual mentoring program.
Methods: Informed by a literature review and pilot testing by focus groups, the survey was electronically disseminated to multiple medical physics organizations, list servers, and professional contacts. It addressed issues including factors and barriers influencing successful mentoring; mentors'/mentees' matching preferences; frequency and length of meetings; importance of defining expectations; formal agreement; and assessment of the mentoring process. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize responses including comparisons by country income level.
Results: The 396 responders (68% male and 32% female) were from 76 countries with 66% from high-income countries (HICs) and 34% from low- and middle-income countries (L&MICs). Data were provided on experience level as mentors (43% "little [occasional]", 38% "lot [regular or ongoing]") and mentees (53% "little [occasional]", and 23% "lot [regular or ongoing]"), and interest in participating in mentorship program (83% as mentor, mentee, or both). L&MIC responders were generally younger with less work experience (55% <10 years versus 28% for HIC responders). Differences between L&MIC and HIC responses occurred when considering the perceived limitations and barriers to virtual mentoring. Preferences were given to mentoring logistics (formal agreement, frequency, length, and format of meetings).
Conclusions: Factors to consider in developing a virtual mentorship program are informed by the survey results and are applicable to both HIC and L&MIC contexts, to medical physicists, and to other related professions.

Keywords

References

  1. J Cancer Policy. 2023 Mar;35:100372 [PMID: 36512899]
  2. JCO Glob Oncol. 2022 May;8:e2100431 [PMID: 35537104]
  3. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2020 Mar;40:1-10 [PMID: 32223667]
  4. Phys Med. 2020 Aug;76:337-344 [PMID: 32759035]
  5. Nat Rev Phys. 2020;2(10):520-523 [PMID: 33728404]
  6. Nature. 2021 Jun 11;: [PMID: 34117473]
  7. J Appl Clin Med Phys. 2023 Mar;24(3):e13914 [PMID: 36722008]
  8. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2019 Jan;100(1_Suppl):29-35 [PMID: 30430979]
  9. Lancet Oncol. 2021 Apr;22(4):e136-e172 [PMID: 33676609]
  10. Health Technol (Berl). 2023;13(3):495-503 [PMID: 37303976]
  11. Glob Public Health. 2023 Jan;18(1):2229890 [PMID: 37401751]
  12. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2019 Jan;100(1_Suppl):48-53 [PMID: 30430981]
  13. Med Teach. 2014 Jun;36(6):463-74 [PMID: 24661014]
  14. CBE Life Sci Educ. 2022 Dec;21(4):ar62 [PMID: 36112621]
  15. PLoS Comput Biol. 2022 May 12;18(5):e1010015 [PMID: 35551516]
  16. Radiother Oncol. 2024 Jun;195:110226 [PMID: 38492670]
  17. Ecancermedicalscience. 2021 Mar 23;15:1211 [PMID: 33912236]
  18. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2023 Jun 1;116(2):305-313 [PMID: 36724859]
  19. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2023 Jun 1;116(2):295-304 [PMID: 35235854]
  20. J Cancer Educ. 2014 Dec;29(4):680-8 [PMID: 24585385]
  21. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2019 Jan;100(1_Suppl):42-47 [PMID: 30430980]
  22. J Clin Transl Sci. 2018 Feb;2(1):31-37 [PMID: 30393572]
  23. Acad Radiol. 2023 Apr;30(4):749-754 [PMID: 36089477]
  24. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2021 Jan;1483(1):19-35 [PMID: 31309580]
  25. BMC Med Educ. 2022 Jul 8;22(1):531 [PMID: 35804340]
  26. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2019 Jan;100(1_Suppl):36-41 [PMID: 30430978]
  27. Lancet Oncol. 2015 Sep;16(10):1153-86 [PMID: 26419354]
  28. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2019 Jan;100(1_Suppl):3-8 [PMID: 30430982]
  29. Clin Teach. 2018 Jun;15(3):197-202 [PMID: 29318730]
  30. Phys Med. 2023 Sep;113:102670 [PMID: 37678049]
  31. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2019 Jan;100(1_Suppl):20-28 [PMID: 30430977]
  32. Adv Radiat Oncol. 2023 Jan 16;8(3):101180 [PMID: 36846439]
  33. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2017 Feb;29(2):99-104 [PMID: 28040092]
  34. Global Health. 2019 Nov 1;15(1):60 [PMID: 31675976]
  35. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2019 Jan;100(1_Suppl):1-2 [PMID: 30430975]
  36. Clin Teach. 2022 Oct;19(5):e13512 [PMID: 35751456]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0mentoringvirtualsurveyphysicsprogrammedicalresponderscountriesL&MICHICMedicalprofessionalperceptionincludingbarriersfrequencylengthmeetingsformalagreementresponseslevelexperience"little[occasional]""lot[regularongoing]"mentorshipGlobalPurpose:developmentlimitedpartsglobecanaidedglobalonlineconductedelucidatecharacteristicspreferredMethods:Informedliteraturereviewpilottestingfocusgroupselectronicallydisseminatedmultipleorganizationslistserverscontactsaddressedissuesfactorsinfluencingsuccessfulmentors'/mentees'matchingpreferencesimportancedefiningexpectationsassessmentprocessDescriptivestatisticsusedcharacterizecomparisonscountryincomeResults:39668%male32%female7666%high-incomeHICs34%low-middle-incomeL&MICsDataprovidedmentors43%38%mentees53%23%interestparticipating83%mentormenteegenerallyyoungerlesswork55%<10yearsversus28%DifferencesoccurredconsideringperceivedlimitationsPreferencesgivenlogisticsformatConclusions:FactorsconsiderdevelopinginformedresultsapplicablecontextsphysicistsrelatedprofessionsVirtualMentoringPhysicists:ResultsOnlineSurvey

Similar Articles

Cited By

No available data.