Mentoring Medical Students Towards Oncology: Results from a Pilot Multi-institutional Mentorship Programme

Abstract

The mounting global cancer burden has generated an increasing demand for oncologists to join the workforce. Yet, students report limited oncology exposure in undergraduate medical curricula, while undergraduate oncology mentorships remain underutilised. We established an undergraduate oncology society–led mentorship programme aimed at medical students across several UK universities to increase medical student oncology exposure. We electronically recruited and paired oncologist mentors and medical student mentees and distributed a dedicated questionnaire (pre- and post-mentorship) to compare mentees’ self-reported cancer specialty knowledge and oncology career motivation after undertaking a 6-week mentorship. We also determined students’ interest across specialties and subspecialties and measured mentor availability via percentage programme uptake. Statistical analysis included univariate inferential tests on SPSS software. Twentynine (23.4%) of 124 oncology specialists agreed to become mentors. The mentorship was completed by 30 students across three medical schools: 16 (53.3%) Barts, 10 (33.3%) Birmingham, and 4 (13.3%) King’s; 11 (36.7%) mentored by medical oncologists, 10 (33.3%) by clinical/radiation oncologists, and 9 (30%) by surgical oncologists. The mentorship generated a statically significant increase in students’ knowledge of the multidisciplinary team and all oncology-related specialties including academia/research but not interest towards a career in oncology. Undergraduate oncology mentoring is an effective educational, networking and motivational tool for medical students. Student societies are a valuable asset in cultivating medical student oncology interest by connecting students to faculty and increasing mentor accessibility. Further research should focus on developing an optimal mentorship structure and evaluating long-term outcomes of such educational initiatives.

BONUS: the National Oncology Network for Students and Junior Doctors

“…Using this strong network, BONUS has implemented a platform to enable local oncology events to be advertised nationwide and for our national events to be advertised at local universities. Mentoring in oncology has been shown to increase interest in the field [6,16] and BONUS has developed a national mentorship scheme, which launched in 2021. The scheme is based on three pilot programmes [10,16,17], including one virtual scheme.…”

“…Mentoring in oncology has been shown to increase interest in the field [6,16] and BONUS has developed a national mentorship scheme, which launched in 2021. The scheme is based on three pilot programmes [10,16,17], including one virtual scheme. The scheme, spanning a period of 6 months, pairs mentors (consultants or specialty registrars) with mentees (medical students or junior doctors) based on location and speciality of interest.…”

Enhancing prevocational surgical education and training through trainee‐led hospital‐supported groups and the RACS JDocs framework

“…Survey answers were in the form of a 5-point Likert scale: strongly disagree, 1 disagree, 2 neither agree nor disagree, 3 agree 4 and strongly agree. 5 A follow-up survey was conducted at the conclusion of the program. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the ASPIRE program transitioned from face-to-face (2019) to online sessions (2020).…”

“…Particularly too as guidance through resource provision has previously been identified to empower participants in their learning. 5 At the same time, face-to-face lectures are particularly popular amongst students learning new material. 6 However, Harris et al have shown frameworks to be efficacious and more sustainable when used with other techniques and their importance adequately promoted amongst students.…”

“…We surveyed PGY2 and PGY3 prevocational surgical trainees to evaluate self‐perceived competency in critical aspects of the RACS framework to guide education program design. Survey answers were in the form of a 5‐point Likert scale: strongly disagree, 1 disagree, 2 neither agree nor disagree, 3 agree 4 and strongly agree 5 . A follow‐up survey was conducted at the conclusion of the program.…”