Mentorship in a Caribbean Medical School: A Cross-Sectional Study of Mentors and Mentees

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study was conducted appropriately. However, there are a few concerns/comments to improve the paper. 

There is a discrepancy between the number of required sample size and the actual sample size. It was stated that 'a minimum of 348 students and 273 staff were required'. However, the actual  number of respondents was only 234 including 96 staff and 138 students. Is it possible to increase the number of respondents at this stage?

Does student perception change across the four island sites?

Does student perception change depending on year of studies?, i.e., pre-clinical vs clinical years?

Author Response

Reviewer 1: The study was conducted appropriately. However, there are a few concerns/comments to improve the paper.
Response: Thanks for the positive feedback. We have tried to address the queries below.

Comment 1: There is a discrepancy between the number of required sample size and the actual sample size. It was stated that 'a minimum of 348 students and 273 staff were required'. However, the actual number of respondents was only 234 including 96 staff and 138 students. Is it possible to increase the number of respondents at this stage?
Response 1: Unfortunately, the survey has closed. While hard copy or interviewer-administered surveys may have boosted our response rate, the cross-campus nature of this study meant online administration was the most practical option. Despite several reminders, response rates were sub-optimal—typical of online surveys. This limitation is now emphasized in the manuscript under the limitations section.

Comment 2: Does student perception change across the four island sites?
Response 2: Additional analyses were conducted, and while there were some significant differences in access to mentorship by site, most of the other perceptions related to mentorship were non-significant. We have now added a section in the Results entitled "Differences between sites" to reflect this.

Comment 3: Does student perception change depending on year of studies? i.e., pre-clinical vs clinical years?
Response 3: Yes, there were a few associations between year of study and students’ past access to a mentor. However, no significant differences were found between year and other mentorship perceptions. This has now been added to the Results section under "Associations across levels of staff and students."

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for submitting your manuscript. This article is a valuable contribution to understanding the needs and perception of mentorship in Caribbean medical schools.

This manuscript can be strengthened by discussing the limitations of this study in more detail (response rate, reliance on convenience sampling, selection bias). Please recommend ways by which future studies can be made more robust. It will be useful if references are included where researchers (in medical schools, or in any type of educational setting) have been able to successfully address similar limitations.

In any future studies, please include qualitative data (focus groups, interviews, etc.) to provide a better understanding of the mentoring process. The reference below is an example of a qualitative study using focus group discussions.

Frontiers | A qualitative study of mentors’ perceptions and experiences of a near-peer mentoring program for medical students

 

 

Author Response

comment 1: Thank you for submitting your manuscript. This article is a valuable contribution to understanding the needs and perception of mentorship in Caribbean medical schools.

response1:  Thanks, we have tried to enhance the paper based on your recommendations

 

comment 2: This manuscript can be strengthened by discussing the limitations of this study in more detail (response rate, reliance on convenience sampling, selection bias). Please recommend ways by which future studies can be made more robust. It will be useful if references are included where researchers (in medical schools, or in any type of educational setting) have been able to successfully address similar limitations.

In any future studies, please include qualitative data (focus groups, interviews, etc.) to provide a better understanding of the mentoring process. Response 2: The limitations section has been edited to emphasize the potential consequences of an underpowered study and selection bias. Supporting literature is cited to enhance ways to reduce these limitations   Comment3: Frontiers | A qualitative study of mentors perceptions and experiences of a near-peer mentoring program for medical students. Response3:  Study cited to support qualitative work as next step

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. UWI's first regional mentorship perception study and multi-campus strategy are innovative and valuable. The benefits for mentees and mentors and UWI's Triple A Strategy are clear.
2. The article's detailed survey table (Table 1) has partial or ambiguous data. The category "Mentoring is guidance towards attaining personal goals" lists "93.2%" for students but "Not an option" for staff without explanation. To explain why staff had fewer options, this contradiction needs explanation.
3. Convenience sampling and a "poor response rate" are important study limitations (Page 7). This transparency is laudable, but the article does not offer the response rate (e.g., as a % of 3600 students and 937 staff). This would improve the generalizability debate and help readers evaluate the findings.
4. The techniques section cites descriptive statistics and Fisher's exact test for categorical variables, however the analysis seems limited. Comparisons between campuses or years of study could reveal more than demographics. Expanding inferential analysis could improve study rigor.
5. Despite citing Table 1, the document mentions "Figure 1. Distribution of respondents by site" without providing it. This missing figure makes campus distribution visualization difficult, which is crucial for a multi-site investigation. Authors should add or remove the citation. Simple clarity: Table 1 or Table 2.
6. The study discusses negative mentorship experiences (e.g., mentors not spending enough time, unclear how to proceed) on Page 6, but it does not adequately address how these findings could impact mentorship program design. Addressing this gap with specific suggestions would improve practicality.
7. Atlas et al., 2021; Nimmons et al., 2019 are cited in the introduction and discussion, but their use in the interpretation of the results is limited. For instance, 75% of students thought mentors did not spend enough time (Page 5) might be contextualized with earlier mentor time commitment studies to show its significance or uniqueness in the Caribbean.
8. The work is promising, but inadequate data, missing figures, and underdeveloped analysis/discussion limit publishing without modifications. The topic is relevant, the research is competent, and the findings could inform Caribbean medical education, making it worth refining rather than rejecting.

 

 

Author Response

Comment1: UWI's first regional mentorship perception study and multi-campus strategy are innovative and valuable. The benefits for mentees and mentors and UWI's Triple A Strategy are clear.	Response1: We agree
Comment2:The article's detailed survey table (Table 1) has partial or ambiguous data. The category 'Mentoring is guidance towards attaining personal goals' lists '93.2%' for students but 'Not an option' for staff without explanation. To explain why staff had fewer options, this contradiction needs explanation.	Response2:This was an oversight in survey design where this option was added to the student survey but not mirrored in the staff survey question. It can be deleted as a question lower down table 1 “Able to discuss personal issues” highlighted the similarity in both groups
Comment3:Convenience sampling and a 'poor response rate' are important study limitations (Page 7). This transparency is laudable, but the article does not offer the response rate (e.g., as a % of 3600 students and 937 staff). This would improve the generalizability debate and help readers evaluate the findings.	Response3:Response rates for each subgroup are stated in the results section. Limitation section is enhanced, and suggestions made on how to reduce non-response and improve generalizability
Comment4:The techniques section cites descriptive statistics and Fisher's exact test for categorical variables, however the analysis seems limited. Comparisons between campuses or years of study could reveal more than demographics. Expanding inferential analysis could improve study rigor.	Response4:Four additional paragraphs of findings have been added from further inferential analyses regarding sites and levels of staff/students. These findings have also enhanced the discussion

Comment5:Despite citing Table 1, the document mentions 'Figure 1. Distribution of respondents by site' without providing it. This missing figure makes campus distribution visualization difficult, which is crucial for a multi-site investigation. Authors should add or remove the citation. Simple clarity: Table 1 or Table 2.	Response5: The in-text references to Figure 1 and Table 1 have been corrected
Comment6:The study discusses negative mentorship experiences (e.g., mentors not spending enough time, unclear how to proceed) on Page 6, but it does not adequately address how these findings could impact mentorship program design. Addressing this gap with specific suggestions would improve practicality.	Response6: A paragraph (2nd under next steps in discussion) has been added highlighting how negative experiences can be used to support program development
Comment7:Atlas et al., 2021; Nimmons et al., 2019 are cited in the introduction and discussion, but their use in the interpretation of the results is limited. For instance, 75% of students thought mentors did not spend enough time (Page 5) might be contextualized with earlier mentor time commitment studies to show its significance or uniqueness in the Caribbean.	Response7:Comparison of key findings with literature have been added. They were mostly consistent with existing studies
Comment8:The work is promising, but inadequate data, missing figures, and underdeveloped analysis/discussion limit publishing without modifications. The topic is relevant, the research is competent, and the findings could inform Caribbean medical education, making it worth refining rather than rejecting.	Response8: We hope the expanded analyses and enhanced related discussion points now make the manuscript worthy of consideration of publication.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank the authors for revising the article. I have no more comments. 

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback on the resubmission

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have revised the manuscript thoroughly. However, it may benefit from text editing.

Author Response

I have edited the text throughout for consistency and better reading.