Mentorship throughout medical education has been extensively advocated for the development of academic excellence, psychosocial health, and professional identity formation.¹ Formal mentorship has experienced personnel taking care of students during adversity so that they can develop and adapt to their new environment.² Medical studies are demanding, with students undergoing stress, low morale, and burnout.³ Under these situations, mentorship gives individualized care and skill development.⁴ Numerous studies emphasize the positive role of mentorship on motivation, academic performance, and student well-being.⁵ Such programs have been found to result in improved integration, lower attrition, and enhanced communication skills by institutions.⁶ The effectiveness of the programs, however, is contingent upon various factors such as mentor conduct, interaction frequency, and mentee activity.⁷ The present study evaluates a mentorship program introduced at a medical college to gauge student opinions about the efficacy, personal influence, and scope for improvement of the program.

Study Design and Participants – This cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted in a new medical college in Maharashtra having capacity of 100 undergraduate medical students each year. As number of faculty were less, each teacher was allotted for 5 students gender wise, boys to male teachers and girls to female teachers.

Mentor meetings were fixed every 2^nd and 4^th Wednesday in college campus and time was fixed at 4.30 pm. All mentors were explained their roles in first Grand meeting held with mentors and mentees. Senior faculties addressed Mentors and their queries were clarified and students were explained importance of regular meetings. As it was first batch of MBBS Students, no seniors were available in campus and hence it was a need to have mentors for students.

After this, regular meetings of mentor and mentees started and a regular record was kept for attendance of mentees and remark was registered by mentor in a register kept with office.

At the end of academic year, responses were collected through structured feedback through Google forms (response rate: 78%). In student’s feedback identity of students was not revealed, however only gender was mentioned. The study spanned over a duration of one academic year.

Inclusion Criteria-

• First-year medical students involved in the mentorship program.
• Provided informed feedback.

Exclusion Criteria-

• Incomplete answers
• Students who were not a part of the entire cycle of the mentorship program.

Data Collection Tool-

A standardized, anonymous feedback survey with closed and open-ended questions was employed. It had variables such as:

• Respect for time/relationship boundaries by mentors
• Satisfaction with meeting frequency
• Productivity and expectation satisfaction
• Self-reported benefits (academic, confidence, stress management)

Data Analysis-

Data were tabulated using MS Excel and analyzed using descriptive statistics. Categorical data were presented as percentages. Gender-wise comparisons were drawn. Graphs were drawn to represent responses using bar charts.

Out of 78 respondents, 43 were males (55.13%) and 35 were females (44.87%).

Table 1: Gender-wise Distribution of Participants

Graph 1: Gender distribution of respondents

Table 2: Respect for Time and Relationship Boundaries

Graph 2 – Mentor’s respect for time and boundaries according to students

Table 3: Students Satisfaction with Meeting Frequency

Graph 3- Student’s satisfaction with the frequency of meetings

Table 4: Students opinion about mentor mentee meeting productivity

Graph 4: Students (average) opinion about mentor mentee meeting productivity

Table 5: Most beneficial change observed by the students in themselves after mentorship programme

Graph 5: Most beneficial change (Average %) observed by the students in themselves after mentorship programm

This study highlights that a majority of the mentees considered the mentorship program to be positive, and this shows the overall effectiveness and acceptability of the program for undergraduate medical students. One of the key results was that 85.90% of participants believed that their mentors respected time and relational boundaries (Table 2, Graph 2), which is in line with literature associating professionalism, integrity, and respect with successful outcomes of mentoring programs. ⁸ Having professional boundaries makes sure that a safe and trustworthy environment is provided where mentees can freely disclose academic and personal problems without worry of judgment or inappropriateness.

Student satisfaction regarding meeting frequency was also significant, with 71.79% of the students indicating satisfaction regarding the frequency with which they saw their mentors (Table 3, Graph 3). This aligns with evidence to date suggesting that frequent, structured and timely encounters are the ingredients for effective mentor-mentee relationships.⁹ Regular meetings offer continuity to counselling, allow timely feedback, and sustain mentee motivation, particularly in the high-stakes arena of medical education.

Notably, male mentees (74.42%) reported marginally higher satisfaction than females (68.57%). This marginal variation suggests the importance of gender-sensitive mentoring strategies.¹⁰ Female students may have specific mentorship needs based on cultural, psychological or social processes influencing their experience and satisfaction with mentoring. These findings emphasize the importance of training mentors in gender-specific issues and their identification and response.

Mentorship sessions were productivity validated by 69.23% of the students, who saw such sessions as effective and significant (Table 4, Graph 4). These results correspond to studies, indicating that goal-setting, reflection by plan, and one-to-one academic advice, presented as part of the mentorship session, enhance student satisfaction at a higher rate as well as perform well during mentorship.¹¹ However, a fascinating gap was observed between male (74.42%) and female (62.86%) students in self-reported meeting productivity. Additionally, 28.57% of females perceived their meetings as unproductive in contrast to just 9.30% of males, indicating that the format or communication style of the sessions may not be as effective across both the genders.¹² This difference necessitates mentor training programs to include inclusivity, empathy, and flexibility.

Another noteworthy dimension was the psychological and emotional impact of the mentorship program. Up to 33.33% of students indicated heightened confidence levels and stress reduction (Table 5, Graph 5), underlining the pivotal role that mentors play in enhancing emotional strength. This finding correlates with previous studies that position mentorship as a shield from burnout and psychological distress in high-stress academic environments.¹³

Additionally, 20.51% of the mentees credited improved academia to the program. This concurs with global trends wherein mentoring is related to improved performance, improved study habits, and proactive participation.¹⁴⁻¹⁶ Not only do mentors educate but they also model professionalism and critical thinking standards, which have the power to influence academic course for good.

In comparison to comprehensive studies such as those conducted by Frei et al. and Sambunjak et al., our results confirm the critical role of formal mentoring programs in fostering personal and educational developent.¹⁷⁻¹⁸ The findings point towards institutional support, mentor accountability, and the importance of feedback loops in ensuring effective systems of mentorship. In addition, to confirm this, a meta-analysis conducted by Tan et al. concluded that mentee satisfaction was forecasted by such variables as mentor empathy, clarity of communication, and sensitivity to mentee needs.¹⁹ Despite these encouraging findings, 30.77% of the students did not reply or did not report a specific benefit from the program. This subgroup identifies a key element of mentorship — the willingness and extent of mentee engagement. Research has shown that mentorship outcomes depend not only on the effort of the mentor but also on mentee motivation, goal clarity and openness to feedback.²⁰ Such perceived lack of gain may also be due to variability in the quality of mentors or mismatch.

Overall, the research affirms the value of mentoring in medical education but also identifies areas for improvement. Gender-sensitive formalized mentoring training, monitoring, and dynamic adjustment mechanisms, which could be made even more effective, could be implemented. Future research must be based on longitudinal study designs to ascertain whether mentorship improves long-term career advancement, overall well-being and success in academic achievements.

The mentorship program was largely accountable for personal and academic growth of most students. The most satisfying thing in the programme is having a mentor to listen the problems in friendly environment and giving confidence to mentee for resolving them. Favourable feedback on boundaries, meeting frequency, and confidence building suggest that formalized mentorship is a valuable tool in medical education. Nevertheless, addressing some issues on irregularity of meetings, insufficient duration, venue of meetings and mentor training can enhance program effectiveness. Longitudinal studies and feedback from mentors can provide a clearer picture.

1. Fallatah HI, Park YS, Farsi J, Tekian A. Mentoring Clinical-Year Medical Students: Factors Contributing to Effective Mentoring. J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2018;5:2382120518757717.
2. Shadan M, Shalaby RH, Ziganshina A, et al. Integrating portfolio and mentorship in competency-based medical education: a Middle East experience. BMC Med Educ. 2025;25:36.
3. Motilal S, Harnarayan P, Garbutt A, et al. Mentorship in a Caribbean Medical School: A Cross-Sectional Study of Mentors and Mentees. Int Med Educ. 2025;4(2):9.
4. Wu J. Mentorship in medical education: reflections on the importance of both unofficial and official mentorship programs. BMC Med Educ. 2024;24:1233.
5. Shrivastava SR, Bobhate PS, Petkar PB, et al. Preparing medical teachers in their role as mentor for medical students. Indian J Community Health. 2024;36(4):615–619.
6. Izadi S. Navigating Undergraduate Medical Education: The Impact of Enhanced Mentorship Pairing at a New Medical School. Cureus. 2024;16(6):e62789.
7. Min J-A, Lee N-B, Lee C-U, et al. Enhancing resilience: the impact of a near-peer mentoring program on medical students. Front Educ. 2024;9:1523310.
8. Burgess A, van Diggele C, Mellis C. Mentorship in the health professions: a review. Clin Teach. 2018;15(1):13–18.
9. Tan ML, Khan SA, Mat Daud N, et al. The effectiveness of mentoring programs in medical education: a meta-analysis. Med Educ Online. 2021;26(1):1945510.
10. Atlas AM, Seltzer ES, Watters A, et al. A global perspective of mentorship in medical schools: Systematic review from 2014 to 2019. Med Sci Educ. 2021;31:969–977.
11. Chen JJ, Kusner JJ, Saldaña F, Potter J. Development of a novel mentorship platform to foster relational mentoring, empowered vulnerability, and professional identity formation in undergraduate medical education. Acad Med. 2021;96(11):1580–1585.
12. Kusner JJ, Chen JJ, Saldaña F, Potter J. Aligning student-faculty mentorship expectations and needs to promote professional identity formation in undergraduate medical education. J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2022;9:23821205221096307.
13. Chow J, Al-Duaij L, Last N, et al. Transformational learning and professional identity formation in postgraduate competency-based medical education. Med Educ. 2025;59(4):409–417.
14. Krishna LKR, Renganathan Y, Tay KT, et al. Educational roles as a continuum of mentoring’s role in medicine – a systematic review and thematic analysis of educational studies from 2000 to 2018. BMC Med Educ. 2019;19(1):439.
15. Krishna LKR, Tan LHE, Ong YT, et al. Enhancing mentoring in palliative care: an evidence-based mentoring framework. J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2020;7:2382120520957649.
16. Mohd Shafiaai MSF, Kadirvelu A, Pamidi N. Peer mentoring experience on becoming a good doctor: student perspectives. BMC Med Educ. 2020;20:494.
17. Nimmons D, Giny S, Rosenthal J. Medical student mentoring programs: current insights. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2019;10:113–123.
18. Sng JH, Pei Y, Toh YP, et al. Mentoring relationships between senior physicians and junior doctors and/or medical students: A thematic review. Med Teach. 2017;39(8):866–875.
19. Farkas AH, Allenbaugh J, Bonifacino E, et al. Mentorship of US medical students: a systematic review. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34:2602–2609.
20. Atlas AM, Seltzer ES, Watters A, et al. A global perspective of mentorship in medical schools: Systematic review from 2014 to 2019. Med Sci Educ. 2021;31:969–977.