Mentoring Experiences, Perceived Availability, and Preferred Topics Among Respondents to an Open Survey of Medical Students and Physicians in Switzerland

Le résumé fourni par la source

Background/Objectives: Mentoring may support professional development in medicine, but experiences and perceived programme availability may differ across career stages. We aimed to describe previous mentoring participation, perceived availability, satisfaction, preferred topics and formats, and responses to a generic digital facilitation item among medical students and physicians responding to an open survey in Switzerland. Methods: An open cross-sectional Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) survey was conducted from November 2024 to March 2025. Of 672 submitted records, 548 (81.5%) were complete and used for principal analyses. Analyses were descriptive and exploratory using valid item-level denominators. Results: Respondents were predominantly German-speaking (473/546, 86.6%), and 263/375 physicians (70.1%) worked in Bern. Previous mentoring participation was reported by 177/545 respondents (32.5%); 91/163 (55.8%) rated prior mentoring positively. Programme availability was perceived as insufficient by 475/530 (89.6%), while 515/545 (94.5%) anticipated professional benefit. Career advice was the most frequently selected topic. Previous participation increased from 21.3% among medical students to 44.6% among senior physicians, whereas perceived insufficiency remained high across career stages (85.5–97.4%). Conclusions: Within this self-selected, predominantly German-speaking and Bern-based respondent sample, previous participation in medical mentoring programmes was relatively uncommon, while perceived insufficiency of programme availability was consistently high across professional stages. Career advice emerged as a shared priority across career groups. These findings describe respondent-level perceptions and should not be interpreted as estimates of mentoring availability or unmet need across Switzerland.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.