4.0 Article

The Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Canadian Master of Physical Therapy Students Regarding Peer Mentorship

Journal

PHYSIOTHERAPY CANADA
Volume 64, Issue 1, Pages 65-76

Publisher

UNIV TORONTO PRESS INC
DOI: 10.3138/ptc.2011-02

Keywords

mentors; physical therapy; students

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To describe Canadian Master of Physical Therapy (MPT) students' knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding peer mentorship. Methods: A quantitative cross-sectional survey study was conducted. An online questionnaire was sent to 945 MPT students via e-mail, using a modified Dillman approach. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics to describe the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of Canadian MPT students. Results: A total of 260 MPT students (27.5%) responded to the questionnaire. Most respondents (68.7%) did not have any experience in a peer mentorship relationship during their MPT programme. A few respondents (5.4%) reported having received formal training on peer mentorship as part of their PT curriculum. Respondents generally held positive attitudes toward peer mentorship: 65.9% agreed that including peer mentorship is important, 89.5% agreed that peer mentorship can assist with learning in clinical internships, and 84.1% agreed that peer mentorship can help the transition from student to professional. Most respondents (52.5%) did not participate in a peer mentorship relationship during a typical month. Conclusions: MPT students' attitudes toward peer mentorship are positive, yet their knowledge of and resources for peer mentorship are limited, and few students have been involved in peer mentorship practices. The findings highlight the importance of university programme support to provide a nurturing environment and structure to overcome barriers, promote commitment, and facilitate successful participation. The evidence from this study provides a rationale to support and guide peer mentorship programming for Canadian MPT students.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available