Effect of Peer Mentorship on Osteopathic Medical Student Outcomes

Effect of Peer Mentorship on Osteopathic Medical Student Outcomes | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Effect of Peer Mentorship on Osteopathic Medical Student Outcomes Alexander C. Elma, Emily A. Masser This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7236969/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Medical students are expected to quickly acclimate to the rigorous pre-clinical coursework of the first and second years, before proceeding to their clinical rotations in the third and fourth years. This can be daunting, overwhelming, and difficult without insight into how to best navigate this experience. Institutions help students adjust to medical school by implementing peer-mentorship programs. These programs aim to ease the transition into medical school; however, ensuring the paired mentor and mentee are an effective match can be a difficult task. With that in mind, we were interested in evaluating the Marian University Wood College of Osteopathic Medicine (MU-WCOM) peer-mentorship program by assessing the efficacy of this program throughout the pre-clinical coursework of the first and second years and during the clinical rotations in the third and fourth years. The data collected involved gathering perspective from multiple graduating classes within MU-WCOM allowing us to draw conclusions about the program using the perspectives of both mentors and mentees. We measured various metrics of student experiences in the mentorship program using Likert scales and supporting qualitative evidence to explain reported experiences. Participants categorized their most influential mentors over the course of their time in medical school, and evaluated their experience as a mentee (and as a mentor, if applicable). Using this data, we hope to synthesize recommendations on how to improve the peer-mentorship program. Furthermore, we would like to determine if there is a more advantageous way to match the mentors with the mentees. Peer mentorship medical education osteopathic medicine mentor-mentee matching educational transition Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Introduction Medical students face the considerable challenge of rapidly adapting to the intensive pre-clinical curriculum during their first two years before transitioning to clinical rotations in years three and four. Developing effective study strategies to master scientific mechanisms and clinical knowledge becomes essential for success in this demanding environment. Many students find this transition daunting and overwhelming without proper guidance on navigating the complexities of medical education [1–3]. To address this challenge, medical institutions commonly implement peer-mentorship programs that connect incoming students with more experienced peers who have recently navigated similar challenges [4]. These programs aim to ease the transition into medical school by providing first-hand insights into curriculum management strategies [1]. Peer mentors offer valuable perspective on academic approaches, resource utilization, and institutional navigation that formal instruction alone cannot provide [2–6]. Serving as a mentor also significantly enhances both personal and professional development [1, 7]. By guiding medical students, mentors strengthen their leadership and communication skills while reinforcing their own medical knowledge through teaching [8]. This experience cultivates valuable guidance techniques that apply seamlessly in both academic and clinical settings. Mentors typically develop greater self-awareness and instructional confidence, while the relationship fosters a culture of continuous learning that enriches the mentor's professional identity. This bidirectional growth process ultimately produces more effective clinician-educators while advancing their own career development [4, 8]. Despite these benefits, ensuring effective mentor-mentee matches remains challenging. Our study aimed to evaluate the Marian University Wood College of Osteopathic Medicine (MU-WCOM) peer mentorship program by assessing its efficacy throughout both pre-clinical coursework and clinical rotations. By gathering perspectives from multiple graduating classes, we obtained comprehensive data representing both mentors' and mentees' experiences, allowing us to analyze how these relationships evolve throughout students' medical education. This research addresses several interconnected questions regarding our peer mentorship program. We sought to identify the factors that contribute to successful mentoring relationships in our specific medical school context, while also evaluating the perceived benefits and limitations of the current program structure. Additionally, we examined the consistency of mentoring quality across different student cohorts and explored potential improvements that could enhance the program's overall effectiveness. These questions guided our comprehensive assessment of the mentorship experience from multiple perspectives. Through this assessment, we seek to develop evidence-based recommendations for improving the peer mentorship program and identifying more effective mentor-mentee matching strategies. The findings may also provide valuable information for introducing this program to incoming students during orientation, setting appropriate expectations, and maximizing the potential benefits for all participants. Materials and Methods Study design This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of the peer mentorship program at MU-WCOM. The investigation was inspired by a first-year medical student who experienced a mismatch with their second-year mentor and derived minimal benefit from the program. Notably, this experience contrasted with reports from other first-year students who found significant value in their mentoring relationships. This discrepancy highlights the need for a systematic evaluation of the program's structure, implementation, and outcomes. The peer mentorship program at MU-WCOM pairs incoming first-year medical students (mentees) with second-year medical students (mentors) during orientation. Both mentors and mentees complete a short questionnaire designed to help create appropriate pairings based on compatibility factors. The program is designed to facilitate academic and social integration of first-year students through guidance from peers who have recently navigated similar challenges. This study aimed to provide valuable insights to optimize the peer mentorship program, ensuring more consistent positive experiences for future medical students while preserving the elements that are already working well. Data collection The Institutional Review Board at Marian University reviewed the protocol and determined the procedures proposed were appropriate for exemption under the federal regulation. The protocol remained on file with the Marian University IRB as a matter of record, IRB protocol number S23.170. Participants The study included participants from three graduating classes, representing different phases of the medical education continuum and varied experiences with the peer mentorship program. The graduating class of 2024 (fourth-year osteopathic medical students (OMS IV)) had previously served as mentors to the class of 2025 and had completed most of their clinical rotations. These participants provided retrospective insights on their experiences as mentors and the long-term value of the program. Class of 2025 students (OMS III) had been both mentees (paired with class of 2024 students) and mentors (paired with class of 2026 students). This cohort offered a unique dual perspective on the program's effectiveness from both roles. Class of 2026 students (OMS II) were the most recent mentees in the program, paired with class of 2025 mentors during their orientation. These participants provided fresh insights on the current implementation of the program and its immediate impacts. Survey participation was voluntary and confidentiality was protected through de-identification procedures to encourage honest feedback about the peer mentorship program. This strategic timing allowed for evaluation of both immediate and longitudinal impacts of the peer mentorship program across different stages of medical education. Sampling technique In July 2023, we employed a comprehensive sampling approach targeting all students in the graduating classes of 2024, 2025, and 2026 at our osteopathic medical school. This approach was selected to capture perspectives across different stages of medical education and varied experiences with the peer mentorship program. A Qualtrics survey (described in more detail below) was distributed via email to all three cohorts of students. The recruitment email requested participation in a brief survey regarding the mentors in their lives who helped them both prior to and during medical school. This framing was intentionally broad to encourage reflection on both formal program-assigned mentors and informal mentoring relationships that developed prior to and during their medical education. Students were requested to complete the survey within one week of receiving the email invitation. This timeframe was chosen to balance the need for prompt responses while accommodating the busy schedules of medical students. To maximize response rates, we implemented an incentive-based approach. Students were informed they would be entered into a drawing for a gift card upon survey completion. To be eligible for the drawing, participants were instructed to include their university email address on the first page of the survey. The email explicitly assured students that all results would be de-identified prior to evaluation. It was clearly stated that providing an email address was strictly for the purpose of selecting gift card winners. This sampling approach was designed to gather comprehensive feedback about the peer mentorship program while respecting students' time constraints and privacy concerns. Sample size The study garnered responses from a total of 149 osteopathic medical students across three graduating classes. This robust sample size provided sufficient data to conduct meaningful analyses of the peer mentorship program across different stages of medical education. For the graduating class of 2024 (OMS IV), 36 students completed the survey. Among these respondents, 16 students (44.4%) identified as male, 19 students (52.8%) identified as female, and one student (2.8%) identified as non-binary. For the graduating class of 2025 (OMS III), 49 students completed the survey. The gender distribution of respondents included 19 students (38.8%) who identified as male, 29 students (59.2%) who identified as female, and one student (2.0%) who preferred not to say. For the class of 2026 (OMS II), 64 students completed the survey. Of these respondents, 17 students (26.6%) identified as male and 47 students (73.4%) identified as female. The most recent cohort (class of 2026) had the highest participation (64 students), followed by the class of 2025 (49 students), with the class of 2024 having the lowest participation (36 students). This pattern may reflect differences in availability, engagement, or perceived relevance of the mentorship program among students at different stages of their medical education. The proportion of female respondents increased across graduating classes, from 52.8% in the class of 2024 to 73.4% in the class of 2026. Survey The survey instrument was carefully designed to evaluate multiple dimensions of mentorship experiences through four distinct sections, each addressing a specific phase or aspect of the mentoring relationship. The first section (Q1-Q9; Appendix A) was focused on assessing the student before matriculation into medical school and their level of preparedness. This section explored the quality and availability of mentorship during the medical school preparation phase, students' perceptions of their readiness for the rigors of medical education, and whether they had developed proper study strategies to allow them to be successful in medical school. Additional topics included self-assessment of academic and professional preparation, expectations about medical education before enrollment, and sources of guidance during the application and admission process. This section established a baseline understanding of students' mentorship experiences and preparedness prior to entering the medical education environment. The second section (Q10-Q19; Appendix B) was aimed at assessing mentorship after matriculation into medical school. This portion of the survey wanted to assess how different individuals and/or groups of people influenced their medical education journey. Questions addressed the identification of key influencers in their medical education, the relative impact of different mentorship sources (such as faculty advisors, clinical preceptors, and senior students), and the frequency and quality of mentoring interactions. This section also explored areas where mentorship was most valuable after matriculation, unmet mentorship needs during medical school, and how mentorship relationships evolved throughout different phases of medical education. The third section (Q20-Q28; Appendix C) was aimed at assessing the influence of their assigned second-year mentor through the formal peer-mentorship program. This section examined the nature and frequency of interactions with the assigned mentor, the perceived value of the formal mentoring relationship, and specific areas where the second-year mentor provided useful guidance. Additional questions addressed challenges or limitations in the mentor-mentee relationship, suggestions for improving the formal peer-mentorship program, overall satisfaction with the assigned mentorship experience, and comparisons between formal and informal mentoring relationships. This section directly assessed the core focus of the study: the effectiveness of the structured peer-mentorship program that pairs first-year students with second-year mentors. The fourth section (Q29-Q34; Appendix D) was asked exclusively to the graduating classes of 2024 and 2025 and was aimed at evaluating the relationship from the mentor's perspective. This section explored how mentors viewed their interaction and relationship with their mentee, their perception of their effectiveness as a mentor, challenges they encountered in the mentoring role, and strategies they employed to support their mentees. Questions also addressed mentors' satisfaction with the program structure, their preparation for the mentoring role, and suggestions for improving the mentorship experience from the mentor's perspective. This section provided valuable complementary data to understand the bidirectional nature of the mentoring relationship and identify potential areas for enhancing mentor training and support. Data analysis The data analysis framework incorporated a mixed-methods approach to evaluate the peer mentorship program comprehensively. The survey instrument utilized Likert scales of varying ranges to assess different dimensions of the mentoring experience. Specifically, the survey contained items that examined study plan effectiveness, evaluated mentor performance, and assessed mentee engagement, all using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree." Additionally, items measured the influence of various mentor types using a 4-point Likert scale with options including "not applicable," "not influential," "somewhat influential," and "very influential.” To facilitate valid comparisons between Likert scales with different ranges, all scale data were normalized using GraphPad Prism. This normalization process converted responses from disparate scales to equivalent numerical ranges, ensuring methodological consistency and enabling direct comparative analyses between differently structured items. The normalized values preserved the relative positioning of responses while eliminating potential analytical distortions that could arise from comparing scales with unequal intervals or endpoints. Statistical analyses were conducted using GraphPad Prism (Version 10.4.2 (534)). For non-parametric paired data comparing medians between two questions, we employed the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test. When evaluating rank differences across multiple questions, we utilized the Friedman test followed by Dunn's multiple comparison test for post-hoc analysis. To assess consistency across the three graduating classes for individual questions, we applied the Kruskal-Wallis test. All Likert scale data were analyzed using these non-parametric approaches to appropriately address the ordinal nature of the responses. The quantitative assessment was complemented by qualitative data collection through open-ended questions where students provided narrative responses about their most influential mentor, assigned second-year mentor, and mentee experiences. This dual analytical approach allowed for both statistical measurement of program effectiveness and thematic understanding of the mentorship dynamics and experiences. All aspects of data collection, analysis, and reporting in this study adhere to the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) guidelines to ensure methodological rigor and transparency in our qualitative findings [9]. Results To determine the key factors that contribute to successful peer mentoring relationships in our osteopathic medical school environment, we conducted a comprehensive assessment of student experiences and perceptions. Demographic and educational profiles were collected through structured survey questions addressing graduation year, gender identity, traditional/non-traditional student status, and pre-medical educational attainment (Appendix A: Q1-Q4). The survey further examined students' academic approaches, including initial study strategies, adaptation of study methods throughout didactic years, and the principal influences on their academic planning, whether self-directed or externally guided (Appendix A: Q5-Q9). Additionally, we evaluated the relative influence of diverse stakeholders on students' medical education post-matriculation, including family and friends in medicine, peer networks both within and outside the institution, assigned mentors, faculty advisors, and physicians encountered during pre-medical shadowing experiences (Appendix B). One initial hypothesis posited that students entering medical school with established study strategies might perceive less value from the peer-mentor program. However, Spearman's correlation analysis examining the relationship between students' self-reported preparedness (entering with a solid study plan) and the perceived influence of their assigned second-year mentor revealed no statistically significant correlation (rs = -0.04417, n = 149, p = 0.2964). This finding was further supported by a Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test, which showed no significant difference between these metrics (W = -217, n = 149, p = 0.8337; Fig. 1 a). These results suggest that a student's initial academic confidence does not predict their perception of or benefit from the peer mentorship program. We also investigated whether students with established career mentors relied less on their second-year peer mentors. Contrary to expectations, Spearman's correlation analysis demonstrated no significant relationship between having an ongoing career mentor and the reported influence of the assigned second-year mentor (rs = 0.09036, n = 149, p = 0.1365). The Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test comparing these metrics similarly showed no significant difference (W = 590, n = 149, p = 0.5395; Fig. 1 b). These findings indicate that the presence of a career mentor does not diminish the impact of peer mentorship, suggesting these mentoring relationships may serve complementary rather than redundant functions in students' professional development. We examined the relationship between students' evolution of study approaches during didactic years and the quality of their peer mentorship experience. Initial analysis focused on whether changes in study strategies correlated with positive mentorship relationships. Spearman's correlation analysis revealed no significant relationship between modifications to study plans and the perceived influence of assigned second-year mentors (rs = 0.1292, n = 149, p = 0.0582). However, the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test demonstrated a highly significant difference between these variables (W = -7412, n = 149, p < 0.0001), indicating that while students substantially altered their study approaches during didactic years, these adaptations were not significantly attributed to mentor influence (Fig. 1 c). Further investigation explored whether students who primarily relied on self-directed research for study strategies reported diminished value from peer mentorship. Spearman's correlation analysis showed no significant relationship between self-reliance in study approaches and perceived mentor influence (rs = 0.001645, n = 149, p = 0.4921). The Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test revealed a significant difference between these metrics (W = -4085, n = 149, p < 0.0001), suggesting that students predominantly depended on their own research for academic strategies, yet this independence did not negatively impact their perception of mentor contributions to their medical education (Fig. 1 d). Finally, we assessed whether receptivity to guidance from experienced advisors correlated with positive mentorship experiences. Spearman's correlation analysis identified a modest yet significant positive relationship between openness to experienced guidance and perceived influence of second-year mentors (rs = 0.1559, n = 149, p = 0.0288). The Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test confirmed a significant difference between these variables (W = -2119, n = 149, p = 0.0265; Fig. 1 e). These findings indicate that students who valued advice from experienced individuals generally reported more positive mentorship experiences, though their overall receptivity to guidance from experienced individuals exceeded the specific influence they attributed to their second-year mentors. This pattern suggests that while students found their second-year mentors provided valuable study guidance, they integrated advice from multiple experienced sources throughout their educational journey. Our analysis examined the perceived benefits and limitations of the peer-mentorship program from both mentor and mentee perspectives. We implemented parallel assessment questions for both roles (Appendix C: Q20-25), with two additional questions directed specifically to the graduating classes of 2024 and 2025 regarding relationship maintenance during clerkship years (Appendix C: Q26 and 27). Statistical analysis revealed several significant relationships between mentorship qualities and perceived program effectiveness. A Spearman's correlation analysis examining the relationship between mentor compatibility and perceived impact on medical school success demonstrated a strong, significant positive correlation (rs = 0.773, n = 145, p < 0.0001). However, the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test comparing these same metrics showed a statistically significant difference (W = -1400, n = 145, p < 0.0001; Fig. 2 a, left), suggesting nuanced distinctions between compatibility and impact. Further correlation analyses explored specific factors potentially influencing mentorship effectiveness. Shared interests between mentors and mentees showed a moderate, significant positive correlation with perceived impact on academic success (rs = 0.582, n = 145, p < 0.0001). Similarly, having comparable life situations demonstrated a moderate, significant positive correlation with perceived impact (rs = 0.565, n = 145, p < 0.0001). Notably, Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank tests revealed no statistically significant differences between common interests and impact (W = -590, n = 145, p = 0.176) or between similar life situations and impact (W = -646, n = 145, p = 0.180; Fig. 2 a, left). These findings suggest that shared interests and similar life circumstances between mentors and mentees may be more reliable predictors of effective academic support than general perceptions of compatibility. This distinction provides valuable insight for optimizing mentor-mentee matching protocols within medical education settings. For the graduating classes of 2024 and 2025, Spearman’s correlation revealed a significant positive relationship between mentor compatibility and clinical rotation preparation (rs = 0.5868, n = 82, p < 0.0001). When comparing these variables using a Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test, we observed a statistically significant difference (W = -1452, n = 82, p < 0.0001; Fig. 2 b), suggesting that second-year mentors provide greater value during pre-clerkship didactic years compared to clinical clerkships. Further analysis examined the relationship between mentor relationship maintenance and clinical rotation preparation, yielding a strong positive correlation (rs = 0.7297, n = 82, p < 0.0001). The Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test comparing these factors approached but did not reach statistical significance (W = 259, n = 82, p = 0.0529; Fig. 2 b). This finding suggests that students who maintain stable relationships with their second-year mentors tend to preserve these connections beyond didactic training and into clinical clerkships. Analysis of perceived benefits across the peer-mentorship program revealed distinct priorities for both mentors and mentees. Across all classes, participants consistently ranked highest the exchange of success strategies and tangible study resources used during didactic years (Fig. 2 ). From the mentees' perspective (Appendix C), the Friedman test demonstrated significant variation in how benefits were ranked (Friedman statistic = 57.66, p < 0.0001). Dunn's multiple comparison test revealed that receiving wisdom and success strategies for medical school was valued significantly higher than other program aspects (p = 0.0041, p = 0.0026, p < 0.0001; Fig. 2 a, right). Additionally, access to tangible study tools was ranked significantly higher than the perceived direct impact of the mentor on academic success (p = 0.0093; Fig. 2 a, right). Similarly, mentors (Appendix D) showed significant differences in their assessment of program benefits (Friedman statistic = 80.42, p < 0.0001; Fig. 2 c). Dunn's multiple comparison test indicated that sharing wisdom and success strategies with mentees was their highest-ranked contribution (p = 0.0024, p < 0.0001, p < 0.0001; Fig. 2 c), followed by providing tangible study resources, which was also ranked significantly higher than other mentorship aspects (p = 0.0344, p < 0.0001, p = 0.0003; Fig. 2 c). These findings highlight that the most valuable components of the peer-mentorship program are the practical guidance for navigating medical school and the collaborative sharing of study materials between peers. To evaluate the consistency of mentorship quality across student cohorts, we conducted a comprehensive analysis of key program dimensions (Appendix C). The Kruskal-Wallis test demonstrated consistency across graduating classes, with no significant differences observed for any of the four primary assessment metrics: mentor compatibility (H(2) = 2.056, p = 0.3578; ; Fig. 3 a), mentor impact on academic success (H(2) = 1.656, p = 0.4369; Fig. 3 b), transmission of wisdom and strategic guidance (H(2) = 2.242, p = 0.3259; Fig. 3 c), and sharing of practical study resources (H(2) = 2.926, p = 0.2315; Fig. 3 d). These findings provide compelling evidence that the mentorship program delivers consistently high-quality experiences regardless of cohort year. The absence of statistically significant differences between group medians confirms that mentorship quality has maintained stability across the three graduating classes, suggesting the program has established reliable mentoring practices that transcend annual variations in student populations. Discussion This study provides valuable insights into the dynamics and effectiveness of peer mentorship within osteopathic medical education. Our comprehensive assessment revealed several key factors that contribute to successful mentoring relationships, with important implications for program design and implementation in medical education settings. Our finding that a student's initial academic confidence does not predict their perception of or benefit from the peer mentorship program challenges conventional assumptions about which students might benefit most from such initiatives. This suggests that peer mentorship offers value beyond mere academic guidance, potentially providing psychosocial support, institutional navigation assistance, and professional identity formation that benefit students across all levels of academic preparation [1–3, 6]. Medical education institutions should therefore avoid restricting mentorship opportunities based on perceived academic readiness, as students at all preparation levels may derive significant benefits from peer guidance. Similarly, the observation that career mentorship and peer mentorship appear to serve complementary rather than redundant functions underscores the multidimensional nature of effective mentoring in medical education. While career mentors may provide long-term professional guidance and clinical expertise, peer mentors offer proximal support from those who have recently navigated similar challenges [1]. This complementarity highlights the importance of fostering diverse mentoring networks that address different aspects of the complex medical education journey [6]. The apparent paradox in our findings regarding study approaches merits particular attention. Students significantly modified their study strategies during didactic years yet did not attribute these changes to mentor influence, despite valuing mentor-provided study guidance and resources. This suggests a nuanced relationship wherein students maintain autonomy over their learning approaches while still incorporating peer insights. This pattern aligns with adult learning principles, wherein learners selectively integrate guidance while maintaining agency over their educational development [2, 6]. The fact that students' independence in developing study strategies did not negatively impact their perception of mentor contributions further supports the notion that effective peer mentorship enhances rather than diminishes student autonomy. Our results regarding mentor-mentee matching provide practical guidance for program development. The finding that shared interests and similar life circumstances between mentors and mentees may be more reliable predictors of effective academic support than general perceptions of compatibility offers concrete criteria for optimizing matching protocols. Programs should consider these specific dimensions of compatibility rather than relying on broader, less defined measures of mentor-mentee “fit” [6]. The stability of mentor relationships from didactic training into clinical clerkships for many students suggests that peer mentorship can provide continuity across the significant transition from classroom to clinical learning environments [6]. Students are more inclined to seek guidance from experienced mentors, particularly when those mentors are peers with relatable knowledge and expertise gained through recent, similar experiences [1, 6]. This finding highlights the potential for peer mentors to help bridge this often challenging transition, providing context-specific guidance that faculty mentors or administrators may be less positioned to offer. Perhaps most significantly, our assessment of program benefits from both mentor and mentee perspectives revealed consistent prioritization of practical guidance and tangible resource sharing. This finding highlights that effective peer mentorship is grounded in concrete, actionable support rather than abstract mentoring ideals. Mentor training programs should therefore emphasize equipping student mentors with specific strategies and materials to share, focusing on the pragmatic aspects of navigating medical education. The consistency in mentorship quality across student cohorts demonstrates the program's structural integrity and sustainability. This consistency speaks to the effectiveness of the program's design and implementation, suggesting that it has established reliable practices that transcend annual variations in student populations. Such stability is particularly valuable in medical education environments, where frequent curricular changes and student turnover can challenge program continuity. Several limitations of our study should be acknowledged. As a single-institution study, generalizability may be limited, though the consistency of findings across multiple graduating classes suggests some stability in the observed patterns. Additionally, our cross-sectional design captures perceptions at a single point rather than tracking the evolution of mentoring relationships longitudinally. Future research should explore several areas. Qualitative investigation of successful mentoring relationships could provide deeper insights into the mechanisms underlying effective peer support. Additionally, exploration of how peer mentorship specifically supports traditionally underrepresented students in medicine could inform equity-focused program enhancements. Finally, longitudinal studies tracking the impact of peer mentorship on professional identity formation and career development would expand our understanding of its long-term benefits. Conclusion In conclusion, our findings suggest that effective peer mentorship in osteopathic medical education functions as a complementary support within students' broader educational networks, providing tangible guidance and resources while respecting student autonomy. Programs should focus on cultivating shared interests and life circumstances in mentor-mentee matching, emphasizing practical resource sharing in mentor training, and supporting relationship continuity across the transition from didactic to clinical education. The consistency of our program across cohorts suggests that well-designed peer mentorship initiatives can establish sustainable mechanisms for supporting medical student development, regardless of initial academic preparation or the presence of other mentoring relationships. Declarations Consent statement: All participants in this study provided informed consent prior to participation. Students were informed that participation in the survey was voluntary and that their responses would be used for research purposes to evaluate the peer mentorship program. Participants were assured that their individual responses would remain confidential and that data would be reported only in aggregate form to protect participant anonymity. The study protocol and consent procedures were reviewed and approved by the Marian University Institutional Review Board (IRB) prior to data collection. No personally identifiable information was collected or retained in the dataset, and all responses were anonymized prior to analysis. Conflict of Interest The authors declare no competing interests. Acknowledgements This research project was funded by the Marian University Wood College of Osteopathic Medicine (MU-WCOM) Summer Research Fellowship. We would like to thank the MU-WCOM students for participating in the survey. References Whitfield S, Hazard C, Haynes B, Coffey T, Lynch L, Davis S. On-site peer mentorship’s effect on personal and professional development, stress reduction, and ease of transition into the medical education system. Journal of Osteopathic Medicine. 2024 Jul 22;124(8):345-51; https://doi.org/10.1515/jom-2023-0086 Perepelova N, Spiers J. The importance of peer mentoring at medical school. Clinical Teacher. 2020 Aug 1;17(4); https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.13113 Akinla O, Hagan P, Atiomo W. A systematic review of the literature describing the outcomes of near-peer mentoring programs for first year medical students. BMC medical education. 2018 Dec;18:1-0; https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-018-1195-1 Andre C, Deerin J, Leykum L. Students helping students: vertical peer mentoring to enhance the medical school experience. BMC research notes. 2017 Dec;10:1-7; https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-017-2498-8 Alexander SM, Dallaghan GL, Birch M, Smith KL, Howard N, Shenvi CL. What makes a near-peer learning and tutoring program effective in undergraduate medical education: a qualitative analysis. Medical science educator. 2022 Dec;32(6):1495-502; https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-022-01680-0 Altonji SJ, Baños JH, Harada CN. Perceived benefits of a peer mentoring program for first-year medical students. Teaching and learning in medicine. 2019 Aug 8;31(4):445-52; https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2019.1574579 Taylor JS, Faghri S, Aggarwal N, Zeller K, Dollase R, Reis SP. Developing a peer-mentor program for medical students. Teaching and learning in medicine. 2013 Jan 1;25(1):97-102; https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2012.741544 Yang MM, Golden BP, Cameron KA, Gard L, Bierman JA, Evans DB, Henschen BL. Learning through teaching: peer teaching and mentoring experiences among third-year medical students. Teaching and Learning in Medicine. 2022 Aug 8;34(4):360-7; https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2021.1899930 O’Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, Reed DA, Cook DA. Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Academic medicine. 2014 Sep 1;89(9):1245-51; https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000000388 Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7236969","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":492197450,"identity":"9ee1c9b4-10ad-4948-a7a3-e3a5b9d03b20","order_by":0,"name":"Alexander C. Elma","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Marian University Wood College of Osteopathic Medicine","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Alexander","middleName":"C.","lastName":"Elma","suffix":""},{"id":492197496,"identity":"b3633296-869b-4076-8f00-a7e7ea382692","order_by":1,"name":"Emily A. Masser","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7934-7175","institution":"Marian University Wood College of Osteopathic Medicine","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Emily","middleName":"A.","lastName":"Masser","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-07-28 20:00:50","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":true,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":true,"humanSubjectConsent":true,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7236969/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7236969/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":88223457,"identity":"86caa82a-48c4-44b6-8cf8-289ede3f8dc6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-04 08:09:55","extension":"jpeg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":230974,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eRelationships between student characteristics, study approaches, and perceived mentor influence. (a) No correlation between entering medical school with established study plans and mentor influence (rs = -0.04417, p = 0.2964, W = -217, p = 0.8337). (b) Having career mentors did not affect peer mentor influence (rs = 0.09036, p = 0.1365, W = 590, p = 0.5395). (c) Study approach changes during didactic years (W = -7412, p \u0026lt; 0.0001) not correlated with mentor influence (rs = 0.1292, p = 0.0582). (d) Self-directed study approaches versus mentor influence (rs = 0.001645, p = 0.4921, W = -4085, p \u0026lt; 0.0001). (e) Modest correlation between valuing experienced guidance and positive mentorship experiences (rs = 0.1559, p = 0.0288, W = -2119, p = 0.0265). Bars represent median; n = 149 for all panels\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7236969/v1/f72f4452ec91d3af268ff0f3.jpeg"},{"id":88221869,"identity":"663734b3-15d0-4801-bd1b-ec11e769b3a3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-04 08:01:55","extension":"jpeg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":299198,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eCorrelates of mentorship effectiveness in medical education. (a, left) Strong correlation between mentor compatibility and perceived academic impact (rs = 0.773, p \u0026lt; 0.0001, W = -1400, p \u0026lt; 0.0001). Shared interests correlated with academic impact (rs = 0.582, p \u0026lt; 0.0001, W = -590, p = 0.176). Similar life situations correlated with academic impact (rs = 0.565, p \u0026lt; 0.0001, W = -646, p = 0.180); n = 145. Bars represent median; significance determined by Spearman's correlation and Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test. (a, right) Mentees ranked benefits with significant variation (Friedman statistic = 57.66, p \u0026lt; 0.0001). Receiving wisdom and success strategies ranked significantly higher than other benefits (p = 0.0041, p = 0.0026, p \u0026lt; 0.0001). Access to tangible study tools ranked significantly higher than mentor's direct academic impact (p = 0.0093). Bars represent median rankings; significance determined by Friedman test with Dunn's multiple comparison post-hoc analysis. (b) For clinical years (classes 2024 and 2025), mentor compatibility correlated with clinical rotation preparation (rs = 0.5868, p \u0026lt; 0.0001, W = -1452, p \u0026lt; 0.0001). Relationship maintenance strongly correlated with clinical preparation (rs = 0.7297, p \u0026lt; 0.0001, W = 259, p = 0.0529); n = 82. Bars represent median; significance determined by Spearman's correlation and Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test. (c) Mentors showed significant differences in benefit assessment (Friedman statistic = 80.42, p \u0026lt; 0.0001). Highest ranked was sharing wisdom/success strategies (p = 0.0024, p \u0026lt; 0.0001, p \u0026lt; 0.0001), followed by providing tangible study resources (p = 0.0344, p \u0026lt; 0.0001, p = 0.0003). Bars represent median rankings; significance determined by Friedman test with Dunn's multiple comparison post-hoc analysis\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7236969/v1/33e969502cd7f5bf575b20cd.jpeg"},{"id":88221868,"identity":"4e855adc-e7a8-402c-9868-c3dd98e9bcd0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-04 08:01:55","extension":"jpeg","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":118432,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eConsistency of mentorship quality across graduating classes. (a) Mentor compatibility showed no significant differences between cohorts (H(2) = 2.056, p = 0.3578). (b) Mentor impact on academic success remained consistent across classes (H(2) = 1.656, p = 0.4369). (c) Transmission of wisdom and strategic guidance showed no significant variation (H(2) = 2.242, p = 0.3259). (d) Sharing of practical study resources demonstrated consistency across cohorts (H(2) = 2.926, p = 0.2315). Bars represent median values; significance determined by Kruskal-Wallis test\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7236969/v1/04c1175ac3b7f919c201b8bc.jpeg"},{"id":88223740,"identity":"64182d8b-945a-42de-bbbc-9f93b9521998","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-04 08:17:59","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1015242,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7236969/v1/5d6ae70f-f401-4d11-85e5-f80e4b12bb7a.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eEffect of Peer Mentorship on Osteopathic Medical Student Outcomes\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eMedical students face the considerable challenge of rapidly adapting to the intensive pre-clinical curriculum during their first two years before transitioning to clinical rotations in years three and four. Developing effective study strategies to master scientific mechanisms and clinical knowledge becomes essential for success in this demanding environment. Many students find this transition daunting and overwhelming without proper guidance on navigating the complexities of medical education [1\u0026ndash;3].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo address this challenge, medical institutions commonly implement peer-mentorship programs that connect incoming students with more experienced peers who have recently navigated similar challenges [4]. These programs aim to ease the transition into medical school by providing first-hand insights into curriculum management strategies [1]. Peer mentors offer valuable perspective on academic approaches, resource utilization, and institutional navigation that formal instruction alone cannot provide [2\u0026ndash;6].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eServing as a mentor also significantly enhances both personal and professional development [1, 7]. By guiding medical students, mentors strengthen their leadership and communication skills while reinforcing their own medical knowledge through teaching [8]. This experience cultivates valuable guidance techniques that apply seamlessly in both academic and clinical settings. Mentors typically develop greater self-awareness and instructional confidence, while the relationship fosters a culture of continuous learning that enriches the mentor's professional identity. This bidirectional growth process ultimately produces more effective clinician-educators while advancing their own career development [4, 8].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDespite these benefits, ensuring effective mentor-mentee matches remains challenging. Our study aimed to evaluate the Marian University Wood College of Osteopathic Medicine (MU-WCOM) peer mentorship program by assessing its efficacy throughout both pre-clinical coursework and clinical rotations. By gathering perspectives from multiple graduating classes, we obtained comprehensive data representing both mentors' and mentees' experiences, allowing us to analyze how these relationships evolve throughout students' medical education.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis research addresses several interconnected questions regarding our peer mentorship program. We sought to identify the factors that contribute to successful mentoring relationships in our specific medical school context, while also evaluating the perceived benefits and limitations of the current program structure. Additionally, we examined the consistency of mentoring quality across different student cohorts and explored potential improvements that could enhance the program's overall effectiveness. These questions guided our comprehensive assessment of the mentorship experience from multiple perspectives.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThrough this assessment, we seek to develop evidence-based recommendations for improving the peer mentorship program and identifying more effective mentor-mentee matching strategies. The findings may also provide valuable information for introducing this program to incoming students during orientation, setting appropriate expectations, and maximizing the potential benefits for all participants.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Materials and Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eStudy design\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study aimed to assess the effectiveness of the peer mentorship program at MU-WCOM. The investigation was inspired by a first-year medical student who experienced a mismatch with their second-year mentor and derived minimal benefit from the program. Notably, this experience contrasted with reports from other first-year students who found significant value in their mentoring relationships. This discrepancy highlights the need for a systematic evaluation of the program's structure, implementation, and outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe peer mentorship program at MU-WCOM pairs incoming first-year medical students (mentees) with second-year medical students (mentors) during orientation. Both mentors and mentees complete a short questionnaire designed to help create appropriate pairings based on compatibility factors. The program is designed to facilitate academic and social integration of first-year students through guidance from peers who have recently navigated similar challenges. This study aimed to provide valuable insights to optimize the peer mentorship program, ensuring more consistent positive experiences for future medical students while preserving the elements that are already working well.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eData collection\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e The Institutional Review Board at Marian University reviewed the protocol and determined the procedures proposed were appropriate for exemption under the federal regulation. The protocol remained on file with the Marian University IRB as a matter of record, IRB protocol number S23.170.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eParticipants\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe study included participants from three graduating classes, representing different phases of the medical education continuum and varied experiences with the peer mentorship program. The graduating class of 2024 (fourth-year osteopathic medical students (OMS IV)) had previously served as mentors to the class of 2025 and had completed most of their clinical rotations. These participants provided retrospective insights on their experiences as mentors and the long-term value of the program. Class of 2025 students (OMS III) had been both mentees (paired with class of 2024 students) and mentors (paired with class of 2026 students). This cohort offered a unique dual perspective on the program's effectiveness from both roles. Class of 2026 students (OMS II) were the most recent mentees in the program, paired with class of 2025 mentors during their orientation. These participants provided fresh insights on the current implementation of the program and its immediate impacts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSurvey participation was voluntary and confidentiality was protected through de-identification procedures to encourage honest feedback about the peer mentorship program. This strategic timing allowed for evaluation of both immediate and longitudinal impacts of the peer mentorship program across different stages of medical education.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSampling technique\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn July 2023, we employed a comprehensive sampling approach targeting all students in the graduating classes of 2024, 2025, and 2026 at our osteopathic medical school. This approach was selected to capture perspectives across different stages of medical education and varied experiences with the peer mentorship program.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eA Qualtrics survey (described in more detail below) was distributed via email to all three cohorts of students. The recruitment email requested participation in a brief survey regarding the mentors in their lives who helped them both prior to and during medical school. This framing was intentionally broad to encourage reflection on both formal program-assigned mentors and informal mentoring relationships that developed prior to and during their medical education.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudents were requested to complete the survey within one week of receiving the email invitation. This timeframe was chosen to balance the need for prompt responses while accommodating the busy schedules of medical students.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo maximize response rates, we implemented an incentive-based approach. Students were informed they would be entered into a drawing for a gift card upon survey completion. To be eligible for the drawing, participants were instructed to include their university email address on the first page of the survey. The email explicitly assured students that all results would be de-identified prior to evaluation. It was clearly stated that providing an email address was strictly for the purpose of selecting gift card winners.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis sampling approach was designed to gather comprehensive feedback about the peer mentorship program while respecting students' time constraints and privacy concerns.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSample size\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe study garnered responses from a total of 149 osteopathic medical students across three graduating classes. This robust sample size provided sufficient data to conduct meaningful analyses of the peer mentorship program across different stages of medical education.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor the graduating class of 2024 (OMS IV), 36 students completed the survey. Among these respondents, 16 students (44.4%) identified as male, 19 students (52.8%) identified as female, and one student (2.8%) identified as non-binary. For the graduating class of 2025 (OMS III), 49 students completed the survey. The gender distribution of respondents included 19 students (38.8%) who identified as male, 29 students (59.2%) who identified as female, and one student (2.0%) who preferred not to say. For the class of 2026 (OMS II), 64 students completed the survey. Of these respondents, 17 students (26.6%) identified as male and 47 students (73.4%) identified as female.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe most recent cohort (class of 2026) had the highest participation (64 students), followed by the class of 2025 (49 students), with the class of 2024 having the lowest participation (36 students). This pattern may reflect differences in availability, engagement, or perceived relevance of the mentorship program among students at different stages of their medical education. The proportion of female respondents increased across graduating classes, from 52.8% in the class of 2024 to 73.4% in the class of 2026.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eSurvey\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe survey instrument was carefully designed to evaluate multiple dimensions of mentorship experiences through four distinct sections, each addressing a specific phase or aspect of the mentoring relationship.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe first section (Q1-Q9; Appendix A) was focused on assessing the student before matriculation into medical school and their level of preparedness. This section explored the quality and availability of mentorship during the medical school preparation phase, students' perceptions of their readiness for the rigors of medical education, and whether they had developed proper study strategies to allow them to be successful in medical school. Additional topics included self-assessment of academic and professional preparation, expectations about medical education before enrollment, and sources of guidance during the application and admission process. This section established a baseline understanding of students' mentorship experiences and preparedness prior to entering the medical education environment.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe second section (Q10-Q19; Appendix B) was aimed at assessing mentorship after matriculation into medical school. This portion of the survey wanted to assess how different individuals and/or groups of people influenced their medical education journey. Questions addressed the identification of key influencers in their medical education, the relative impact of different mentorship sources (such as faculty advisors, clinical preceptors, and senior students), and the frequency and quality of mentoring interactions. This section also explored areas where mentorship was most valuable after matriculation, unmet mentorship needs during medical school, and how mentorship relationships evolved throughout different phases of medical education.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe third section (Q20-Q28; Appendix C) was aimed at assessing the influence of their assigned second-year mentor through the formal peer-mentorship program. This section examined the nature and frequency of interactions with the assigned mentor, the perceived value of the formal mentoring relationship, and specific areas where the second-year mentor provided useful guidance. Additional questions addressed challenges or limitations in the mentor-mentee relationship, suggestions for improving the formal peer-mentorship program, overall satisfaction with the assigned mentorship experience, and comparisons between formal and informal mentoring relationships. This section directly assessed the core focus of the study: the effectiveness of the structured peer-mentorship program that pairs first-year students with second-year mentors.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe fourth section (Q29-Q34; Appendix D) was asked exclusively to the graduating classes of 2024 and 2025 and was aimed at evaluating the relationship from the mentor's perspective. This section explored how mentors viewed their interaction and relationship with their mentee, their perception of their effectiveness as a mentor, challenges they encountered in the mentoring role, and strategies they employed to support their mentees. Questions also addressed mentors' satisfaction with the program structure, their preparation for the mentoring role, and suggestions for improving the mentorship experience from the mentor's perspective. This section provided valuable complementary data to understand the bidirectional nature of the mentoring relationship and identify potential areas for enhancing mentor training and support.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe data analysis framework incorporated a mixed-methods approach to evaluate the peer mentorship program comprehensively. The survey instrument utilized Likert scales of varying ranges to assess different dimensions of the mentoring experience. Specifically, the survey contained items that examined study plan effectiveness, evaluated mentor performance, and assessed mentee engagement, all using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from \"strongly disagree\" to \"strongly agree.\" Additionally, items measured the influence of various mentor types using a 4-point Likert scale with options including \"not applicable,\" \"not influential,\" \"somewhat influential,\" and \"very influential.\u0026rdquo; To facilitate valid comparisons between Likert scales with different ranges, all scale data were normalized using GraphPad Prism. This normalization process converted responses from disparate scales to equivalent numerical ranges, ensuring methodological consistency and enabling direct comparative analyses between differently structured items. The normalized values preserved the relative positioning of responses while eliminating potential analytical distortions that could arise from comparing scales with unequal intervals or endpoints. Statistical analyses were conducted using GraphPad Prism (Version 10.4.2 (534)). For non-parametric paired data comparing medians between two questions, we employed the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test. When evaluating rank differences across multiple questions, we utilized the Friedman test followed by Dunn's multiple comparison test for post-hoc analysis. To assess consistency across the three graduating classes for individual questions, we applied the Kruskal-Wallis test. All Likert scale data were analyzed using these non-parametric approaches to appropriately address the ordinal nature of the responses. The quantitative assessment was complemented by qualitative data collection through open-ended questions where students provided narrative responses about their most influential mentor, assigned second-year mentor, and mentee experiences. This dual analytical approach allowed for both statistical measurement of program effectiveness and thematic understanding of the mentorship dynamics and experiences. All aspects of data collection, analysis, and reporting in this study adhere to the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) guidelines to ensure methodological rigor and transparency in our qualitative findings [9].\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eTo determine the key factors that contribute to successful peer mentoring relationships in our osteopathic medical school environment, we conducted a comprehensive assessment of student experiences and perceptions. Demographic and educational profiles were collected through structured survey questions addressing graduation year, gender identity, traditional/non-traditional student status, and pre-medical educational attainment (Appendix A: Q1-Q4). The survey further examined students' academic approaches, including initial study strategies, adaptation of study methods throughout didactic years, and the principal influences on their academic planning, whether self-directed or externally guided (Appendix A: Q5-Q9).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAdditionally, we evaluated the relative influence of diverse stakeholders on students' medical education post-matriculation, including family and friends in medicine, peer networks both within and outside the institution, assigned mentors, faculty advisors, and physicians encountered during pre-medical shadowing experiences (Appendix B).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOne initial hypothesis posited that students entering medical school with established study strategies might perceive less value from the peer-mentor program. However, Spearman's correlation analysis examining the relationship between students' self-reported preparedness (entering with a solid study plan) and the perceived influence of their assigned second-year mentor revealed no statistically significant correlation (rs = -0.04417, n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;149, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.2964). This finding was further supported by a Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test, which showed no significant difference between these metrics (W = -217, n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;149, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.8337; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003ea). These results suggest that a student's initial academic confidence does not predict their perception of or benefit from the peer mentorship program.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe also investigated whether students with established career mentors relied less on their second-year peer mentors. Contrary to expectations, Spearman's correlation analysis demonstrated no significant relationship between having an ongoing career mentor and the reported influence of the assigned second-year mentor (rs\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.09036, n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;149, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.1365). The Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test comparing these metrics similarly showed no significant difference (W\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;590, n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;149, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.5395; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003eb). These findings indicate that the presence of a career mentor does not diminish the impact of peer mentorship, suggesting these mentoring relationships may serve complementary rather than redundant functions in students' professional development.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe examined the relationship between students' evolution of study approaches during didactic years and the quality of their peer mentorship experience. Initial analysis focused on whether changes in study strategies correlated with positive mentorship relationships. Spearman's correlation analysis revealed no significant relationship between modifications to study plans and the perceived influence of assigned second-year mentors (rs\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.1292, n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;149, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.0582). However, the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test demonstrated a highly significant difference between these variables (W = -7412, n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;149, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.0001), indicating that while students substantially altered their study approaches during didactic years, these adaptations were not significantly attributed to mentor influence (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003ec). Further investigation explored whether students who primarily relied on self-directed research for study strategies reported diminished value from peer mentorship. Spearman's correlation analysis showed no significant relationship between self-reliance in study approaches and perceived mentor influence (rs\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.001645, n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;149, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.4921). The Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test revealed a significant difference between these metrics (W = -4085, n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;149, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.0001), suggesting that students predominantly depended on their own research for academic strategies, yet this independence did not negatively impact their perception of mentor contributions to their medical education (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003ed).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFinally, we assessed whether receptivity to guidance from experienced advisors correlated with positive mentorship experiences. Spearman's correlation analysis identified a modest yet significant positive relationship between openness to experienced guidance and perceived influence of second-year mentors (rs\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.1559, n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;149, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.0288). The Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test confirmed a significant difference between these variables (W = -2119, n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;149, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.0265; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003ee). These findings indicate that students who valued advice from experienced individuals generally reported more positive mentorship experiences, though their overall receptivity to guidance from experienced individuals exceeded the specific influence they attributed to their second-year mentors. This pattern suggests that while students found their second-year mentors provided valuable study guidance, they integrated advice from multiple experienced sources throughout their educational journey.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOur analysis examined the perceived benefits and limitations of the peer-mentorship program from both mentor and mentee perspectives. We implemented parallel assessment questions for both roles (Appendix C: Q20-25), with two additional questions directed specifically to the graduating classes of 2024 and 2025 regarding relationship maintenance during clerkship years (Appendix C: Q26 and 27). Statistical analysis revealed several significant relationships between mentorship qualities and perceived program effectiveness. A Spearman's correlation analysis examining the relationship between mentor compatibility and perceived impact on medical school success demonstrated a strong, significant positive correlation (rs\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.773, n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;145, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.0001). However, the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test comparing these same metrics showed a statistically significant difference (W = -1400, n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;145, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.0001; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003ea, left), suggesting nuanced distinctions between compatibility and impact. Further correlation analyses explored specific factors potentially influencing mentorship effectiveness. Shared interests between mentors and mentees showed a moderate, significant positive correlation with perceived impact on academic success (rs\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.582, n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;145, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.0001). Similarly, having comparable life situations demonstrated a moderate, significant positive correlation with perceived impact (rs\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.565, n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;145, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.0001). Notably, Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank tests revealed no statistically significant differences between common interests and impact (W = -590, n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;145, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.176) or between similar life situations and impact (W = -646, n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;145, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.180; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003ea, left). These findings suggest that shared interests and similar life circumstances between mentors and mentees may be more reliable predictors of effective academic support than general perceptions of compatibility. This distinction provides valuable insight for optimizing mentor-mentee matching protocols within medical education settings.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor the graduating classes of 2024 and 2025, Spearman\u0026rsquo;s correlation revealed a significant positive relationship between mentor compatibility and clinical rotation preparation (rs\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.5868, n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;82, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.0001). When comparing these variables using a Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test, we observed a statistically significant difference (W = -1452, n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;82, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.0001; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eb), suggesting that second-year mentors provide greater value during pre-clerkship didactic years compared to clinical clerkships. Further analysis examined the relationship between mentor relationship maintenance and clinical rotation preparation, yielding a strong positive correlation (rs\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.7297, n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;82, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.0001). The Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-rank test comparing these factors approached but did not reach statistical significance (W\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;259, n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;82, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.0529; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003eb). This finding suggests that students who maintain stable relationships with their second-year mentors tend to preserve these connections beyond didactic training and into clinical clerkships.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnalysis of perceived benefits across the peer-mentorship program revealed distinct priorities for both mentors and mentees. Across all classes, participants consistently ranked highest the exchange of success strategies and tangible study resources used during didactic years (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). From the mentees' perspective (Appendix C), the Friedman test demonstrated significant variation in how benefits were ranked (Friedman statistic\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;57.66, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.0001). Dunn's multiple comparison test revealed that receiving wisdom and success strategies for medical school was valued significantly higher than other program aspects (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.0041, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.0026, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.0001; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003ea, right). Additionally, access to tangible study tools was ranked significantly higher than the perceived direct impact of the mentor on academic success (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.0093; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003ea, right). Similarly, mentors (Appendix D) showed significant differences in their assessment of program benefits (Friedman statistic\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;80.42, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.0001; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003ec). Dunn's multiple comparison test indicated that sharing wisdom and success strategies with mentees was their highest-ranked contribution (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.0024, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.0001, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.0001; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003ec), followed by providing tangible study resources, which was also ranked significantly higher than other mentorship aspects (p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.0344, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.0001, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.0003; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003ec). These findings highlight that the most valuable components of the peer-mentorship program are the practical guidance for navigating medical school and the collaborative sharing of study materials between peers.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo evaluate the consistency of mentorship quality across student cohorts, we conducted a comprehensive analysis of key program dimensions (Appendix C). The Kruskal-Wallis test demonstrated consistency across graduating classes, with no significant differences observed for any of the four primary assessment metrics: mentor compatibility (H(2)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.056, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.3578; ; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003ea), mentor impact on academic success (H(2)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.656, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.4369; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eb), transmission of wisdom and strategic guidance (H(2)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.242, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.3259; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003ec), and sharing of practical study resources (H(2)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.926, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.2315; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003ed). These findings provide compelling evidence that the mentorship program delivers consistently high-quality experiences regardless of cohort year. The absence of statistically significant differences between group medians confirms that mentorship quality has maintained stability across the three graduating classes, suggesting the program has established reliable mentoring practices that transcend annual variations in student populations.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study provides valuable insights into the dynamics and effectiveness of peer mentorship within osteopathic medical education. Our comprehensive assessment revealed several key factors that contribute to successful mentoring relationships, with important implications for program design and implementation in medical education settings.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOur finding that a student's initial academic confidence does not predict their perception of or benefit from the peer mentorship program challenges conventional assumptions about which students might benefit most from such initiatives. This suggests that peer mentorship offers value beyond mere academic guidance, potentially providing psychosocial support, institutional navigation assistance, and professional identity formation that benefit students across all levels of academic preparation [1\u0026ndash;3, 6]. Medical education institutions should therefore avoid restricting mentorship opportunities based on perceived academic readiness, as students at all preparation levels may derive significant benefits from peer guidance.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSimilarly, the observation that career mentorship and peer mentorship appear to serve complementary rather than redundant functions underscores the multidimensional nature of effective mentoring in medical education. While career mentors may provide long-term professional guidance and clinical expertise, peer mentors offer proximal support from those who have recently navigated similar challenges [1]. This complementarity highlights the importance of fostering diverse mentoring networks that address different aspects of the complex medical education journey [6].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe apparent paradox in our findings regarding study approaches merits particular attention. Students significantly modified their study strategies during didactic years yet did not attribute these changes to mentor influence, despite valuing mentor-provided study guidance and resources. This suggests a nuanced relationship wherein students maintain autonomy over their learning approaches while still incorporating peer insights. This pattern aligns with adult learning principles, wherein learners selectively integrate guidance while maintaining agency over their educational development [2, 6]. The fact that students' independence in developing study strategies did not negatively impact their perception of mentor contributions further supports the notion that effective peer mentorship enhances rather than diminishes student autonomy.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOur results regarding mentor-mentee matching provide practical guidance for program development. The finding that shared interests and similar life circumstances between mentors and mentees may be more reliable predictors of effective academic support than general perceptions of compatibility offers concrete criteria for optimizing matching protocols. Programs should consider these specific dimensions of compatibility rather than relying on broader, less defined measures of mentor-mentee \u0026ldquo;fit\u0026rdquo; [6].\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe stability of mentor relationships from didactic training into clinical clerkships for many students suggests that peer mentorship can provide continuity across the significant transition from classroom to clinical learning environments [6]. Students are more inclined to seek guidance from experienced mentors, particularly when those mentors are peers with relatable knowledge and expertise gained through recent, similar experiences [1, 6]. This finding highlights the potential for peer mentors to help bridge this often challenging transition, providing context-specific guidance that faculty mentors or administrators may be less positioned to offer.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerhaps most significantly, our assessment of program benefits from both mentor and mentee perspectives revealed consistent prioritization of practical guidance and tangible resource sharing. This finding highlights that effective peer mentorship is grounded in concrete, actionable support rather than abstract mentoring ideals. Mentor training programs should therefore emphasize equipping student mentors with specific strategies and materials to share, focusing on the pragmatic aspects of navigating medical education.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe consistency in mentorship quality across student cohorts demonstrates the program's structural integrity and sustainability. This consistency speaks to the effectiveness of the program's design and implementation, suggesting that it has established reliable practices that transcend annual variations in student populations. Such stability is particularly valuable in medical education environments, where frequent curricular changes and student turnover can challenge program continuity.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSeveral limitations of our study should be acknowledged. As a single-institution study, generalizability may be limited, though the consistency of findings across multiple graduating classes suggests some stability in the observed patterns. Additionally, our cross-sectional design captures perceptions at a single point rather than tracking the evolution of mentoring relationships longitudinally.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFuture research should explore several areas. Qualitative investigation of successful mentoring relationships could provide deeper insights into the mechanisms underlying effective peer support. Additionally, exploration of how peer mentorship specifically supports traditionally underrepresented students in medicine could inform equity-focused program enhancements. Finally, longitudinal studies tracking the impact of peer mentorship on professional identity formation and career development would expand our understanding of its long-term benefits.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn conclusion, our findings suggest that effective peer mentorship in osteopathic medical education functions as a complementary support within students' broader educational networks, providing tangible guidance and resources while respecting student autonomy. Programs should focus on cultivating shared interests and life circumstances in mentor-mentee matching, emphasizing practical resource sharing in mentor training, and supporting relationship continuity across the transition from didactic to clinical education. The consistency of our program across cohorts suggests that well-designed peer mentorship initiatives can establish sustainable mechanisms for supporting medical student development, regardless of initial academic preparation or the presence of other mentoring relationships.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eConsent statement:\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll participants in this study provided informed consent prior to participation. Students were informed that participation in the survey was voluntary and that their responses would be used for research purposes to evaluate the peer mentorship program. Participants were assured that their individual responses would remain confidential and that data would be reported only in aggregate form to protect participant anonymity. The study protocol and consent procedures were reviewed and approved by the Marian University Institutional Review Board (IRB) prior to data collection. No personally identifiable information was collected or retained in the dataset, and all responses were anonymized prior to analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConflict of Interest\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgements \u0026nbsp;\u003c/h2\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis research project was funded by the Marian University Wood College of Osteopathic Medicine (MU-WCOM) Summer Research Fellowship. We would like to thank the MU-WCOM students for participating in the survey.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWhitfield S, Hazard C, Haynes B, Coffey T, Lynch L, Davis S. On-site peer mentorship\u0026rsquo;s effect on personal and professional development, stress reduction, and ease of transition into the medical education system. Journal of Osteopathic Medicine. 2024 Jul 22;124(8):345-51; https://doi.org/10.1515/jom-2023-0086\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003ePerepelova N, Spiers J. The importance of peer mentoring at medical school. Clinical Teacher. 2020 Aug 1;17(4); https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.13113\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAkinla O, Hagan P, Atiomo W. A systematic review of the literature describing the outcomes of near-peer mentoring programs for first year medical students. BMC medical education. 2018 Dec;18:1-0; https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-018-1195-1\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAndre C, Deerin J, Leykum L. Students helping students: vertical peer mentoring to enhance the medical school experience. BMC research notes. 2017 Dec;10:1-7; https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-017-2498-8\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAlexander SM, Dallaghan GL, Birch M, Smith KL, Howard N, Shenvi CL. What makes a near-peer learning and tutoring program effective in undergraduate medical education: a qualitative analysis. Medical science educator. 2022 Dec;32(6):1495-502; https://doi.org/10.1007/s40670-022-01680-0\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eAltonji SJ, Ba\u0026ntilde;os JH, Harada CN. Perceived benefits of a peer mentoring program for first-year medical students. Teaching and learning in medicine. 2019 Aug 8;31(4):445-52; https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2019.1574579\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTaylor JS, Faghri S, Aggarwal N, Zeller K, Dollase R, Reis SP. Developing a peer-mentor program for medical students. Teaching and learning in medicine. 2013 Jan 1;25(1):97-102; https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2012.741544\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eYang MM, Golden BP, Cameron KA, Gard L, Bierman JA, Evans DB, Henschen BL. Learning through teaching: peer teaching and mentoring experiences among third-year medical students. Teaching and Learning in Medicine. 2022 Aug 8;34(4):360-7; https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2021.1899930\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eO\u0026rsquo;Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, Reed DA, Cook DA. Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Academic medicine. 2014 Sep 1;89(9):1245-51; https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000000388\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Peer mentorship, medical education, osteopathic medicine, mentor-mentee matching, educational transition","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7236969/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7236969/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eMedical students are expected to quickly acclimate to the rigorous pre-clinical coursework of the first and second years, before proceeding to their clinical rotations in the third and fourth years. This can be daunting, overwhelming, and difficult without insight into how to best navigate this experience. Institutions help students adjust to medical school by implementing peer-mentorship programs. These programs aim to ease the transition into medical school; however, ensuring the paired mentor and mentee are an effective match can be a difficult task. With that in mind, we were interested in evaluating the Marian University Wood College of Osteopathic Medicine (MU-WCOM) peer-mentorship program by assessing the efficacy of this program throughout the pre-clinical coursework of the first and second years and during the clinical rotations in the third and fourth years. The data collected involved gathering perspective from multiple graduating classes within MU-WCOM allowing us to draw conclusions about the program using the perspectives of both mentors and mentees. We measured various metrics of student experiences in the mentorship program using Likert scales and supporting qualitative evidence to explain reported experiences. Participants categorized their most influential mentors over the course of their time in medical school, and evaluated their experience as a mentee (and as a mentor, if applicable). Using this data, we hope to synthesize recommendations on how to improve the peer-mentorship program. Furthermore, we would like to determine if there is a more advantageous way to match the mentors with the mentees.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Effect of Peer Mentorship on Osteopathic Medical Student Outcomes","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-08-04 08:01:50","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7236969/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"cfd9d484-f6dd-4760-84cc-2c4d709f7449","owner":[],"postedDate":"August 4th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-08-04T08:01:50+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-08-04 08:01:50","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7236969","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7236969","identity":"rs-7236969","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}