A Five-Year Update of a Scoping Review of Mentorship Initiatives in Radiation Oncology

• Published in: International journal of radiation oncology, biology, physics Vol. 123; no. 1; pp. e3 - e4
• Main Authors: Barbosa, Melissa L., Hercule, Wilmene S., Goodman, Chelain R., Gillespie, Erin F., Hirsch, Ariel E., Holliday, Emma B., Kimple, Randle J., Rooney, Michael K., Thomas, Charles R., Golden, Daniel W.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier Inc 01.09.2025
• ISSN: 0360-3016
• DOI: 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2025.05.025

Mentorship is essential in academic medicine with benefits to both the mentee and mentor(s). A 2019 scoping review assessed mentorship initiatives in radiation oncology identifying key trends and gaps. This study reports a five-year update. The primary goal is to reassess the current state of mentorship initiatives in radiation oncology and to highlight changes, emerging patterns, and areas for further scholarship. A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed following PRISMA-ScR guidelines to identify English-language articles on mentorship in radiation oncology from 1/1/1990 through 2/1/2025. The search incorporated predefined medical subject headings (MeSH) and keyword terms and in-press articles from major radiation oncology and medical education journals. Two independent reviewers evaluated study eligibility based on predefined criteria, classifying selected articles according to mentorship structure, target population and key themes. A third reviewer served as a tiebreaker. Thirty-eight publications from 2008 to 2025 met inclusion criteria, with 24 new studies since the original review. Dyad mentorship was the most common model (33.3%), followed by functional dyads (20.8%), team-based mentorship (16.7%), distance mentorship (12.5%), multiple dyads (8.3%), peer mentorship (4.2%), and unspecified models (4.2%). This marks a shift from the original review where dyad mentorship was more dominant (64.3%), followed by team-based (14.3%) and peer mentorship (7.1%). Compared to the original review, dyad mentorship declined significantly, while team-based models increased. Functional dyads, where one mentor works with the mentee on a specific topic, emerged as a distinct category. Medical students became the largest mentee group (41.7% vs. 35.7%), while resident-focused initiatives decreased (20.8% vs. 35.7%). Cross-sectional (25.0% vs. 42.9%), cohort (25.0% vs. 28.6%), and before/after studies (12.5% vs. 21.4%) declined, while mixed-method (8.3% vs. 0.0%) and descriptive studies (8.3% vs. 0.0%) increased. Most studies reported high participant satisfaction. This review highlights shifts in mentorship trends, with dyad mentorship declining and functional dyads and team-based approaches increasing. Greater focus on medical student mentorship suggests greater early-career engagement. Cross-sectional and cohort studies decreased, while mixed-method and descriptive research increased. Study variability and reliance on self-reported measures limit impact assessment. Future work should prioritize longitudinal evaluations and objective measures. Expanding mentorship for underrepresented groups and fostering interdisciplinary collaboration will enhance career development in radiation oncology. Establishing mentorship as an ACGME core competency may help standardize trainee development.