Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from BMC Medical Education and BioMed Central.

Open Access Research article

Doctoral training in Uganda: evaluation of mentoring best practices at Makerere university college of health sciences

Damalie Nakanjako1*, Achilles Katamba1, Dan K Kaye2, Elialilia Okello3, Moses R Kamya1, Nelson Sewankambo1 and Harriet Mayanja-Kizza1

Author Affiliations

1 Department of Internal Medicine, Makerere University College of Health Sciences, Kampala, Uganda

2 Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Makerere University College of Health Sciences, Kampala, Uganda

3 Department of Psychiatry, Makerere University College of Health Sciences, Kampala, Uganda

For all author emails, please log on.

BMC Medical Education 2014, 14:9  doi:10.1186/1472-6920-14-9

Published: 13 January 2014

Abstract

Background

Good mentoring is a key variable for determining success in completing a doctoral program. We identified prevailing mentoring practices among doctoral students and their mentors, identified common challenges facing doctoral training, and proposed some solutions to enhance the quality of the doctoral training experience for both candidates and mentors at Makerere University College of Health Sciences (MakCHS).

Methods

This cross-sectional qualitative evaluation was part of the monitoring and evaluation program for doctoral training. All doctoral students and their mentors were invited for a half-day workshop through the MakCHS mailing list. Prevailing doctoral supervision and mentoring guidelines were summarised in a one-hour presentation. Participants were split into two homogenous students’ (mentees’) and mentors’ groups to discuss specific issues using a focus group discussion (FGD) guide, that highlighted four main themes in regard to the doctoral training experience; what was going well, what was not going well, proposed solutions to current challenges and perceived high priority areas for improvement. The two groups came together again and the note-takers from each group presented their data and discussions were recorded by a note-taker.

Results

Twelve out of 36 invited mentors (33%) and 22 out of 40 invited mentees (55%) attended the workshop. Mentors and mentees noted increasing numbers of doctoral students and mentors, which provided opportunities for peer mentorship. Delays in procurement and research regulatory processes subsequently delayed students’ projects. Similarly, mentees mentioned challenges of limited; 1) infrastructure and mentors to support basic science research projects, 2) physical office space for doctoral students and their mentors, 3) skills in budgeting and finance management and 4) communication skills including conflict resolution. As solutions, the team proposed skills’ training, induction courses for doctoral students-mentor teams, and a Frequently Asked Questions’ document, to better inform mentors’, mentees’ expectations and experiences.

Conclusion

Systemic and infrastructural limitations affect the quality of the doctoral training experience at MaKCHS. Clinical and biomedical research infrastructure, in addition to training in research regulatory processes, procurement and finance management, communication skills and information technology, were highlighted as high priority areas for strategic interventions to improve mentoring within doctoral training of clinician scientists.

Keywords:
Mentorship; Doctoral training; Supervision; Capacity building; Health care; Low and middle income countries; Uganda