TO THE EDITOR: We read with great interest the article published by White et al.1 (White MD, Fox BM, Agarwal N. The COVID-19 pandemic and the inequities of the neurosurgery match. Letter. J Neurosurg. 2021;134[4]:1351—1353), in which the authors express their concern regarding the new interview policies for students aspiring to enter neurosurgery programs. The new policies have been adopted due to the current COVID-19 pandemic, and virtual encounters have been chosen that in one way or another sow an inequity among applicants to medical residencies. We thank the authors for their interest in providing optimal and fair conditions to all those aspiring to the specialty of neurosurgery.
The sudden onset of COVID-19 directly and indirectly affected the study and work conditions in the health arena, limiting participation in the hospital field and making it necessary to opt for virtual mechanisms for the exercise of the academic practice—medical clinic. However, and despite the strategies used, the total restriction on attending a care center, whether for university practice or professional practice, has led to disinterest and a decline in academic productivity, especially in undergraduate students.2 An alternative to encourage all those students who have not found continuity in their praxis is the interest groups and research academy, in which mentors who are experts in certain topics can encourage the search, appropriation, and dissemination of academic and scientific knowledge. Rallis et al.3 showed that oncology tutoring had a positive impact on educated students by significantly increasing knowledge about multidisciplinary work and oncology-related specialties, including academia and research, even though interest in the tutor's specialty did not develop.2 That is why groups should be open to the student's interest, in this case, in neurosurgery.
We must bear in mind that the success of this type of project lies in the communication between the mentor and his or her pupils,3,4 because arising from there, the quality of the activities that can be carried out is reinforced. Besides, it should be emphasized that this is a dynamic and bidirectional process, where both parties must propose and contribute so that everything is carried out harmoniously, giving space for feedback and constructive criticism.3 Of course, the mentor is the one who must take the lead in the project, assuming and giving responsibilities to the participants that allow them to succeed at the proposed goal, without forgetting that they have their mentor's help. This process must be holistic and not only focus on the academic part, because among the most fruitful actions on the part of the mentor are the sharing of frustrations and old experiences, the creation of support networks, and providing support in times of crisis.3
Models such as ASPECT (The Accelerate Scholarship through Personal Engagement with a Collaborative Team) promote longitudinal and collaborative research focused on a common research topic, provide tutorials to overcome personal and academic adversities, and provide a forum for students at all academic levels.4 This model supports what we have said above regarding the need to cultivate a relationship of friendship between mentor and pupil, beyond just an academic exercise, to enhance the results. The simultaneous participation in multiple projects, the identification and strengthening of the virtues of each member of the team, and the periodic telephone calls in which personal and professional issues are shared are some of the strategies that are used and that have shown good results.5 However, this is not the only existing model, just an example of the advantages that a mentoring process has applied in an organized way.
In this way, we invite students to participate in interest groups of academia and research in neurology and neurosurgery, as well as inviting the participation of residents, teachers, and other professionals who may encourage the continuity of the academic exercise, especially in this time of the pandemic, to achieve different objectives but with equally formative value. Although the shared experiences are not unique to the neurosurgery program, they can be applied to it with the certainty that very similar or even better results will be obtained in the context of academic neurosurgery.
Disclosures
The authors report no conflict of interest.
References
- 1↑
White MD, Fox BM, Agarwal N., . The COVID-19 pandemic and the inequities of the neurosurgery match. Letter. J Neurosurg. 2021;134(4):1351-1353.
- 2↑
Chandratre S., . Medical students and COVID-19: challenges and supportive strategies. J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2020;7:2382120520935059.
- 3↑
Rallis KS, Wozniak A, Hui S, . Mentoring medical students towards oncology: results from a pilot multi-institutional mentorship programme. J Cancer Educ. Published online November 26, 2020. doi:10.1007/s13187-020-01919-7
- 4↑
Angel MO, Colombo Bonadio R, Harada G, . Mentoring as an opportunity to improve research and cancer care in Latin America (AAZPIRE project). ESMO Open. 2020;5(6):e000988.
- 5↑
Abramson EL, Naifeh MM, Stevenson MD, Li ST. Scholarly collaboration, mentorship, and friendship: a new model for success in academic medicine. Acad Pediatr. 2019;19(8):860–864.
