Peer mentorship in health science doctoral programs: A systematic review.

Background

Doctoral training in health-related disciplines entails demanding academic, research, and clinical requirements that can contribute to isolation, burnout, and delayed degree completion. Peer mentorship has emerged as a promising approach to enhance student success, psychosocial well-being, and professional development. However, peer mentorship program designs and implementation vary widely, and no systematic review has comprehensively synthesized the available literature.

Aim

To identify the theoretical frameworks, core components, implementation strategies, and outcomes of peer mentorship among PhD and DNP students in health-related fields.

Design

Systematic review. DATA SOURCES Five databases, PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Education Resources Information Center (ERIC), were searched from January 2000 to June 2025. REVIEW

Methods

This review was conducted in accordance with the JBI systematic review methodology and reported following PRISMA guidelines. Studies reporting components, implementation strategies, and outcomes of peer mentorship among PhD and DNP students in health-related fields were included. All included studies were appraised using the Quality Improvement Minimum Quality Criteria Set (QI-MQCS) for quality improvement projects, and Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) for quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method studies.

Results

Of 1267, 10 studies were included. Programs ranged from informal peer groups to hybrid faculty-student models, and included regular group meetings, workshops, and one-on-one mentoring. Across studies, peer mentorship was reported to support academic performance, confidence, and sense of belonging, while reducing stress and isolation. Institutional support, intentional matching, and consistent facilitation were key facilitators of program success.

Conclusion

This review identified peer mentorship models, components, and implementation strategies present in peer-reviewed literature over the last 25 years. The findings underscore substantial variability in program design. Future research should employ more rigorous study designs, integrate both theoretical frameworks and pragmatic considerations into program development and evaluation, and examine psychosocial and academic outcomes longitudinally to strengthen the evidence base.