The Reported Evidence of Nursing and Midwifery Mentorship Programmes Internationally: A Scoping Meta‐Review Providing a Comprehensive Overview of Mentorship Programmes

ABSTRACT

Aim

To synthesise and critically analyse existing reviews of evidence on mentorship in nursing and midwifery, providing a comprehensive overview of current knowledge.

Design

A scoping meta‐review.

Methods

The review was conducted using the scoping meta‐review framework outlined by Sarrami‐Foroushani et al. (2015), alongside the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta‐Analyses guidelines to ensure rigour and transparency. The following steps were included: (i) defining the problem, (ii) literature search and criteria, (iii) study selection and data extraction, (iv) data synthesis, (v) presentation of results and (vi) interpretation and recommendations.

Data Sources

A comprehensive search strategy was designed, utilising Boolean operators, truncation and predefined keywords across seven databases including MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, Epistemonikos, ERIC and Google Scholar.

Results

Following double‐blind screening of 269 papers, 14 literature reviews were included. The findings provided a detailed overview of mentorship programme types (formal and informal), outcome measures used to evaluate mentorship effectiveness and recommendations for future programmes. Identified themes included skill development, job satisfaction, career progression and retention outcomes, together with challenges including time constraints and balancing clinical responsibilities with mentorship roles. Formal mentorship programmes that are adequately supported and integrated into the organisational culture can improve healthcare systems, workforce stability and patient outcomes. Informal mentorship continues to offer valuable, flexible support, particularly when used alongside formal structures. Implementation challenges exist, such as time constraints, limited organisational support, and mismatched mentor‐mentee pairings.

Conclusion

This review highlights the critical role of mentorship in nursing and midwifery, offering insights into effective practices, challenges and potential areas for further research. The findings suggest that formal, structured mentorship programmes produce consistent benefits, including enhanced clinical skills, confidence and satisfaction among mentees, as well as leadership development and professional fulfilment for mentors, while positively impacting organisational efficiency and patient outcomes. Successful mentorship programmes require organisational commitment, with protected time, resources, and ongoing mentor training.

Implications for the Profession and/or Patient Care

Mentorship programmes in nursing and midwifery enhance professional development, job satisfaction, and retention, enabling a stable healthcare workforce. Mentorship for mentors and mentees is linked to increased confidence, competency and readiness for advanced roles among nurses and midwives. Fostering mentorship in healthcare can lead to improved quality and continuity of care as mentees grow into more competent and confident practitioners.

Impact

Formal mentorship programmes that are adequately supported and integrated into the organisational culture can improve healthcare systems, workforce stability and patient outcomes. Policymakers responsible for healthcare workforce development can use these findings to advocate for mentorship as a strategic investment, potentially influencing policies related to nurse retention, professional development and funding allocations for mentorship initiatives. Structured mentorship improves job satisfaction, reduces turnover and fosters professional growth, thus reducing costs associated with recruitment and training.

Reporting Method

The findings are reported in line with the PRISMA guidelines (Page et al., 2021) and through a narrative synthesis, summarising and analysing the results of various reviews to present a cohesive understanding of mentorship practices in nursing and midwifery. This method allowed for the integration of qualitative and quantitative findings and the identification of common themes and patterns across studies.

Patient or Public Contribution

Patients or members of the public did not directly contribute to this review. However, by focusing on mentorship practices that support nurses and midwives, the study indirectly addresses public interests, as improved mentoring contributes to the quality of patient care. Future studies could benefit from patient or public feedback on desired qualities in care providers, further informing the development of mentorship programmes aligned with patient‐centred care outcomes.

Summary.

• What problem did the study address?

  • ○
    This review addressed the challenge of supporting newly graduated and junior nurses and midwives as they adapt to complex, high‐pressure healthcare settings.
  • ○
    The transition period often leads to high turnover rates, stress, and burnout.
  • ○
    Mentorship has been advocated as a strategy to address these issues; however, inconsistencies in mentorship practices and outcomes have led to uncertainty about its' effectiveness.
  • ○
    This review synthesises existing evidence to clarify which mentorship practices are most beneficial and identifies where gaps in research and practice remain.
• What were the main findings?

  • ○
    Formal, structured mentorship programmes with clear objectives, trained mentors and organisational support generally yield better outcomes, including higher job satisfaction, confidence and retention.
  • ○
    Challenges to effective mentorship include time constraints, lack of resources and difficulty balancing clinical duties with mentorship roles.
  • ○
    There is a need for more consistent and validated tools to measure mentorship outcomes, as existing tools vary widely across studies.
• Where and on whom will the research have an impact?

  • ○
    This research has implications for healthcare institutions, nursing and midwifery education programmes and policy‐makers responsible for workforce development.
  • ○
    The findings can inform mentorship programme design and policy.
  • ○
    The primary beneficiaries are likely to be newly graduated nurses and midwives and their mentors.
  • ○
    Ultimately, patient care quality could improve due to the enhanced skills, confidence and satisfaction of mentored practitioners.
  • ○
    Reduced staff turnover will reduce organisational costs for recruitment and training.

1. Introduction

Mentoring is defined as a nurturing process with the aim of promoting professional and personal development, in which a more skilled and experienced person, typically outside of the mentee's line management, acts as a role model, teacher, encourager, counsellor and confidant to a novice (Tiew et al. 2017; Noble 2021; Health Service Executive 2022). This process creates a symbiotic relationship aimed at advancing career progression and satisfaction for both the mentor and mentee (Zhang et al. 2016; Nowell et al. 2017; Tiew et al. 2017; Noble 2021). In this relationship, the mentor provides guidance to the mentee, fostering a supportive environment that facilitates growth and transition (Nowell et al. 2017; Tiew et al. 2017; Noble 2021). This mentoring process is especially critical for helping a mentee develop confidence in their profession. Ideally, it is a dynamic, collaborative relationship focused on the mentee's personal and professional development (Zhang et al. 2016; Noble 2021).

Mentorship among health professionals is not a new concept; however, there has been a resurgence over the last 10–15 years (Schoen et al. 2021). Due to the complexity of the physiotherapist role, the preparation and retention of physiotherapists is proposed to begin with the new graduate through a dedicated mentor, in conjunction with mentorship that sets the stage for continuous mutually beneficial relationships (Lao et al. 2021). Similarly, in occupational therapy, mentorship is recommended to support the expanding need within the profession in relation to career development, advance knowledge, skill development and attitudes, as well as enhance professional development and commitment (Schoen et al. 2021). Mentoring is widely recognised as a crucial element in professional development, particularly in nursing and midwifery practice (Nowell et al. 2017).

Graduate nurses often encounter difficulties as they transition to practice within complex, dynamic and high‐pressure healthcare environments (Jewell 2013). For many newly graduated nurses, this transition can be challenging, stressful and intimidating (Edwards et al. 2015). These nurses frequently feel overwhelmed and discouraged due to stress, feelings of inadequacy and long shifts (Zhang et al. 2016; Tiew et al. 2017; Noble 2021). Healthcare systems worldwide face ongoing challenges, requiring nurses and midwives to deliver evidence‐based, safe, high‐quality and accessible care while continuing their professional development (Mlambo et al. 2021). To foster a culture of professional support and continuous learning, mentoring is advocated as a tool to help practitioners develop their knowledge, competence and accountability, ultimately enhancing consumer protection and the safety of care in complex clinical situations (Parsons et al. 2021). In response to these challenges, mentoring programmes are being implemented globally to support and retain nurses and midwives within the profession, particularly new graduates (Nowell et al. 2017; Noble 2021).

While mentorship in nursing has been extensively studied, midwifery mentorship remains under‐researched, with limited studies exploring structured mentorship frameworks, implementation challenges and measurable outcomes (Bradford et al. 2022; Wissemann et al. 2022; Anderson et al. 2023). Bradford et al. (2022) specify that mentorship in midwifery has been implemented for decades; however, they identify that only 10 studies globally have been published since 2012 that describe the development, implementation and/or evaluation of formal mentorship programmes in midwifery practice. Nolan et al. (2022) agree that while mentorship is recognised as essential for transitioning newly qualified midwives into practice, there is a paucity of evidence regarding the effectiveness of different mentorship models within midwifery. Compared to nursing, midwifery mentorship programmes are less established, and the literature predominantly focuses on informal or ad‐hoc mentoring relationships rather than structured, evidence‐based frameworks (Hoover et al. 2020; Biles et al. 2023).

2. Background

Emerging mentorship models in healthcare include hybrid approaches that integrate formal and informal mentorship, peer mentoring, and the increasing use of virtual mentoring due to technological advancements (Lao et al. 2021; Schoen et al. 2021; Kakyo et al. 2022; Mínguez Moreno et al. 2023). Informal mentorship has occurred within nursing and midwifery professions internationally for years (Hyatt et al., 2021, Varney et al., 2016, Bradford et al. 2022). Informal mentorship relationships occur organically like other relationships and are more flexible than formal programmes, usually allowing them to last longer than formal mentoring programmes (Kakyo et al. 2024). Formal mentorship programmes, on the other hand, provide structure, ensuring all participants enjoy an experience with protected time and space (Wurmser and Kowalski 2020; Kakyo et al. 2022; Wissemann et al. 2022; Kakyo et al. 2024). Gusar et al. (2024) suggest that one‐to‐one mentoring approaches have a greater impact on the quality of mentoring support. Gusar et al. (2024) found through a quasi‐experimental study that the quality of mentoring support through group mentoring was significantly lower. However, it is important to note that group mentoring also has advantages, such as the possibility of peer support and the adaptation to teamwork (Kostovich and Thurn 2013).

Effective formal mentorship programmes are characterised by clear objectives, structured frameworks, and regular interactions (Council and Bowers 2021; Baker et al. 2024). Key elements of successful programmes include careful mentor selection, emphasising experience, compatibility with the mentee and training in mentoring skills and relationship‐building (Perumal and Singh 2022; Mínguez Moreno et al. 2023). Access to resources, such as educational materials and administrative support, is also common in effective programmes (Kakyo et al. 2022; Vlerick et al. 2024). These programmes may last a few months to several years, with longer, more intensive structures generally producing better results (Vlerick et al. 2024). The duration of mentorship programmes also varies significantly, with evidence suggesting that programmes lasting 6 months to 1 year yield the most positive outcomes in job retention, confidence, and competency development (Williams et al. 2018; Vlerick et al. 2024). These frameworks offer potential benefits for nursing mentorship by providing flexibility while ensuring structured support for professional development. However, further research is needed to determine whether midwifery mentorship benefits from different duration models compared to nursing. Given that much of the existing literature focuses on nursing mentorship, there is a need to balance discussions by addressing midwifery mentorship in greater detail.

Midwives face unique challenges in mentorship, including limited access to formal mentoring, high workloads, and the need for specialised training in midwifery‐related competencies (Anderson et al. 2023; Wissemann et al. 2022). Unlike nursing mentorship programmes, which often benefit from institutional support and funding, midwifery mentorship programmes frequently rely on informal peer support, making it difficult to measure effectiveness or ensure consistency in outcomes (Biles et al. 2023). Additionally, studies suggest that midwifery mentorship must address the complexities of continuity of care models, requiring longer and more structured mentorship engagements than typically seen in nursing (Simane‐Netshisaulu et al. 2022). Incorporating insights on programme structures, challenges and measurable outcomes for midwifery mentorship will enhance the contribution of this review to mentorship research and practice.

For mentees, mentoring enhances skill development, confidence and readiness for advanced roles (Hoover et al. 2020; Baker et al. 2024). Mentees frequently report improved career progression, including opportunities for leadership roles and promotions (Mínguez Moreno et al. 2023; Vlerick et al. 2024). Mentoring is associated with higher job satisfaction and reduced turnover rates among mentees in both nursing and midwifery professions (Council and Bowers 2021; Baker et al. 2024). Additionally, mentoring has been linked to improved clinical skills for mentees and patient care outcomes (Hoover et al. 2020; Perumal and Singh 2022). However, challenges such as time constraints and balancing mentoring responsibilities with clinical duties are common for mentors (Kakyo et al. 2022). Training and ongoing evaluation of mentors and mentees also present challenges (Hoover et al. 2020; Djiovanis 2023). Furthermore, other resource limitations such as inadequate funding and lack of administrative support can hinder programme effectiveness (Council and Bowers 2021). Overall, well‐structured mentoring programmes that offer comprehensive mentor training and strong organisational support enhance job satisfaction, professional development and retention among mentees and mentors in both the nursing and midwifery professions.

According to Simane‐Netshisaulu et al. (2022), for new graduates, mentorship is crucial for their successful transition into professional practice. Mentors provide emotional support and practical guidance, helping new practitioners navigate the complexities of their roles. This support is especially beneficial in continuity of care models and specialised fields, such as neonatal care (Simane‐Netshisaulu et al. 2022). Across various studies, new graduates reported enhanced confidence and clinical skills as a result of mentorship, which contributed to a greater sense of competence (Hopkinson et al. 2023; Moon et al. 2024). Moon et al. (2024) found that mentorship programmes significantly increased feelings of empowerment among new graduates, fostering a sense of autonomy and job satisfaction. Furthermore, new graduates experienced positive career development, including clearer career goals and expanded networking opportunities, facilitating professional growth and career navigation (Moss and Jackson 2019; Moon et al. 2024). Other studies have indicated that effective mentorship leads to higher job satisfaction and increased retention rates among new graduates (Moss and Jackson 2019; Gularte‐Rinaldo et al. 2023). While promising evidence about the impact of mentorship for new graduate nurses continues to emerge in the literature, there is a lack of coherent evidence‐based direction for the development and implementation of mentorship programmes.

3. Aim

The aim of this scoping meta‐review was to synthesise and critically analyse findings from multiple reviews on mentorship in nursing and midwifery. Conducting a meta‐review of qualitative systematic reviews would have limited our review to qualitative review data. Similarly, conducting an umbrella review would have limited our review to include only systematic reviews of quantitative data. Therefore, applying a scoping meta‐review approach allowed the research team to include multiple review types, including scoping reviews and meta‐reviews, to establish an evidence‐based map of the reported evidence in relation to nursing and midwifery mentorship programmes. This review consolidates findings from multiple reviews to present a comprehensive overview of mentorship in nursing and midwifery. It identifies key themes, highlights consistent findings, uncovers gaps and explores methodological trends and limitations. This review is valuable for informing policy, practice and future research directions as it consolidates high‐level evidence across a broad range of studies and contexts.

4. Review Question

The overarching review question was: What is the current evidence on the impact of mentorship on nurses and midwives who participate in mentorship programmes? To explore this overarching question, four sub‐questions were examined:

(a) What types of formal or informal mentorship have nurses and midwives experienced?

(b) What outcome measures or tools have been used to assess the impact of mentorship programmes?

(c) What are the main findings reported regarding these programmes?

(d) What recommendations have been made for future nursing and midwifery mentorship programmes?

5. Methods

This review utilised a scoping meta‐review framework outlined by Sarrami‐Foroushani et al. (2015), combined with a narrative synthesis approach (Grant and Booth 2009). PRISMA guidelines (Page et al. 2021) were followed when reporting the review to ensure credibility and transparency. The review process included the following steps: (i) defining the problem, (ii) literature search and criteria, (iii) study selection and data extraction, (iv) data synthesis, (v) presentation of results, and (vi) interpretation and recommendations.

5.1. Defining the Problem

Currently, no evidence synthesis of reviews has been conducted to date to guide mentorship programme development, implementation, and evaluation.

5.1.1. Literature Search and Criteria

A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify relevant reviews. The search strategy included predefined keywords, data sources and timelines as set by the search strategy and inclusion and exclusion criteria (Table 1). Boolean operators and truncation were applied, with searches conducted in MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, Epistemonikos and ERIC. Google Scholar was also searched to capture additional reviews.

TABLE 1.

Search terms, inclusion and exclusion criteria.

S1	Review OR literature review OR evidence synthesis OR qualitative evidence synthesis OR scoping review OR systematic review OR integrative review OR narrative review OR meta ethnography
S2	Nurs*OR midwife* OR midwives
S3	Mentor* OR mentee
S4	S1 AND S2 AND S3

Inclusion criteria	Exclusion criteria
All types of reviews using a systematic approach (searching) Mentorship of qualified/registered nurses or midwives Mentorship within nursing or midwifery practice English language Up to August 2024	Reviews that do not provide evidence of a systematic approach to searching Mentorship of student nurses or midwives Mentorship within an educational setting Preceptorship of student nurses or midwives Non‐English language

5.1.2. Study Selection and Data Extraction

Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts to determine eligibility based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria (Table 1). Conflicts were resolved through discussion with a third reviewer. The methodological quality of each review was evaluated using the NIH/NHLBI Quality Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute 2021). This tool, which includes 8 items (7 for non‐meta‐analytic reviews), evaluates factors such as research question clarity, eligibility criteria, literature search thoroughness, primary study quality, summary accuracy, publication bias, and for meta‐analyses; heterogeneity assessment. Each review was rated independently by two researchers and categorised as ‘good,’ ‘fair,’ or ‘poor,’ with any disagreements resolved by discussion. All studies were included regardless of quality, but findings are reported with quality distinctions.

5.1.3. Data Synthesis

Relevant information was systematically extracted according to the review question, including details such as authorship, publication date, scope, search strategy, sample characteristics, mentorship type, outcomes, findings and recommendations. Data extraction was piloted by two reviewers on four papers (26.7%) to test and refine the extraction table. The remaining papers were then extracted by one reviewer, with verification by a second. Both reviewers met to finalise the data extraction table and reach agreement on the extracted data. A narrative synthesis approach was employed to interpret and present cumulative findings, facilitating identification of common themes, patterns and inconsistencies across studies. Narrative synthesis allows for identifying overarching themes, contradictions, and gaps in the evidence in a way that other synthesis approaches may not prioritise. Narrative synthesis allows the inclusion of varied methodologies, designs, or outcomes, making it fitting for synthesising evidence from mixed research fields. An inductive approach was applied, allowing the data to guide the analysis and identify emerging patterns and themes. This approach provided a coherent understanding of mentorship in nursing and midwifery.

5.1.4. Interpretation and Recommendations

Key findings were summarised in a structured format (four sub‐questions). The implications of findings, their relevance to the research question, limitations and recommendations for future research, policy, and practice were based on the synthesised results.

5.2. Ethics Statement

Ethical approval was not required for this scoping meta‐review. However, the reviewers followed systematic steps in organising and conducting this review to ensure that it is rigorous and transparent, thus ensuring credible findings. For example, clear inclusion/exclusion criteria were adhered to, an adequate search and screening of the literature was conducted in duplicate, all reviews were assessed for methodological rigour and all reviewers declared no conflict of interest and remained reflexive, limiting reviewer biases.

6. Results

The initial search strategy yielded 338 articles and after removing duplicates (n = 76), 262 articles remained. Screening titles and abstracts for relevance excluded 250 articles, leaving 12 for full‐text assessment against inclusion and exclusion criteria (Table 1). At this stage, four additional papers were excluded due to the wrong intervention (n = 3) (reviews looked at preceptorship for undergraduate nurses or midwives) or not being able to extract data (n = 1) (there was a mixed health professional sample included in the review and unable to determine nursing or midwifery specific data), resulting in eight articles being included. A further search on Google Scholar identified seven additional relevant papers; one article was excluded as it lacked specific data on nursing or midwifery, leaving an additional six articles for inclusion. In total, 14 articles were included in the final analysis (Figure 1). The quality assessment results are presented in Table 2, with 10 studies rated as good, two as fair, and two as poor. All reviews were included demonstrating transparency and minimising potential bias in the synthesis process. Poor and fair‐quality reviews can identify inconsistencies or weaknesses in the evidence base and highlight areas for future research. Ten of the reviews focussed specifically on nurses (Baker et al. 2024; Chen and Lou 2014; Council and Bowers 2021; Djiovanis 2023; Hoover et al. 2020; Kakyo et al. 2022; Mínguez Moreno et al. 2023; Perumal and Singh 2022; Vlerick et al. 2024; Zhang et al. 2016), three focussed specifically on midwives (Anderson et al. 2023; Nolan et al. 2022; Wissemann et al. 2022) and one review focussed on both nurses and midwives (Biles et al. 2023). Review characteristics are outlined in Table 3.

FIGURE 1.

PRISMA flow diagram.

TABLE 2.

Quality appraisal.

	1. Anderson et al. (2023)*	2. Baker et al. (2024)	3. Biles et al. (2023)	4. Chen and Lou (2014)	5. Council and Bowers (2021)	6. Djiovanis (2023)	7. Hoover et al. (2020)	8. Kakyo et al. (2022)	9. Mínguez Moreno et al. (2023)	10. Nolan et al. (2022)	11. Perumal and Singh (2022)	12. Vlerick et al. (2024)	13. Wissemann et al. (2022)	14. Zhang et al. (2016)
1. Is the review based on a focused question that is adequately formulated and described?	YES	NO	YES	YES	NO	YES	YES	YES	YES	YES	YES	YES	YES	YES
2. Were eligibility criteria for included and excluded studies predefined and specified?	YES	NO	YES	YES	YES	YES	YES	YES	YES	YES	YES	YES	YES	YES
3. Did the literature search strategy use a comprehensive, systematic approach?	YES	YES	YES	YES	YES	YES	YES	YES	YES	YES	YES	YES	YES	YES
4. Were titles, abstracts, and full‐text articles dually and independently reviewed for inclusion and exclusion to minimise bias?	YES	NR	YES	NR	NO	NO	NR	YES	YES	YES	YES	YES	YES	YES
5. Was the quality of each included study rated independently by two or more reviewers using a standard method to appraise its internal validity?	YES	NR	YES	NR	NO	NO	NA	YES	NA	YES	NO	YES	YES	YES
6. Were the included studies listed along with important characteristics and results of each study?	YES	NO	YES	YES	NO	NO	YES	YES	YES	YES	YES	YES	YES	YES
7. Was publication bias assessed?	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	NR	YES
8. Was heterogeneity assessed? (This question applies only to meta‐analyses.)	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA
Rating	GOOD	POOR	GOOD	FAIR	POOR	FAIR	GOOD	GOOD	GOOD	GOOD	GOOD	GOOD	GOOD	GOOD

Abbreviations: NA, not applicable; NO, not included; NR, not reported; YES, reported.

^*If a clear and focused aim wasincluded the reviewers scored this question positively.

TABLE 3.

Review characteristics and data extraction table.

Author and Year	Search dates covered and publication range, search strategy (number of databases and named, free text/Mesh/combined)	Type of review and number of studies	Aim of the review	Sample (HCP, years exp, sample size) and total sample of nurses across full review	Formal mentorship programme or informal mentorship	Outcome measures/tools	Main findings	Recommendations
1. Anderson et al. (2023)	Search 2010 to 2023 Publication range 2011 to 2023 3 databases (Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL) Free text search terms used	Integrative systematic literature review 53 studies included	To evaluate the literature on introducing midwives in low‐ and middle‐income countries and on mentoring as a facilitator to enable midwives and those in midwifery roles to improve sexual, reproductive, maternal, newborn and adolescent health service quality within health systems	Mixed sample Sample not identified in many studies Sample for many studies was the centre/facility 53 mentors, 295 maternity nurses 265 mentees Comparison Group 112	Mentoring was mostly formal, structured and project‐based, with mentors receiving pre‐mentoring training of varied duration but specifics were not provided	Thirty studies evaluated mentorship interventions, but measures/tools not identified	The review highlights barriers limiting midwives' ability to provide quality care and the positive impact of mentoring on midwifery practice, education and service quality. Improved outcomes were often linked to supportive management, mentoring, and adherence to global standards, although challenges in governance and service delivery remain	Effective mentoring programs should involve regular (at least twice monthly) and sustained (at least 3 months) visits. Mentors should provide on‐site, hands‐on support that includes group teaching, case studies, bedside teaching and problem‐solving. Utilising national mentors (nurses, midwives, or doctors) is recommended, as they are familiar with local contexts and can provide culturally relevant support. Engaging local managers in mentoring programs enhances the sustainability of improvements and helps foster supportive workplace environments
2. Baker et al. (2024)	Studies included between 2013 and 2023 Unable to determine dates of Articles included 2 Databases Cinahl and PubMed searched Free text terms Exact terms not specified	Scoping review 12 reviews in relation to mentoring for nurse practitioners	To highlight evidence specific to the neonatal nurse practitioner (NNP) workforce related to successful mentoring programs specifically to improve job satisfaction and retention of the NNP workforce	Nurse practitioners and Neonatal Nurse Practitioners Individual samples from included studies not presented	Unable to determine as study characteristics not identified	Outcome measures not evident	Mentoring is an invaluable component of professional nursing and counters incivility while advancing competency, job satisfaction and retention A mentoring program supports a positive organisational culture that promotes lifelong learning, inter and intra professional collaboration, and professional support Feedback provided in a respectful and deliberate manner builds trust within the relationship and fosters increased personal reflection Effective mentoring practices are crucial to recruitment, retention and professional development of Nurse Practitioners while improving overall job satisfaction. Mentoring builds capacity, mitigates knowledge loss from retirement or attrition, and aids in recruitment and advancement	A culture of mentoring within a safe environment is key to organisational success. Managers must support nurses' professional growth in their mentoring and leadership skills Frequent interaction between mentors and mentees is required where constructive feedback is provided that is specific actionable, timely and encouraging, while engaging in learning and reflective activities that challenge the mentee to expand his or her abilities By following a model such as the Pendleton Feedback Model, the external feedback provided by the mentor allows for the mentee to develop
3. Biles et al. (2023)	Search 1997 to 2021 Publication range 2013 to 2021 5 databases (Cinahl, Emcare, Medline, Informit, Scopus) MESH and free text terms used	Systematic scoping review 6 included papers	To examine the experiences of culturally safe mentoring programmes described by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander nurses and midwives in Australia	Sample not provided for all 127 evident but unspecified	Only one paper detailed culturally safe mentoring as an evidenced and actively employed strategy. In most cases, mentorship was described as either aspirational or informal	Outcome measures are predominantly qualitative, focusing on experiences/perceptions. One study presents outcomes, though specific metrics are not specified	The involvement of Aboriginal researchers and reference groups. Discussions on foundational cultural capability training for non‐Indigenous health professionals are needed for embedding culturally safe mentoring programs	There is a need to embed culturally safe mentoring programs to support the cultural capability development of non‐Indigenous health professionals. Mentoring programs are a means to improve culturally responsive care
4. Chen and Lou (2014)	Search 1999–2011 Publication range 2001 to 2010 7 databases (Medline, Cochrane Library, Cinahl, PubMed, Index to Taiwan Periodical Literature System, Chinese Electronic Periodical Services, National Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations in Taiwan) Free text search terms used	Systematic review 5 included studies.	To conduct a systematic literature review and to examine the effectiveness and application of mentorship programmes for recently registered nurses	Sample of 651 Head nurses (232) Recently registered nurses (296) Mentors (123) Recently registered nurses were between 21 and 25 years of age and the mentors were between 28 and 45 years of age with a minimum of 3 years' experience	All 5 included studies involved a mentorship programme: 2 of 1 year, 2 of 3 months and 1 of unspecified duration but was a 3‐stage mentorship program	Job satisfaction scale Nursing competency scale Professional socialisation scale Job satisfaction tool Mentorship knowledge Mentor's activities Satisfaction of mentor's teaching Mentor's perception scale Quality of nursing care	Senior nurses play a vital role in mentoring newly registered nurses, with their experience and positive attitudes being key to retention and performance. Effective mentorship requires good communication and workload management, while structured training and one‐on‐one guidance enhance new nurses' competence. Integrating mentorship with nurse residency programs and improving mentor training can stabilise nursing resources and improve outcomes	Mentorship programs for recently registered nurses should include long‐term commitments (up to a year) from both mentors and mentees, focusing on multidimensional teaching strategies that develop problem‐solving, professional skills and time management
5. Council and Bowers 2021	Search range 2015–2020 Included study dates not defined 2 databases (Cinahl and Medline) Free text search terms used	A review of the literature 9 articles included	The purpose of this article was to complete a literature review to evaluate the preparation provided to nurse mentors to support bedside clinical nurses	Experienced nurses supporting novice nurses as mentors Specific samples for each study not identified or overall numbers not identified	3 articles focused specifically on evidence‐based practice (EBP) implementation supported by mentors 3 focused on specific improvements in patient care with mentoring 3 focused on the impact of mentoring practices on mentoring beliefs	Mentorship impact on patient outcomes Impact of mentor training on evidence‐based practice Readiness to mentor	Mentoring has a positive impact on organisational readiness for and implementation of EBP, implementing QI and change management projects and impacting targeted patient populations outcomes. Clinical nurses benefit from the support of experienced nurses, as mentors, supporting their growth and development. Nurse mentors need effective preparation to effectively implement mentorship practices that have shown to affect mentoring outcomes	Nursing professional development practitioners can utilise mentor preparation programs to improve the outcomes of the mentorship relationships in their organisations Mentors need preparation and guidance on effective mentoring techniques and practices Mentors should be competent in welcoming, mapping the future, teaching the job, supporting the transition, providing protection, and equipping for leadership. Mentor preparation programs should include these six practices. The practices should be tailored to the expected outcomes of the mentoring program and needs of the organisation
6. Djiovanis (2023)	Actual dates of included articles not identified Databases search parameters were 2005–2020 5 databases CINAHL Plus, Medline, ERIC, PsychInfo, and Cochrane databases Free Text terms used	A comprehensive literature review 10 research articles included	Review of how the implementation of formal mentorship programs affect novice nurse turnover within a 1‐year time frame after initial hire	Novice Nurses in the first year of employment in American Acute Care Settings Sample sizes included in individual studies not provided	All formal mentorship programmes implemented in included studies Details of each type of mentorship programme not presented	Employee satisfaction Cost reduction Employee morale Employee turnover Employee retention	Reduction in first‐year novice nurse turnover after the implementation of formal mentoring programs Employee satisfaction was also found to have improved in mentors, having gained more confidence in their nursing skills and appreciation of their own jobs Organisational savings where mentorship was implemented. One quantifiable downside to the initial implementation of mentoring programs for novice nurses is initial financial outlay. Savings from reducing novice nurse turnover, however, appear to be realised within months and not years	It is recommended that all new graduate, acute‐care nurses be mentored in their first registered nursing jobs during the first year in practice Hospitals seeking to reduce onboarding and training costs, which also lack formal novice nurse mentoring programs are well advised to add such programs to reduce institutional costs
7. Hoover et al. (2020)	Search earliest available date to September 2019 Publication range 1995 to 2019 6 databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, PsychInfo) MESH and free text terms used	Scoping review 69 included studies	To identify and synthesise research on in‐service nurse mentoring programs	Mentors and mentees evident but specific numbers not specified Range provided 0 to 10, 10 to 50, 50 to 100, over 100	Formal, informal and e‐mentoring evident but specifics not provided	Outcome predominantly focusing on experiences/perceptions Some reference theory such as Benner's novice‐to‐expert theory, Roger's diffusion of innovations theory, Bandura's self‐efficacy theory and Gustafsson's model Specific metrics are not specified	The majority focused on mentoring programs aimed at improving clinical care, especially in maternal and neonatal health and HIV care. Programs varied widely in their structure, settings and mentor‐mentee dynamics, with a significant emphasis on clinical mentoring, though some also addressed social and professional development	Develop and implement standardised metrics for reporting the number of mentors and mentees, frequency and duration of mentoring and the specific goals of mentoring programs. There is a need to further support and expand such programs in rural and underserved areas of low‐ and middle‐income countries. Establish clear definitions and distinctions between “precepting,” “mentoring,” and “clinical supervision.”
8. Kakyo et al. (2022)	Search earliest available date to September 2020 Publication range 1995 to 2020 6 databases: (CINAHL, Web of Science, MEDLINE, Scopus, Science Direct, ProQuest) MESH and free text search terms used	Systematic integrated review 22 included studies	To explore the overall benefits and challenges for the mentee, the mentor and the hospital (stakeholders) in hospital‐sponsored mentoring programs	Mixed sample with not all samples identified 1287 nurses 28 nurse managers 195 staff 1012 mentees 181 mentors 323 not mentored 12 healthcare providers 9 leaders 24 directors/senior managers	Formal program included within the review criteria but not identified within data extraction or findings.	Multidimensional mentoring instrument Mentor role instrument Mentoring function scale Quality of mentoring Caine quality of mentoring questionnaire Quantity of mentoring Type of mentoring Willingness to mentor/willingness to be mentored questionnaire Mentoring practices scale Mentoring function scale	The review revealed that mentorship programs provide significant benefits for mentees, mentors and hospitals, including improved job satisfaction, leadership skills, and retention rates. Challenges identified include lack of protected time, inadequate organisational support, and mismatched mentor‐mentee pairs, which can negatively impact program outcomes. Effective mentorship requires tailored programs, organisational backing and careful pairing to foster reciprocal relationships and maximise benefits	Hospitals should provide protected time and resources for mentoring activities to foster strong mentor‐mentee relationships, ensuring trust and reciprocity, which are crucial for program success. Mentor preparation should include training in soft interpersonal skills, conflict resolution, and managing generational differences to address interpersonal challenges and improve the resilience of both mentors and mentees. Special attention is needed for mentoring programs in rural/small hospitals, including policy support and resources to address unique challenges like extended scopes of practice and high turnover rates
9. Mínguez Moreno et al. (2023)	Search earliest available date to May 2020 (update not specified) Publication range 1992 to 2021 10 databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, Cuiden, Scielo, MEDES, OpenGrey, Trove, MedNar.), MESH and free text terms used	Scoping review, 11 included papers	To explore and summarise the existing literature on mentoring models and programs in the clinical nursing context	Sample of 2653 1198 employers 475 nurses 369 mentors 611 mentees	Mentorship ranged from 8 weeks, 8–10 weeks, 12 weeks n = 2, 14–16 weeks, 2–4 months, 6–12 months, 12 months, 16 months, 18 months	Specific outcome measures not specified	Most programs were developed in third‐level hospitals, with only one study in a long‐term care facility and one in a public hospital. Mentoring programs generally aimed at new nurses and were associated with enhanced nursing practice and improved retention. Specific outcomes included better job environments, increased retention, and, in some cases, economic savings and improved patient satisfaction	Develop and expand mentoring programs in challenging contexts, such as remote areas and large hospitals. Utilise mentoring programs to increase nurse allegiance, reduce turnover and enhance job satisfaction. Provide training for mentors to effectively communicate and manage their roles, ensuring clarity and professionalism
10. Nolan et al. (2022)	Search 1990 to September 2021 Publication range 2011 to 2017 7 databases (CINAHL, Medline, Psycinfo, Cochrane Library, Joanna Briggs Institute, Scopus, Google Scholar) Free text terms used	Integrative literature review 10 papers included	To identify strategies that facilitate newly qualified midwives to transition successfully from midwifery student to confident, competent practitioner	Sample 1532 21 Coordinators 52 Mentors 1453 Newly qualified practitioners 2 Practice development midwives 4 Midwife managers	Formal mentoring evident but specifics not provided	Specific outcome measures not specified	Mentorship programs for newly qualified staff enhance confidence and competence. Protected time and funding were crucial for the success of these programs. Structured programs with dedicated resources and well‐planned rotations were valued	Establish dedicated educators to oversee and coordinate the support and development of newly qualified staff ensuring effective mentorship despite organisational resource constraints. Implement pre‐planned rotations to improve integration into different clinical areas, enhancing their sense of value and control. Expand the use of caseload models to improve job satisfaction and preparedness to align care models with best practices and support through mentorship and reflective practice
11. Perumal and Singh (2022)	Search earliest available date to April 2020 Publication range 1995 to 2020 4 databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, ERIC) MESH and free text search terms used	Scoping review 48 included papers	To review the literature on mentoring of nursing students in Canada	Mixed sample with not all samples identified 135 mentors 177 mentees 514 new nurses 16 new graduates 5 clinical managers 56 nurse educators 4 interns 7 scholars 89 nurses 29 nursing faculty 16 people living with HIV	Mentorship ranged from a three‐day workshop to 12‐months (3 days, 12 weeks/3 months n = 4, 16 weeks/4 months n = 2, 6 months n = 2, 9 months n = 2, 12 months n = 3) A few studies recognise the presence of informal mentorship	Surveys evident in 7 studies within the data extraction table and results section acknowledge outcomes but does not identify measures/tools	The review emphasises the importance of transferring experienced nurses' wisdom to novices to enhance job satisfaction and confidence. Mentorship has positive outcomes for both mentees and mentors. However, challenges such as time constraints, inadequate mentor‐mentee matching, and the need for clear mentorship structures exist	Mentorship programs should be tailored to the specific needs of organisations, with clearly defined objectives, appropriate resource allocation and ongoing support from administration to ensure success. Encouraging mentorship within nursing can enhance career development, improve patient care and foster leadership skills, which is vital given the global nursing shortage
12. Vlerick et al. (2023)	Search completed November 2022 Not specified if limited to specific dates Articles included ranged from 2012 to 2022 4 databases were searched (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library) Combined MeSH and key words	A systematic review based on PRISMA guidelines 12 articles included	To identify, evaluate and summarise evidence about the objectives and characteristics of mentoring programmes for specialised nurses or nurse navigators and advanced practice nurses and to identify the effectiveness of these programmes	Total Number not reported (some studies included did not report sample size) 9 Advanced Practice Nurse 23 Advanced Practice Registered Nurse 3 Clinical Nurse Specialists Nurse Practitioner (n = 117) Physician Assistant (n = 3) Administrators (n = 13)	All articles focused on formal mentoring programmes for Advanced Practice Nurses. Different forms of mentorship (e.g., (in)formal mentorship, work shadowing, workshops) were reported. 5 different terms were used to name the programmes onboarding (n = 2), transition to practice (n = 2), residency programme (n = 2), fellowship programme (n = 1) and mentoring programme (n = 5) Duration of mentorship ranged from 12 weeks to 2 years. Majority 12 months	Job Retention Job Satisfaction Skills Improvement Programme Satisfaction Confidence Improvement	The reviewed studies reported positive outcomes on job retention (n = 5), job satisfaction (n = 6), skills improvement (n = 6), confidence improvement (n = 4) and satisfaction with the programme (n = 7) among participants of the mentoring programmes	The development of a mentoring programme for nursing experts should be considered a complex intervention that requires theoretical frameworks and contextual considerations Components such as work shadowing, peer mentorship, one‐on‐one sessions between mentors and mentees, and training in role development, could be part of future mentoring programmes The process of decision‐making at all stages of the development, evaluation and implementation of a mentoring programme needs to be documented in a transparent, systematic and thorough manner by means of validated reporting criteria
13. Wisseman et al. (2022)	No date limiters applied Last search completed July 2021 Studies included ranged from 2005 to 2020 5 databases searched (Cinahl, MEDLINE, PubMed, MIDIRS and Scopus) Free text search completed	An integrated review 8 studies included in the review	The aim of this review was to synthesise best available evidence on mentoring programmes for midwives who have worked within the clinical setting for more than 1 year	Total number of participants 792 155 Nurse‐midwives 120 Participants 517 Midwives	All of the articles except for one focused on either the effects or midwives' perspective of being mentored. One investigated both the experiences of mentoring from the mentors and mentees perspective However the authors included both formal and informal mentorship as they identified any support, either professional, personal or emotional could be considered as mentoring within this particular context Including Clinical supervision (n = 2), one to one clinical practice observations (n = 1), clinical mentoring (n = 1), midwives support needs (n = 1), mentoring coaching and action learning (n = 1), mentoring as relational learning (n = 1), not determined (n = 1)	Self‐efficacy	Mentoring in midwifery facilitates effective learning and development. Mentoring can help midwives determine where to ‘find’ relational learning opportunities and how to action its application in practice. Mentoring is also considered a comprehensive tool for evaluating midwives' current position in terms of competencies and for developing a plan to reach the mentees goals Mentoring positively impacts the organisation and the clinical outcomes of healthcare consumers Positive mentoring experiences are dependent on the relationships built between the mentee, mentor and the organisation	To enhance staff retention in the workforce, midwives require support from the wider organisation in which they work Organisational buy‐in of mentoring programmes involves recognition of the role and formal protection of time for mentors and midwives to participate in mentoring programmes Recommendations for further research include investigating and identifying the specific support mechanisms that midwives believe are essential for the development and implementation of a successful mentoring programme for clinical midwives
14. Zhang et al. (2016)	Search complete October 2014 No date limiters Included articles ranged from 2001 to 2014 9 databases searched (Cochrane Library, Medline, Ovid, Elsevier, Embase, CINAHL, China Biology Medicine (CBM), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and WanFang Data) Free text search	Systematic Review 9 articles included	To evaluate the effectiveness of a mentoring program on the mentor, mentee and organisation	Total Sample 1491 715 New Graduate 164 Mentees 162 Mentors 450 Registered Nurses	Formal mentorship programme ranging from 1 month (n = 1), 3 months (n = 1), 1 year (n = 5), 3 years (n = 2)	Turnover rate 21 item job satisfaction tool Cost effectiveness Nursing competence scale Self‐efficacy Professional socialisation Mentorship knowledge scale Mentors activities scale	Effective mentors play a crucial role in facilitating the orientation and transition of newly graduated nurses Specific characteristics of the mentor can optimise the mentoring relationship, promoting successful transitions Time constraints, space constraints and scheduling limitations have been described as the most common obstacles to effective implementation of mentorship programmes. Mentoring programs had positive outcomes for the mentors, mentees, and organisations Rigorous mentor selection and adequate mentor and mentee training cannot be ignored	Personality type and specific needs should be taken into consideration when matching the mentor and mentee Mentor quality should be promoted through appropriate and targeted training programs Emphasise the importance of regular mentor/mentee meetings, and measures should be taken to guarantee the regularity of such meetings Generally, a mentoring program lasting 12–24 months is most effective at reducing new RNs' anxieties and supporting their transition

Within the 14 reviews that were included it was not always possible to clearly identify the studies they included. For example, one paper referenced an extra source in their findings section. Another paper's ‘in text’ reference numbers did not match the reference list numbering. In addition, one paper only identified half of its included papers in the results section and the total references in the reference list was below the actual number included in the review, so that some papers could not be identified. Furthermore, some included references were books which raised concerns regarding the accuracy of reporting. Data which could be extracted represented input from 36 countries (Figure 2). In total 251 papers could be identified across all reviews and after duplications were removed (n = 22) there were 229 individual papers reported across the 14 reviews.

FIGURE 2.

Primary studies international representation.

The findings of this scoping meta‐review are identified under the four sub‐questions (a) what types of formal or informal mentorship did nurses and midwives experience? (b) what outcome measures or tools were used to assess the impact of mentorship programmes? (c) what are the main findings reported regarding these programmes? (d) what recommendations have been made for future nursing and midwifery mentorship programmes?

6.1. What Types of Formal Mentorship Programmes or Informal Mentorship Were Included in the Reviews?

The reviews analysed included a range of formal and informal mentorship practices. Particular details of specific mentorship practices in empirical studies included in the reviews were not clearly reported. Nine reviews focused exclusively on formal mentorship programmes (Chen and Lou 2014; Zhang et al. 2016; Council and Bowers 2021; Kakyo et al. 2022; Nolan et al. 2022; Perumal and Singh 2022; Djiovanis 2023; Mínguez Moreno et al. 2023; Vlerick et al. 2024). However, three of these reviews did not provide specific details about the mentorship programmes (Kakyo et al. 2022; Nolan et al. 2022; Djiovanis 2023). While Perumal and Singh (2022) focused on formal mentorship, they also acknowledged the existence of informal mentorship practices within their scope. Four reviews included both formal and informal mentorship practices (Hoover et al. 2020; Wissemann et al. 2022; Anderson et al. 2023; Biles et al. 2023). Anderson et al. (2023) found that mentorship programmes for midwives were predominantly formal, structured and project‐based, with mentors receiving varying durations of pre‐mentoring training. In one review, the formality of mentorship practices was not specified (Baker et al. 2024).

Council and Bowers (2021) review focused on mentorship programmes that aimed at evidence‐based practice implementation, patient care improvement and the impact of mentorship on mentors' beliefs. Vlerick et al. (2024) specified that all 12 studies reviewed focused on formal mentoring programmes for Advanced Practice Nurses. Various forms of mentorship, including formal mentorship, work shadowing, and workshops, were reported. Programmes were labelled as onboarding (n = 2), transition to practice (n = 2), residency (n = 2), fellowship (n = 1), and mentoring (n = 5).

Hoover et al. (2020) included a mix of formal, informal, and e‐mentoring programmes, though specifics were not provided. Biles et al. (2023) described culturally safe mentoring and informal or aspirational mentorship practices in nursing and midwifery. Wissemann et al. (2022) broadly defined mentorship as any support; professional, personal, or emotional, considered relevant within this midwifery practice. Most studies in Wisseman et al.'s review focused on midwives' perspectives on being mentored, with only one study exploring both mentor and mentee perspectives. Mentorship types in their study included clinical supervision (n = 2), one‐on‐one clinical observations (n = 1), clinical mentoring (n = 1), support for midwives' needs (n = 1), mentoring coaching and action learning (n = 1).

6.1.1. The Duration of the Programmes in These Reviews

Chen and Lou (2014) identified mentorship programmes ranging from 3 months (n = 2) to 1 year (n = 2), with one programme of unspecified duration following a 3‐stage mentorship model. Mínguez Moreno et al. (2023) specified that programme durations varied, including 8 weeks (n = 1), 8–10 weeks (n = 1), 12 weeks (n = 2), 14–16 weeks (n = 1), 2–4 months (n = 1), 6–12 months (n = 1), 12 months (n = 1), 16 months (n = 1) and 18 months (n = 1). Zhang et al. (2016) specified formal mentorship programme durations ranged from 1 month (n = 1) to 3 years (n = 2); specific durations identified included 1 month, 3 months, 1 year (n = 5) and 3 years (n = 2). Perumal and Singh (2022) identified programmes that ranged from a three‐day workshop (n = 1) to 12 months (n = 3), with intermediate durations including 12 weeks (n = 4), 16 weeks (n = 2), 6 months (n = 2) and 9 months (n = 2).

6.2. What Measures, Tools or Scales Were Used to Measure Mentorship Programme Outcomes?

Seven reviews identified a total of 34 outcome measures, tools, or scales used to evaluate mentorship programme outcomes (Chen and Lou 2014; Zhang et al. 2016; Council and Bowers 2021; Kakyo et al. 2022; Wissemann et al. 2022; Djiovanis 2023; Vlerick et al. 2024). The most commonly used tools included the Job Satisfaction Scale (Chen and Lou 2014) and the Nursing Competency Scale (Chen and Lou 2014; Zhang et al. 2016), with other frequently cited measures assessing job satisfaction (Chen and Lou 2014; Zhang et al. 2016; Vlerick et al. 2024) and professional socialisation (Chen and Lou 2014; Zhang et al. 2016).

Additional tools used across the reviews included tools measuring mentorship knowledge and mentor activities (Chen and Lou 2014; Zhang et al. 2016), scales assessing mentor perceptions and satisfaction with mentor teaching, along with tools evaluating the quality of nursing care (Chen and Lou 2014), scales specific to the impact of mentorship on evidence‐based practice and mentor readiness (Council and Bowers 2021), measures of employee satisfaction, morale, retention, and turnover (Zhang et al. 2016; Djiovanis 2023; Vlerick et al. 2024), metrics evaluating cost reduction and cost‐effectiveness of mentorship programmes (Zhang et al. 2016; Djiovanis 2023) and scales to assess skills improvement, programme satisfaction, confidence, and self‐efficacy in both nursing and midwifery mentorship programmes (Zhang et al. 2016; Wissemann et al. 2022; Vlerick et al. 2024). Tools such as the Multidimensional Mentoring Instrument, Mentor Role Instrument, and Caine Quality of Mentoring Questionnaire that assessed the quality, quantity type and function of mentoring were identified by Kakyo et al. (2022).

In contrast, some reviews focused primarily on the experiences and perceptions of mentorship without specific outcome metrics. For example, Hoover et al. (2020) emphasised experiences and referenced theories such as Benner's novice‐to‐expert model, Roger's diffusion of innovations, Bandura's self‐efficacy theory and Gustafsson's model, but did not specify quantitative metrics. Biles et al. (2023) similarly focused on mentorship experiences and perceptions with both nurses and midwives, with outcomes presented in one study but no specific tools or measures detailed. Perumal and Singh (2022) also referenced outcomes in their data extraction table and results but did not specify measurement tools. Four other reviews failed to identify specific outcome measures or tools (Nolan et al. 2022; Anderson et al. 2023; Mínguez Moreno et al. 2023; Baker et al. 2024).

6.3. What Are the Main Findings Reported Regarding Mentorship Programmes?

Nine sub‐themes, organised under three main themes, were identified through the narrative synthesis to present the main findings of this scoping meta‐review. The three main themes are: Benefits of Implementing Mentorship Programmes, Challenges for Effective Implementation of Mentorship Programmes, and Recommendations for Effective Implementation of Mentorship Programmes. Table 4 provides an overview of these themes and their associated sub‐themes. Table 5 identifies key challenges of mentorship programmes, key benefits of mentorship programmes and key recommendations for effective mentorship programmes with the associated review authors listed.

TABLE 4.

Themes and sub‐themes of narrative synthesis.

What are the Benefits of implementing Mentorship Programmes	Benefits for the mentee
	Benefits for the mentor
	Benefits for the organisation
	Benefits for the patient
Challenges for effective implementation of mentorship programmes	Challenges of mentorship programme implementation
Recommendations for effective implementation of mentorship programmes	Management support
	Protected time and resources for relationship building
	Formal training is required for mentors to be effective
	Theoretical frameworks and contextual considerations

TABLE 5.

Key challenges, benefits and recommendations for effective mentorship programmes.

Key challenges of mentorship programmes	Review authors
Challenges in governance and service delivery	Anderson et al. 2023, Kakyo et al. 2022, Perumal and Singh 2022, Zhang et al. 2016
Lack of protected time	Kakyo et al. 2022, Nolan et al. 2022, Perumal and Singh 2022, Zhang et al. 2016
Mismatched mentor‐mentee pairs	Hoover et al. 2020, Kakyo et al. 2022, Perumal and Singh 2022, Zhang et al. 2016

Key benefits of mentorship programmes	Review authors
Advancing competency, job satisfaction and job retention	Baker et al. 2024, Chen and Lou 2014, Djiovanis 2023, Kakyo et al. 2022, Mínguez Moreno et al. 2023, Nolan et al. 2022, Perumal and Singh 2022, Vlerick et al. 2024, Wissemann et al. 2022, Zhang et al. 2016
Professional development	Council and Bowers 2021, Hoover et al. 2020, Mínguez Moreno et al. 2023, Perumal and Singh 2022, Wissemann et al. 2022
Patient outcomes	Council and Bowers 2021, Hoover et al. 2020, Mínguez Moreno et al. 2023, Perumal and Singh 2022, Wissemann et al. 2022
Organisational savings	Djiovanis 2023, Mínguez Moreno et al. 2023, Perumal and Singh 2022, Wissemann et al. 2022, Zhang et al. 2016

Key recommendations for effective mentorship programmes	Review authors
Recommend longevity of the programme	Chen and Lou 2014, Vlerick et al. 2024, Zhang et al. 2016
Protected time and regular meetings lead to relationship building and effective mentorship	Anderson et al. 2023, Baker et al. 2024, Council and Bowers 2021, Kakyo et al. 2022, Zhang et al. 2016
Effective pairing of mentors and mentees	Hoover et al. 2020, Kakyo et al. 2022, Perumal and Singh 2022, Zhang et al. 2016
Management and organisational support required for successful mentorship programmes	Anderson et al. 2023, Baker et al. 2024, Mínguez Moreno et al. 2023, Perumal and Singh 2022, Wissemann et al. 2022
Proper training for mentors is required for effective mentorship programmes	Anderson et al. 2023, Chen and Lou 2014, Council and Bowers 2021, Kakyo et al. 2022, Mínguez Moreno et al. 2023, Vlerick et al. 2024, Zhang et al. 2016
Develop and implement standard reporting criteria	Hoover et al. 2020, Vlerick et al. 2024
Using theoretical frameworks can guide effective mentorship practices	Baker et al. 2024, Vlerick et al. 2024, Nolan et al. 2022
New graduate specific mentorship programmes	Chen and Lou 2014, Djiovanis 2023, Zhang et al. 2016, Nolan et al. 2022
Culturally relevant support	Anderson et al. 2023, Baker et al. 2024, Biles et al. 2023

6.4. What Are the Benefits of Implementing Mentorship Programmes?

6.4.1. Benefits for the Mentee

Nine reviews specifically identified benefits of nursing and midwifery mentorship programmes for mentees (Zhang et al. 2016; Hoover et al. 2020; Council and Bowers 2021; Kakyo et al. 2022; Nolan et al. 2022; Perumal and Singh 2022; Wissemann et al. 2022; Vlerick et al. 2024; Baker et al. 2024). Baker et al. (2024) noted that respectful and deliberate feedback from mentors builds trust and fosters increased self‐reflection in mentees. Multiple reviews (Council and Bowers 2021; Hoover et al. 2020; Baker et al. 2024; Perumal and Singh 2022; Wissemann et al. 2022) found that mentorship from experienced nurses and midwives supports mentees' learning, growth, and development. Additionally, improved job satisfaction for mentees was identified and it was reported that mentorship led to increased confidence and competence among mentees in nursing and midwifery practice (Kakyo et al. 2022; Nolan et al. 2022; Perumal and Singh 2022; Vlerick et al. 2024; Baker et al. 2024). Wisseman et al. (2022) further highlighted mentorship as a tool for evaluating midwives' competencies and creating development plans tailored to mentees' goals. Vlerick et al. (2024) also identified skills improvement and satisfaction with mentorship programmes as significant benefits in nursing.

6.4.2. Benefits for the Mentor

Four reviews specifically identified benefits for mentors (Zhang et al. 2016; Kakyo et al. 2022; Perumal and Singh 2022; Djiovanis 2023). Djiovanis (2023) found that mentors experienced increased job satisfaction and confidence in their nursing skills, alongside greater appreciation for their own roles. Kakyo et al. (2022) and Perumal and Singh (2022) noted that mentorship programmes support mentors' leadership development and enhance their professional satisfaction.

6.4.3. Benefits for the Organisation

Nine of the reviews highlighted organisational benefits of mentorship programmes (Zhang et al. 2016; Council and Bowers 2021; Kakyo et al. 2022; Wissemann et al. 2022; Anderson et al. 2023; Djiovanis 2023; Mínguez Moreno et al. 2023; Vlerick et al. 2024; Baker et al. 2024). Anderson et al. (2023) emphasised the positive impact of mentorship on midwifery practice, education and service quality. Job retention benefits were noted in five reviews (Kakyo et al. 2022; Djiovanis 2023; Mínguez Moreno et al. 2023; Vlerick et al. 2024; Baker et al. 2024), while Baker et al. (2024) reported that mentorship programmes foster a positive organisational culture that promotes lifelong learning, inter‐ and intra‐professional collaboration, and professional support. Mentorship programmes also build organisational capacity, mitigate knowledge loss, and aid in recruitment and advancement efforts (Baker et al. 2024). Mínguez Moreno et al. (2023) identified an improved job environment as an additional organisational benefit. Both Djiovanis (2023) and Mínguez Moreno et al. (2023) noted cost savings from reduced turnover, although Djiovanis (2023) mentioned initial financial outlay as a potential downside. Council and Bowers (2021) highlighted mentorship's role in enhancing organisational readiness for evidence‐based practices and implementing quality improvement and change management initiatives.

Findings indicate that mentorship programmes in hospital settings were often formal, structured, and supported by institutional policies and funding (Council and Bowers 2021; Perumal and Singh 2022). In contrast, mentorship in community‐based care settings was frequently informal, relying on peer support and professional networks rather than standardised frameworks (Hoover et al. 2020; Anderson et al. 2023). While hospitals demonstrated higher retention rates among mentored staff, community‐based settings saw benefits in increased autonomy and professional collaboration among mentees (Djiovanis 2023; Mínguez Moreno et al. 2023).

6.4.4. Benefits for the Patient/Service User

Five reviews noted positive patient/service user outcomes associated with mentorship programmes (Hoover et al. 2020; Council and Bowers 2021; Perumal and Singh 2022; Wissemann et al. 2022; Mínguez Moreno et al. 2023). Perumal and Singh (2022) identified improved patient care through improved clinical practice of practitioners. Wissemann et al. (2022) identified improved clinical outcomes for women for example statistically significant increase in midwives' overall knowledge and self‐efficacy in the management of postpartum haemorrhage and the ability to identify risk factors in labouring women which also reduced the percentage of stillbirths in the care of midwives partaking in mentorship programmes. Hoover et al. (2020) also highlighted enhanced clinical care in areas such as maternal and neonatal health and HIV care. Mínguez Moreno et al. (2023) review identified increased patient satisfaction and patient safety for example improved falls and pressure ulcer prevention. Council and Bowers (2021) review revealed that preparing mentors to support less experienced nurses to achieve better patient outcomes assists in closing the experience–complexity gap and thus has a positive impact on patient outcomes. Council and Bowers (2021) review also identified targeted improvements in specific patient populations where the mentors focus on specific patient populations can improve the care of that specific population through improving patient care. However, they suggest that further research is needed on how preparing mentors for the role impacts patient outcomes.

6.5. Challenges for Effective Implementation of Mentorship Programmes

6.5.1. Challenges of Mentorship Programme Implementation

Six reviews identified specific challenges associated with implementing mentorship programmes (Zhang et al. 2016; Hoover et al. 2020; Kakyo et al. 2022; Perumal and Singh 2022; Anderson et al. 2023; Vlerick et al. 2024).

Zhang et al. (2016) highlighted time constraints, limited physical space and scheduling conflicts as common obstacles to successful mentorship implementation. Similarly, Kakyo et al. (2022) noted the lack of protected time for mentoring activities as a key barrier.

Kakyo et al. (2022) also identified inadequate organisational support as a hindrance to effective programme outcomes. Perumal and Singh (2022) pointed to the need for clear mentorship structures and robust organisational backing to ensure programme success. Anderson et al. (2023) added that governance and service delivery challenges further complicate the implementation of effective mentorship programmes for midwives.

Kakyo et al. (2022), Perumal and Singh (2022) and Zhang et al. (2016) discussed challenges related to mentor‐mentee pairing, emphasising that mismatched pairs can negatively affect programme outcomes and mentee satisfaction. Kakyo et al. (2022) identified that mismatched pairing can have a negative effect on reciprocal relationships. Pairing issues could be resolved through considerable organisational support and taking into account personalities, age, level of work experience and education level when matching mentors with mentees (Zhang et al. 2016; Kakyo et al. 2022; Perumal and Singh 2022). However, Kakyo et al. (2022) identify that an alternative strategy could be improving mentee and mentor resilience and ability to solve conflicts.

Hoover et al. (2020) highlighted the importance of defining and distinguishing the roles of “preceptor,” “mentor” and “clinical supervisor” to avoid confusion. Clear role definitions are essential for the effective implementation of mentorship programmes and help align mentor and mentee expectations. Clearly defining roles is crucial for successfully implementing mentorship programmes. It ensures that both mentors and mentees have a shared understanding of their responsibilities, fostering alignment in their expectations.

6.6. Recommendations for Effective Implementation of Mentorship Programmes

6.6.1. Management Support

Eight reviews emphasised the critical role of management in sustaining effective mentorship programmes (Zhang et al. 2016; Kakyo et al. 2022; Nolan et al. 2022; Perumal and Singh 2022; Wissemann et al. 2022; Anderson et al. 2023; Mínguez Moreno et al. 2023; Baker et al. 2024). Anderson et al. (2023) noted that positive outcomes were often linked to engaged management, which contributes to the sustainability of mentorship programmes for midwives. Wissemann et al. (2022) also suggested that mentors should be formally recognised for their roles, further enhancing support and motivation in midwifery mentorship programmes. Findings suggest that active managerial support, including protected time for mentoring, financial investment, and mentor selection, significantly improves programme outcomes (Perumal and Singh 2022; Wissemann et al. 2022; Anderson et al. 2023).

Additionally, findings revealed that leadership engagement varies significantly across healthcare organisations, influencing mentorship effectiveness (Zhang et al. 2016; Kakyo et al. 2022). While some organisations implemented structured mentorship with direct management oversight, others struggled due to lack of protected time, unclear mentorship policies, and insufficient funding (Perumal and Singh 2022; Anderson et al. 2023). Studies indicate that mentorship success depends on strong institutional commitment, yet few studies explored management's direct experiences with programme implementation.

6.6.2. Protected Time and Resources for Relationship Building

Ten reviews highlighted the need for protected time, dedicated resources, and funding to ensure the success of mentorship programmes and enable the fostering of strong mentor‐mentee relationships (Chen and Lou 2014; Zhang et al. 2016; Anderson et al. 2023; Kakyo et al. 2022; Nolan et al. 2022; Perumal and Singh 2022; Wissemann et al. 2022; Djiovanis 2023; Vlerick et al. 2024; Baker et al. 2024). Allocating protected time enables regular meetings, facilitating relationship building and positive mentoring experiences in nursing and midwifery practice (Williams et al. 2018; Anderson et al. 2023; Baker et al. 2024). Anderson et al. (2023) recommended that mentoring programmes should involve at least twice‐monthly meetings for a minimum of 3 months for midwives. For new graduates, extended programmes of 12–24 months are advised to reduce anxiety and support their transition (Chen and Lou 2014; Zhang et al. 2016; Djiovanis 2023). Regular interactions allow for timely, specific, and actionable feedback, encouraging mentees to engage in learning and reflective practices (Baker et al. 2024). Zhang et al. (2016) stressed the importance of careful mentor selection, recommending that personality traits and specific needs be considered when pairing mentors and mentees to optimise the mentoring relationship. Kakyo et al. (2022) agreed, emphasising that well‐matched mentor‐mentee pairs foster reciprocal relationships and maximise programme benefits.

6.6.3. Formal Training Is Required for Mentors to Be Effective

Seven reviews identified the necessity of role development and training for mentors to be effective in their roles (Chen and Lou 2014; Zhang et al. 2016; Council and Bowers 2021; Kakyo et al. 2022; Anderson et al. 2023; Mínguez Moreno et al. 2023; Vlerick et al. 2024). Council and Bowers (2021) suggested training should include effective mentoring techniques, such as group teaching, case studies, bedside teaching, and problem‐solving. Kakyo et al. (2022) highlighted that training should cover interpersonal skills, conflict resolution, and managing generational differences to improve resilience in mentors and mentees. Mentor preparation should also include training in effective communication and role management, ensuring mentors maintain professionalism and clarity in their responsibilities (Mínguez Moreno et al. 2023). Council and Bowers (2021) recommended a comprehensive preparation programme encompassing role‐specific practices, such as welcoming, teaching, transition support and leadership training, all tailored to the expected programme outcomes and organisational needs. Improved mentor training is associated with increased retention and performance among new nurses (Chen and Lou 2014).

6.6.4. Theoretical Frameworks and Contextual Considerations

The complex nature of mentorship programme implementation in nursing and midwifery calls for a theoretical framework and contextual considerations (Hoover et al. 2020; Nolan et al. 2022; Vlerick et al. 2024; Baker et al. 2024). Baker et al. (2024) recommended frameworks like the Pendleton Feedback Model, which uses external feedback to support mentee development. Nolan et al. (2022) suggested incorporating caseload models to improve job satisfaction and support mentorship goals in midwifery practice and recommended that dedicated educators oversee mentorship support for newly qualified midwives, ensuring effective programme coordination.

Vlerick et al. (2024) advised a systematic decision‐making process during all stages of mentorship programme development, evaluation, and implementation, using validated reporting criteria for transparency. Hoover et al. (2020) proposed the establishment of metrics to track mentor‐mentee interactions, programme duration, and specific mentorship goals.

Additionally, employing mentors who are familiar with local contexts is beneficial, as they can provide culturally relevant and safe mentorship in both nursing and midwifery practice (Anderson et al. 2023; Biles et al. 2023). A culture of mentoring within a safe environment is crucial for organisational success, as it can also improve culturally responsive care in nursing and midwifery practice (Biles et al. 2023; Baker et al. 2024).

7. Discussion

This scoping meta‐review identified a mix of formal and informal mentorship programmes. Reviews that included formal mentorship programmes reported durations ranging from one to three years, with longer, more intensive programmes (up to 12 months or more) generally producing better outcomes (Chen and Lou 2014; Zhang et al. 2016; Council and Bowers 2021; Perumal and Singh 2022; Mínguez Moreno et al. 2023; Vlerick et al. 2024). Research suggests that programmes lasting between 6 months and a year are most effective in promoting retention and job satisfaction (Williams et al. 2018; Brook et al. 2019). Shorter programmes also yield benefits, though extended mentorship (12 months or longer) is associated with greater improvements in retention, self‐confidence, and stress management (Williams et al. 2018). In contrast, informal mentorship practices, which have naturally evolved within nursing and midwifery, continue despite the implementation of formal programmes (Hoover et al. 2020; Wissemann et al. 2022; Anderson et al. 2023; Biles et al. 2023; Giltenane et al. 2024). Informal mentorship offers flexibility and a more organic relationship‐building process but lacks the structure and resources of formal mentorship. Without structured mentorship, new graduates may experience dissatisfaction, limited learning opportunities, and inadequate support from unprepared mentors, as highlighted by Simane‐Netshisaulu et al. (2022) and Kakyo et al. (2024).

Formal mentorship programmes provide consistent support, structured feedback and measurable outcomes that benefit mentors, mentees, patients and organisations. For nurse managers, formal programmes offer an opportunity to develop leadership skills, increase job satisfaction, and strengthen future leadership within healthcare settings (Wurmser and Kowalski 2020; Alves 2021). By creating a structured, consistent experience for all participants, formal programmes ensure access to protected time, resources, and organisational feedback, supporting continuous programme improvement in nursing and midwifery (Kakyo et al. 2022; Wissemann et al. 2022; Giltenane et al. 2024). A combined approach, integrating both formal and informal mentorship practices, is recommended to capture the strengths of each model (Giltenane et al. 2024). However, limited comparative research exists on their relative effectiveness, and while structured programmes provide consistency, informal mentorship may better suit the realities of clinical practice (Hoover et al. 2020; Wissemann et al. 2022).

This review reaffirms that mentorship benefits mentees, mentors, organisations, and patient outcomes. Formal mentorship programmes contribute to mentee growth and development by enhancing clinical skills, self‐confidence, and job satisfaction, while mentors benefit from improved leadership abilities and job fulfilment (Zhang et al. 2016; Hoover et al. 2020; Council and Bowers 2021; Kakyo et al. 2022). Furthermore, the reciprocal exchange between mentors and mentees fosters professional growth for both parties, with mentors gaining insights into current clinical practices and mentees receiving hands‐on knowledge and support (Burgess et al. 2018; Merga et al. 2020; Anton 2023).

The organisational benefits of mentorship include improved retention, reduced staff turnover, enhanced recruitment, and cost savings, supporting a positive workplace culture that values collaboration and professional development (Dixon et al. 2015; Merga et al. 2020; Alves 2021). Consistent with previous findings, our review highlights that mentorship enhances organisational efficiency and patient outcomes (Williams et al. 2018; Giltenane et al. 2024). Mentorship has been shown to support job retention, professional growth, and organisational stability across various healthcare settings, including those in the UK, USA and Ireland (Alves 2021; Anton 2023; Giltenane et al. 2024).

Mentorship outcomes may vary across different healthcare settings. Hospitals typically have structured mentorship frameworks supported by institutional policies and funding, which promote retention and professional development (Council and Bowers 2021; Perumal and Singh 2022). In contrast, community‐based care settings, such as home healthcare and primary care clinics, often rely on informal or peer mentorship due to resource constraints and decentralised management (Hoover et al. 2020; Anderson et al. 2023). Research suggests that while hospital‐based mentorship programmes are more structured, community‐based settings benefit from increased autonomy and professional collaboration (Djiovanis 2023; Mínguez Moreno et al. 2023). These distinctions underscore the need for tailored mentorship strategies suited to different healthcare environments.

Management plays a crucial role in the success and sustainability of mentorship programmes, yet its influence remains underexplored in the literature (Zhang et al. 2016; Kakyo et al. 2022; Nolan et al. 2022). Engaged leadership enhances programme sustainability by ensuring adequate funding, structured policies, and protected time for mentorship activities (Perumal and Singh 2022; Wissemann et al. 2022; Anderson et al. 2023). However, barriers such as competing organisational priorities, workload pressures, and lack of managerial training in mentorship facilitation can hinder implementation (Kakyo et al. 2022; Mínguez Moreno et al. 2023). Understanding management perspectives is critical for optimising mentorship programme effectiveness. While existing research primarily focuses on mentee and mentor experiences, little attention has been given to how managers perceive mentorship, what challenges they face in supporting it, and what strategies they consider most effective (Djiovanis 2023; Baker et al. 2024). Additionally, qualitative studies involving healthcare managers could provide insights into structural changes needed to embed mentorship within workforce development strategies (Wissemann et al. 2022; Anderson et al. 2023).

Common challenges within mentorship programmes include time constraints, scheduling conflicts, insufficient organisational support, mismatched mentor‐mentee pairs, and inadequate mentor training (Zhang et al. 2016; Hoover et al. 2020; Kakyo et al. 2022). These challenges can impact mentorship effectiveness, with organisational leaders noting that competing demands and limited resources hinder the consistent implementation of mentorship practices (Merga et al. 2020). Protected time for mentoring is critical, as are resources and training to ensure mentors are prepared and supported. Successful mentorship requires that organisations recognise mentoring as essential workload, with corresponding support and remuneration (Veeramah 2012; Merga et al. 2020; Giltenane et al. 2024).

Role development training for mentors emerged as a vital component of effective mentorship. Reviews indicated that ongoing professional development, beyond initial orientation, is necessary to build mentoring skills and support mentors in their roles (Chen and Lou 2014; Merga et al. 2020; Kakyo et al. 2022). Others have suggested that training that includes interpersonal skills, conflict resolution, and communication prepares mentors to address challenges within the mentor‐mentee relationship (Latham et al. 2016; Merga et al. 2020).

To address the challenges and optimise mentorship outcomes, structured frameworks and systematic pairing processes are recommended. Compatibility in mentor‐mentee pairings, taking into account personality, learning styles, and professional goals, is essential for positive mentorship experiences (Schroyer et al. 2016; Merga et al. 2020; Giltenane et al. 2024). Integrating a learner‐centred approach within mentorship, which supports mutual growth and professional friendship, may enhance satisfaction for both mentors and mentees (Vinales 2015). A culture that values mentorship, supported by management and associated dedicated resources, is crucial for the success of these programmes (Block et al. 2005; Giltenane et al. 2024). Organisations should embed mentorship within their core practices, allocating funding, resources, and training to build a sustainable mentoring culture (Alves 2021; Giltenane et al. 2024). Using theoretical frameworks, such as the Pendleton Feedback Model, can guide effective mentorship practices in nursing and midwifery and provide consistent feedback mechanisms, supporting long‐term programme success (Baker et al. 2024; Nolan et al. 2022).

A major challenge identified in this review was the inconsistency in evaluation criteria for measuring mentorship effectiveness. Various tools have been used, including job satisfaction scales, competency measures, and mentorship perception surveys (Chen and Lou 2014; Zhang et al. 2016; Kakyo et al. 2022). However, the lack of standardised metrics hinders meaningful cross‐study comparisons. Some studies assess outcomes based on retention and professional development (Vlerick et al. 2024), while others focus on mentor perspectives or cost‐effectiveness (Djiovanis 2023). This variation highlights the need for validated, widely accepted evaluation frameworks to gain a clearer understanding of mentorship's true impact in nursing and midwifery.

Our review demonstrates the need for structured, evidence‐based frameworks to manage mentorship programmes effectively. Validated reporting criteria, transparent documentation, and metrics on mentor‐mentee interactions and programme outcomes are recommended to ensure ongoing programme refinement and sustainability (Hoover et al. 2020; Giltenane et al. 2024).

8. Study Limitations and Future Research

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first scoping meta‐review focusing on mentorship programmes in nursing and midwifery. Quality appraisal indicated that most included reviews were rated as high quality, reflecting robust methodologies and evidence. The included reviews addressed both formal and informal mentorship programmes, though only including reviews that exclusively examined formal mentorship may have yielded different insights. While no date restrictions were applied, the review was limited to English‐language sources. Including reviews published in other languages may have produced additional findings; however, this was beyond the expertise of the review team. Additionally, reviews focused on preceptorship were excluded to maintain a specific focus on mentorship. However, as preceptorship and mentorship are sometimes used interchangeably in the literature, including preceptorship during screening could have expanded the pool of relevant reviews, potentially affecting the results. Our review could be considered to have an underrepresentation of mentorship programmes in midwifery practice given the imbalance of reviews that met our inclusion criteria in relation to midwifery. Focusing solely on mentorship in midwifery may elicit different results. Future research could also focus on comparing the different challenges midwife mentors and mentees face in comparison to nurse mentors and mentees. Future research should prioritise standardised evaluation methods to enable cross‐comparisons and develop evidence‐based recommendations for midwifery mentorship frameworks.

A gap in the literature remains regarding how different leadership styles influence mentorship effectiveness. It is essential to evaluate how leadership engagement influences mentorship success and longevity, as well as to compare the effectiveness of mentorship in hospital versus community‐based care settings to identify setting‐specific challenges and solutions. Additionally, understanding the barriers that managers face in implementing and maintaining mentorship programmes, such as funding constraints, resource allocation, and staff engagement, will be crucial for improving programme effectiveness. Future studies should assess the impact of different leadership styles on mentorship success and identify strategies for supporting managers in their role within mentorship frameworks. Future research should explore how healthcare leaders integrate mentorship into organisational culture, including best practices for funding allocation, mentor selection, and programme evaluation.

The objectives of the included studies varied significantly, with some focusing on mentee outcomes such as confidence, job satisfaction, and career progression while others examined mentorship's role in workforce retention and organisational stability. A smaller subset of studies explored mentorship's cost‐effectiveness or its impact on patient care outcomes. The variation in research focus suggests a need for more comprehensive studies that consider mentees, mentors, institutions, and patient perspectives holistically as well as comparing outcomes of mentorship programmes of different durations. This could help identify an optimal mentorship duration and explore whether its effectiveness varies based on mentees' career stages.

Given the growing emphasis on mentorship as a workforce retention strategy, further research is required to understand the institutional barriers that prevent effective mentorship implementation. Further investigation into mentorship's role in workforce retention is also necessary, particularly by tracking the long‐term career trajectories of mentors and mentees across various healthcare environments.

9. Conclusion

This scoping meta‐review highlights the significant role of mentorship programmes in supporting the development, retention and job satisfaction of nurses and midwives, while also positively impacting organisational efficiency and patient outcomes. Formal, structured mentorship programmes generally produce more consistent benefits, including enhanced clinical skills, confidence and satisfaction among mentees, as well as leadership development and professional fulfilment for mentors. Informal mentorship continues to offer valuable, flexible support, particularly when used alongside formal structures, allowing healthcare organisations to benefit from the strengths of both approaches. Despite the clear benefits, effective mentorship implementation faces challenges, such as time constraints, limited organisational support, and mismatched mentor‐mentee pairings. Addressing these challenges requires organisational commitment, with protected time, resources, and ongoing mentor training seen as essential to the success and sustainability of mentorship programmes. Structured frameworks with a focus on compatible mentor‐mentee pairings are critical to fostering strong, mutually beneficial relationships. To maximise the impact of mentorship in nursing and midwifery, healthcare organisations should embed mentorship into their culture, prioritising it as an essential component of professional development and patient care quality. Adopting theoretical frameworks and systematic processes for programme management, evaluation, and improvement can help organisations maintain effective mentorship practices that support staff development and improve patient outcomes over the long term.

This review provides a deeper understanding of mentorship programme effectiveness in nursing and midwifery. Standardising evaluation methods, exploring the relationship between mentorship and patient outcomes, and integrating formal and informal mentorship strategies will be essential for developing more effective and equitable mentorship frameworks. Ultimately, ensuring a structured and supportive mentorship culture within healthcare organisations will enhance professional development and improve workforce stability.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no new datasets were generated or analysed during the current review.