RESUMEN
Background: Since 2019, the competence center for specialist training in family medicine Bavaria (KWAB) offers an individual mentoring program to accompany specialist training in family medicine. The mentors are confidants for matters of specialist training, private practice, career development and compatibility of work and family life. The training takes place after registration via an online portal. Methods: The evaluation was conducted 24 months after the start of KWAB mentoring (06/30/2021-08/01/2021). All active participants were interviewed via online survey. In each case, separate questionnaires were developed, which inquire on the one hand about the content-related aspects of the mentoring, such as topics discussed, and on the other hand about the individual mentoring relationship, such as the interpersonal relationship. The mentees received 39 questions (34 closed, 5 open) and the mentors received 26 questions (21 closed, 5 open), which were subsequently analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: N = 30 mentors and N = 72 mentees were invited to participate in the evaluation (25 (83 %) mentors and 32 (44 %) mentees participated). More than half of the participants met each other at least twice. The main methods of communication were telephone, face-to-face meetings, and email contacts. The individual time commitment in each case was judged to be appropriate. According to the mentors, the mentees showed interest in the content of the program and demonstrated availability and commitment. All respondents indicated a high level of satisfaction with one-on-one mentoring and would recommend it to others. Conclusions: Mentors and mentees in family medicine residency reported a great benefit from the one-on-one mentoring offered and a will to continue their mentoring relationships even after the project period.
RESUMEN
Stream classification provides a means to understand the diversity and distribution of channels and floodplains that occur across a landscape while identifying links between geomorphic form and process. Accordingly, stream classification is frequently employed as a watershed planning, management, and restoration tool. At the same time, there has been intense debate and criticism of particular frameworks, on the grounds that these frameworks classify stream reaches based largely on their physical form, rather than direct measurements of their component hydrogeomorphic processes. Despite this debate surrounding stream classifications, and their ongoing use in watershed management, direct comparisons of channel classification frameworks are rare. Here we implement four stream classification frameworks and explore the degree to which each make inferences about hydrogeomorphic process from channel form within the Middle Fork John Day Basin, a watershed of high conservation interest within the Columbia River Basin, U.S.A. We compare the results of the River Styles Framework, Natural Channel Classification, Rosgen Classification System, and a channel form-based statistical classification at 33 field-monitored sites. We found that the four frameworks consistently classified reach types into similar groups based on each reach or segment's dominant hydrogeomorphic elements. Where classified channel types diverged, differences could be attributed to the (a) spatial scale of input data used, (b) the requisite metrics and their order in completing a framework's decision tree and/or, (c) whether the framework attempts to classify current or historic channel form. Divergence in framework agreement was also observed at reaches where channel planform was decoupled from valley setting. Overall, the relative agreement between frameworks indicates that criticism of individual classifications for their use of form in grouping stream channels may be overstated. These form-based criticisms may also ignore the geomorphic tenet that channel form reflects formative hydrogeomorphic processes across a given landscape.
