Introduction Coaching promotes self-directed learning, reflective practice, and professional development. Previous research has focused on senior medical students or established programs, leaving a limited understanding of how students experience coaching during the initiation of a new program. We sought to explore first- and second-year medical students’ experiences in a newly established longitudinal coaching program oriented around the Master Adaptive Learner model, and to identify factors that support or hinder program effectiveness.Methods We conducted qualitative semi-structured focus group interviews with first- and second-year medical students within the coaching program. Audio recordings were de-identified, transcribed, and analyzed using thematic analysis informed by descriptive phenomenology. Three investigators independently coded transcripts, iteratively refining a codebook and achieving thematic saturation.Results We held 7 focus groups with 20 participants. Three themes were identified: (1) Relational dynamics, emphasizing trust, personal connection, and the value of longitudinal interaction; (2) Role of coach in supporting education, highlighting coaches’ neutrality, facilitation of self-reflection, and perceived educational benefits; and (3) Early program challenges, including prescriptive elements, communication barriers, and variability between coaches. Participants valued the relational aspects more than the structured Master Adaptive Learner-aligned reflective exercises, particularly during the pre-clerkship phase.Discussion Early-stage coaching programs are most effective when they prioritize relationship-building and psychological safety: without consistently strong relational foundations, structured MAL-oriented reflection may not be feasible or salient for students. For institutions implementing new coaching programs, our findings suggest four actionable priorities: (1) invest early in relational groundwork; (2) clearly differentiate coaching from directive developmental relationships like advising or mentoring; (3) minimize overly prescriptive structures during launch phases, and (4) encourage MAL-oriented reflective work only after trust and psychological safety have been firmly established.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Branzetti et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: