4.6 Editorial Material

Perspective: Postearthquake Haiti Renews the Call for Global Health Training in Medical Education

Journal

ACADEMIC MEDICINE
Volume 86, Issue 7, Pages 889-891

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31821b3e14

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

On January 12, 2010, Haiti experienced one of the worst disasters in human history, a magnitude 7.0 earthquake, resulting in the deaths of approximately 222,000 Haitians and grievous injury to hundreds of thousands more. International agencies, academic institutions, nongovernmental organizations, and associations responded by sending thousands of medical professionals, including nurses, doctors, medics, and physical therapists, to support the underresourced Haitian health system. The volunteers who came to provide medical care to disaster victims worked tirelessly under extremely challenging conditions, but in many cases they had no previous work experience in resource-limited settings, minimal training in tropical disease, and no knowledge of the historical background that contributed to the catastrophe. Often, this lack of preparedness hindered their ability to care adequately for their patients. The authors of this perspective argue that the academic medicine community must prepare medical trainees not only to treat the illnesses of patients in resource-limited settings but also to fight the injustice that fosters disease and allows such catastrophes to unfold. The authors advocate purposeful attention to building global health curricula; providing adequate time, funding, and opportunity to work in resource-limited international settings; and ensuring sufficient supervision for trainees to work safely. They also call for an interdisciplinary approach to global health that both affirms health care as a fundamental human right and explores the historical, economic, and political causes of inequitable health care.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available