4.2 Article

Global Health in the 21st Century: Equity in Surgical Training Partnerships

期刊

JOURNAL OF SURGICAL EDUCATION
卷 76, 期 1, 页码 9-13

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2018.07.010

关键词

global health; health equity; postgraduate; medical education; curriculum

向作者/读者索取更多资源

INTRODUCTION: Safe and affordable surgical care has been recognized as an important component of global health. One of the challenges in providing safe and affordable surgical care is the shortage of trained surgical workforce. Partnerships have developed between institutions in high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to strengthen and expand surgical education in LMICs. As these relationships evolve, emphasis needs to focus on development of equitable, bilateral partnerships. METHODS: We reviewed different global surgery education partnerships to describe key components and features of successful partnerships. We then provide a framework for equitable global surgical training partnerships. RESULTS: Key features of equitable global surgical education partnerships included an alignment with local priorities, long term collaborations, and locally integrated, competency-based training. To develop a partnership, both parties must meet and perform a needs assessment of the LMIC institution and jointly agree how the partnership can best address these needs. Both the HIC and LMIC institutions must clearly define their goals and expectations. Ideally, a set of output measures will be defined to assess the success of the partnership. CONCLUSIONS: Improving surgical education in LMIC countries is an integral part of health equity in global surgery. Key components of equitable education partnerships focus on local ownership and long-term and expectations for the partnership. Equity is essential and unequal relationships must be avoided. ((C) 2018 Association of Program Directors in Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据