4.5 Article

Global health electives: Ethical engagement in building global health capacity

期刊

MEDICAL TEACHER
卷 42, 期 6, 页码 628-635

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/0142159X.2020.1724920

关键词

Global health; medical education; low and middle-income country; qualitative research; international educational exchange

资金

  1. McLaughlin Travelling Medical Education Fund
  2. Canadian Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Scholarships
  3. Government of Canada

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: Little is known about the impact medical trainees undertaking global health electives (GHEs) have on host institutions and their communities in low-and middle-income countries. The goal of this study was to explore the relationship dynamics associated with GHEs as perceived by host stakeholders at three sites in sub-Saharan Africa. Method: This case-based interpretive phenomenological study examined stakeholder perspectives in Mwanza, Tanzania, and Mbarara and Rugazi, Uganda, where the University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada has long-standing institutional collaborations. Between September and November 2017, 33 host stakeholders participated in semi-structured interviews and 28 host stakeholders participated in focus group discussions. Participant experiences were analyzed using interpretive phenomenological techniques. Results: The findings revealed that, although GHEs are well-established and a common experience for host stakeholders, their perceptions about who visiting medical trainees (VMTs) are remains indistinct. Participants acknowledged that there are a variety of benefits to GHEs, but overall VMTs appear to benefit the most from this unique learning opportunity. Host stakeholders described significant challenges and burdens of GHEs and recommended ways in which GHEs could be improved. Conclusions: GHEs need to be designed to better embrace ethical engagement and reciprocity with host stakeholders to ensure equity in benefits and responsibilities.

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

4.5
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