4.5 Article

Host community perspectives on trainees participating in short-term experiences in global health

期刊

MEDICAL EDUCATION
卷 50, 期 11, 页码 1122-1130

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/medu.13106

关键词

-

资金

  1. Department of Human Biology, Stanford University
  2. Stanford University UAR Major Grant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

CONTEXT High-income country (HIC) trainees are undertaking global health experiences in low-and middle-income country (LMIC) host communities in increasing numbers. Although the benefits for HIC trainees are well described, the benefits and drawbacks for LMIC host communities are not well captured. OBJECTIVES This study evaluated the perspectives of supervising physicians and local programme coordinators from LMIC host communities who engaged with HIC trainees in the context of the latter's short-term experiences in global health. METHODS Thirty-five semi-structured interviews were conducted with LMIC host community collaborators with a US-based, non-profit global health education organisation. Interviews took place in La Paz, Bolivia and New Delhi, India. Interview transcripts were assessed for recurrent themes using thematic analysis. RESULTS Benefits for hosts included improvements in job satisfaction, local prestige, global connectedness, local networks, leadership skills, resources and sense of efficacy within their communities. Host collaborators called for improvements in HIC trainee attitudes and behaviours, and asked that trainees not make promises they would not fulfil. Findings also provided evidence of a desire for parity between the opportunities afforded to US-based staff and those available to LMIC-based partners. CONCLUSIONS This study provides important insights into the perspectives of LMIC host community members in the context of short-term experiences in global health for HIC trainees. We hope to inform the behaviour of HIC trainees and institutions with regard to international partnerships and global health activities.

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