4.5 Article

Global surgery education in Belgium: Student's knowledge, attitudes and exposure

期刊

MEDICAL TEACHER
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/0142159X.2023.2289849

关键词

Medical education; global surgery; global health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite interest in global surgery, knowledge and exposure to the field are limited among Belgian medical students. These results advocate for the inclusion of decolonised global surgery education alongside equitable international clinical internships in medical education worldwide.
PurposeUnderstanding how medical students perceive global surgery will be essential in strengthening the global surgery workforce by 2030. This study investigated the knowledge, attitudes and exposure of Belgian medical students towards global surgery and identified avenues for medical institutions to include meaningful educational opportunities.MethodsAn online survey was distributed to first to final year medical students across Belgian universities using social media. Data were collected on demographics, exposure, knowledge and attitudes towards global surgery. Odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals were calculated.ResultsA total of 304 medical students participated from four Belgian universities. A minority reported having exposure to global surgery (24.7%), and most wanted more exposure (75.3%). Almost all respondents agreed (94.4%) that it is a relevant topic for medical students, and most agreed (71%) more compulsory education on the topic is needed. Only 13 to 44% of students could correctly answer questions testing global surgery knowledge. Personal/family responsibilities were the most important barrier to pursuing global surgery careers.ConclusionsGlobal surgery knowledge and exposure is limited among Belgian medical students despite interest in the field. These results advocate for the inclusion of decolonised global surgery education alongside equitable international clinical internships in medical education worldwide.

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