COVID-19 impact on the global neurosurgery resident training course and admission: A scoping review.

Background: This study looks at how COVID-19 affected the admission and training of neurosurgical residents worldwide. Methods: From 2019 to 2021, we reviewed multiple databases (i.e., Google Scholar, Science Direct, PubMed, and Hinari) to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on neurosurgery resident training and admission in low middle-income countries (LMICs) and high-income countries (HICs). We then utilized a Wilcoxon signed-rank test to evaluate the difference between the two LMIC/HICs and employed Levene's test to assess the homogeneity of variances. Results: There were 58 studies that met our inclusion criteria; 48 (72.4%) were conducted in HIC and 16 (27.6%) in LMIC. The admission of new residents was mostly canceled in HIC (31.7%; n = 13) and in LMIC (25%; n = 4) from 2019 to 2021 due to COVID-19. Learning modalities changed to include predominantly video conferencing (i.e., 94.7% [n = 54] of cases). Further, neurosurgery was largely restricted to emergency cases alone (79.6% [n = 39]), with only 12.2% (n = 6) elective cases. The result was a marked reduction in resident surgical training (i.e., 66.7% [n = 10] in LMIC and 62.9% [n = 22] in HIC), despite increased workloads in (i.e., LMIC [37.4%; n = 6] and HIC [35.7%; n = 15]). This was attributed to the marked reduction in the number of surgical patients allotted to each resident (i.e., LMIC [87.5%; n = 14] than HIC [83.3%; n = 35]). Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic markedly disrupted neurosurgical education globally. Although differences have been found between LMICs and HICs training, the reduction of neurosurgical case-loads and surgical procedures has significantly impacted neurosurgical training. The question remains, how can this "loss of experience" be redressed in the future?

Towards a collaborative-integrative model of education and training in neurosurgery in low and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Neurosurgery inequity between High-Income Countries and Low- and Middle-Income Countries is striking. Currently, several models of education and training are available each has advantages and limitations. Our goal is to suggest an integrative model of Education and Training with international collaboration which will assure the most cost-effective Training Model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors reviewed the literature narratively and examined in broad stroke the different existing models of international education and training programs to analyze their strengths, limitations, and cost-effectiveness in addressing the needs of Neurosurgery in Low and middle-Income Countries. RESULTS: Several international institutions have been involved in Education and Training in Global Neurosurgery. The most common models for international education include short-term surgical mission and boot camps, a full residency training program in HICs, and a full residency training Program in Local or regional World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies (WFNS) reference centers in Low and Middle-Income Countries, and online education. In Africa, both Local residency training centers and WFNS reference centers are available and provide full training programs in Neurosurgery. Among them, WFNS Rabat Training Center is the first established center in Africa in 2002. This program is supported by the WFNS Foundation and by the Africa 100 Project. Some of these education models face currently challenges such as sustainability, financial support, and ethical issues. CONCLUSION: Training neurosurgeons from Low and Middle-Income countries in local and regional WFNS Training centers might be the most cost-effective model of training that helps close the gap in neurosurgery. This training Model is duplicable and may be integrated into a global cohesive and collaborative model of education with international institutions.

Health systems strengthening, dissemination, and implementation science in Africa: quo vadis?

Implementing health-system strengthening policies remains a challenge in Africa. Past successes, predictable but unanticipated flaws, underutilization of health services, traditional medicine, global inequity and poor practice by local stakeholders are some of the reasons many African countries have made little progress towards attaining global health goals. As a result, Africa has the highest disease burden despite multiple efforts from the global health community. These raise the question: what has to change so that health systems strengthening efforts in Africa are successful?

Survey Fatigue During the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Analysis of Neurosurgery Survey Response Rates.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a surge in research activity while restricting data collection methods, leading to a rise in survey-based studies. Anecdotal evidence suggests this increase in neurosurgical survey dissemination has led to a phenomenon of survey fatigue, characterized by decreased response rates and reducing the quality of data. This paper aims to analyze the effect of COVID-19 on neurosurgery surveys and their response rates, and suggest strategies for improving survey data collection. Methods: A search was conducted on March 20, 2021, on Medline and EMBASE. This included the terms "neurosurgery," "cranial surgery," "spine surgery," and "survey" and identified surveys written in English, on a neurosurgical topic, distributed to neurosurgeons, trainees, and medical students. Results were screened by two authors according to these inclusion criteria, and included articles were used for data extraction, univariable, and bivariable analysis with Fisher's exact-test, Wilcoxon rank-sum test, and Spearman's correlation. Results: We included 255 articles in our analysis, 32.3% of which were published during the COVID-19 pandemic. Surveys had an average of 25.6 (95% CI = 22.5-28.8) questions and were mostly multiple choice (78.8%). They were disseminated primarily by email (75.3%, 95% CI = 70.0-80.6%) and there was a significant increase in dissemination via social media during the pandemic (OR = 3.50, 95% CI = 1.30-12.0). COVID-19 surveys were distributed to more geographical regions than pre-pandemic surveys (2.1 vs. 1.5, P = 0.01) and had higher total responses (247.0 vs. 206.4, P = 0.01), but lower response rates (34.5 vs. 51.0%, P < 0.001) than pre-COVID-19 surveys. Conclusion: The rise in neurosurgical survey distribution during the COVID-19 pandemic has led to survey fatigue, reduced response rates, and data collection quality. We advocate for population targeting to avoid over-researching, collaboration between research teams to minimize duplicate surveys, and communication with respondents to convey study importance, and we suggest further strategies to improve response rates in neurosurgery survey data collection.