Managing the Unpredictable: Recommendations to Improve Trainee Safety During Global Health Away Electives.

Background: For institutions offering global health programs, the safety of trainees during clinical rotations at international sites is paramount. Current guidelines for global health electives recommend pre-departure training and safety-net resources, yet their advice on managing unanticipated problems is limited. Objective: This report illustrates critical safety considerations requiring additional guidance for programs and students and highlights approaches that may improve trainee safety while abroad. Methods: We present a series of five cases adapted from the experiences of students traveling to and from the Yale School of Medicine between the years of 2011-2021. These cases include instances of personal injury, mental health challenges following trauma, sexual harassment, political instability, and natural disaster. For each case, we recommend ways in which programs and their participants may approach the challenges and we highlight issues requiring additional analysis. Findings: We categorized the types of trainee safety issues into three groups: personal health emergencies, individual-level stressors, and large-scale crises. Conclusion: Ultimately, we recommend that rather than solely emphasizing a universal policy, programs and trainees should also be educated on the tools and resources available for addressing unexpected emergencies.

Global health education in China's medical schools: A national cross-sectional study.

INTRODUCTION: Despite China's large and growing global presence, data about global health (GH) education (GHE) in China's medical schools are limited. We aimed to describe GHE in these schools and determine whether some may teach GH concepts without labeling them as such. METHODS: In 2019, 161 Chinese medical schools eligible for accreditation by the Ministry of Education were invited to complete a questionnaire as part of a national survey. Data were analyzed using descriptive analyses, Chi-square tests, Fisher exact tests, and logit models. RESULTS: Approximately 57% of schools completed the survey (n = 93). 33 (35.5%) indicated that GHE was included in the curriculum. Although the majority of responding schools reported the absence of GH in the curriculum, GH topics were identified at many institutions. Schools affiliated with the central government or an aspiring world-class university were more likely to report the inclusion of GHE and offered more opportunities at international away sites. CONCLUSIONS: Chinese medical schools are frequently teaching GH topics, but may not label the instruction as such. Policy-makers and educators should be equipped with a global perspective to facilitate GHE at China's medical schools and take measures to address differences between schools.

A Comparison of the Expectations and Experiences of Medical Students From High-, Middle-, and Low-Income Countries Participating in Global Health Clinical Electives.

Phenomenon: Global health education (GHE) is expanding to include socioculturally and resource-different settings, with the goal of developing a workforce with members who can promote health equity locally and globally. GHE is also no longer limited to students from high-income countries (HICs). However, it is unknown whether the motivations and experiences of medical students from HICs and from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) participating in GHE clinical electives through institutional partnerships are similar or different. Such an understanding is needed to design programs that meet the needs of participants and effectively train them in the principles and practice of global health. APPROACH: This was a cross-sectional, mixed-methods survey of LMIC students from partner sites rotating at one U.S. medical school, and U.S. students from one medical school rotating at partner sites, between 2010 and 2015. Variables included demographic characteristics of participants, components of the curriculum at the home institution, and components of the away rotation, including perceptions of its content and impact. Content analysis was used to identify themes in the responses provided to open-ended questions. FINDINGS: In all, 63 of 84 (75%) LMIC and 61 of 152 (40%) U.S. students participated. Recall of predeparture training was low for both LMIC and U.S. students (44% and 55%, respectively). Opportunities to experience different healthcare systems, resource-different settings, and cultural exposure emerged as motivators for both groups. Both groups noted differences in doctor-patient relationships, interactions between colleagues, and use of diagnostic testing. U.S. respondents were more likely to perceive differences in the impact of social determinants of health and ethical issues. Both groups felt that their experience affected their interactions with patients and perspectives on education, but U.S. students were more likely to mention perspectives on healthcare delivery and social determinants of health, whereas LMIC respondents noted impacts on career goals. Insights: These results argue that GHE is not restricted to resource-constrained settings and that students from LMICs have similar reasons for participation as those from HICs. LMIC students also identified a lack of emphasis on GHE topics like social determinants of health during GH electives, which could diminish the effectiveness of these experiences. Both U.S. and LMIC students emphasized the cultural component of their GHE experience but had different perceptions regarding core tenets of GHE, such as the social determinants of health and health equity, during these experiences.

Student Reflection Papers on a Global Clinical Experience: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Many of the 70,000 graduating US medical students [per year] have reported participating in a global health activity at some stage of medical school. This case study design provided a method for understanding the student's experience that included student's learning about culture, health disparities, exposure and reaction to a range of diseases actually encountered. The broad diversity of themes among students indicated that the GCE provided a flexible, personalized experience. We need to understand the student's experience in order to help design appropriate curricular experiences [and valid student assessment]. OBJECTIVE: Our research aim was to analyze medical student reflection papers to understand how they viewed their Global Clinical Experience (GCE). METHODS: A qualitative case study design was used to analyze student reflection papers. All 28 students who participated in a GCE from 2008-2010 and in 2014-2015 and submitted a reflection paper on completion of the GCE were eligible to participate in the study. One student did not submit a reflection paper and was not included in the study. FINDINGS: All 27 papers were coded by paragraph for reflection and for themes. System of Care/Range of Care was mentioned most often, Aids to Adjustment Process was mentioned least. The theme, "Diseases," referred to any mention of a disease in the reflection papers, and 44 diseases were mentioned in the papers. The analysis for depth of reflection yielded the following data: Observation, 81/248 paragraphs; Observation and Interpretation, 130/248 paragraphs; and Observation, Interpretation, and Suggestions for change, 36/248 paragraphs; 9 reflection papers contained 27 separate accounts of a transformational experience. CONCLUSIONS: This study provided a method for understanding the student's experience that included student's learning about culture, health disparities, and exposure and reaction to a range of diseases actually encountered. The broad diversity of themes among students indicated that the GCE provided a flexible, personalized experience. How we might design a curriculum to facilitate transformational learning experiences needs further research.

Reframing undergraduate medical education in global health: Rationale and key principles from the Bellagio Global Health Education Initiative.

Global health education (GHE) continues to be a growing initiative in many medical schools across the world. This focus is no longer limited to participants from high-income countries and has expanded to institutions and students from low- and middle-income settings. With this shift has come a need to develop meaningful curricula through engagement between educators and learners who represent the sending institutions and the diverse settings in which GHE takes place. The Bellagio Global Health Education Initiative (BGHEI) was founded to create a space for such debate and discussion and to generate guidelines towards a universal curriculum for global health. In this article, we describe the development and process of our work and outline six overarching principles that ought to be considered when adopting an inclusive approach to GHE curriculum development.

Bidirectional Exchanges of Medical Students Between Institutional Partners in Global Health Clinical Education Programs: Putting Ethical Principles into Practice.

BACKGROUND: One-third of US medical students participate in global health (GH) education, and approximately one-quarter of US medical schools have structured programs that offer special recognition in GH. GH clinical electives (GHCEs) are opportunities for students to experience a medical system and culture different from their own. GHCEs are administered through institutional affiliation agreements, often between an institution in a high-income country (HIC) and one in a low- or middle-income country (LMIC). Although these agreements suggest the exchange of students in both directions, GHCEs are traditionally characterized by students from HICs traveling to LMICs. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to investigate the availability of opportunities for students from LMICs participating in GHCEs at partner institutions in HICs and to describe the costs of these opportunities for students from LMICs. METHODS: We conducted a web-based search of 30 US institutions previously identified as having structured programs in GH. We determined which of these schools have programs that accept medical students from international schools for GHCEs, as well as the administrative requirements, types of fees, and other costs to the international student based on information available on the web. Descriptive statistics were employed for the quantitative analysis of costs. FINDINGS: We found that, although the majority of US institutions with structured GH programs sending students to sites abroad accept international students at their sites in the United States, nearly one-fifth of programs do not offer such opportunities for bidirectional exchange. We also characterized the substantial costs of such experiences, because this can represent a significant barrier for students from LMICs. CONCLUSIONS: Access to GHCEs in US partner institutions should be an important underlying ethical principle in the establishment of institutional partnerships. The opportunities available to and experiences of students from LMIC partner institutions are important areas for future GH education research.