International health electives: thematic results of student and professional interviews
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to explore the complexities (including harms and benefits) of international health electives (IHEs) involving medical trainees. This exploration contributes to the ongoing debate about the goals and implications of IHEs for medical trainees. METHODS: This qualitative study used anonymous, one-to-one, semi-structured interviews. All participants had previous international health experiences. Between September 2007 and March 2008, we interviewed a convenience sample of health care professionals (n=10) and medical trainees (n=10). Using a modified grounded theory methodology, we carried out cycles of data analysis in conjunction with data collection in an iterative and constant comparison process. The study's thematic structure was finalised when theme saturation was achieved. RESULTS: Participants described IHEs in both negative and positive terms. IHEs were described as unsustained short-term contributions that lacked clear educational objectives and failed to address local community needs. Ethical dilemmas were described as IHE challenges. Participants reflected that many IHEs included aspects of medical tourism and the majority of participants described the IHE in negative terms. However, a few participants acknowledged the benefits of the IHE. Specifically, it was seen as an introduction to a career in global health and as a potential foundation for more sustainable projects with positive host community impacts. Finally, despite similar understandings among participants, self-awareness of medical tourism was low. CONCLUSIONS: International health electives may include potential harms and benefits for both the trainee and the host community. Educational institutions should encourage and support structured IHEs for trainee participation. We recommend that faculties of medicine and global health educators establish pre-departure training courses for trainees and that IHE opportunities have sufficient structures in place to mitigate the negative effects of medical tourism. We also recommend that trainees be provided with opportunities to conduct self-reflection and critically assess their IHE experiences.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.036 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".