Visiting Trainees in Global Settings: Host and Partner Perspectives on Desirable Competencies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current competencies in global health education largely reflect perspectives from high-income countries (HICs). Consequently, there has been underrepresentation of the voices and perspectives of partners in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) who supervise and mentor trainees engaged in short-term experiences in global health (STEGH). OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to better understand the competencies and learning objectives that are considered a priority from the perspective of partners in LMICs. METHODS: A review of current interprofessional global health competencies was performed to design a web-based survey instrument in English and Spanish. Survey data were collected from a global convenience sample. Data underwent descriptive statistical analysis and logistic regression. FINDINGS: The survey was completed by 170 individuals; 132 in English and 38 in Spanish. More than 85% of respondents rated cultural awareness and respectful conduct while on a STEGH as important. None of the respondents said trainees arrive as independent practitioners to fill health care gaps. Of 109 respondents, 65 (60%) reported that trainees gaining fluency in the local language was not important. CONCLUSIONS: This study found different levels of agreement between partners across economic regions of the world when compared with existing global health competencies. By gaining insight into host partners' perceptions of desired competencies, global health education programs in LMICs can be more collaboratively and ethically designed to meet the priorities, needs, and expectations of those stakeholders. This study begins to shift the paradigm of global health education program design by encouraging North-South/East-West shared agenda setting, mutual respect, empowerment, and true collaboration.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".