Comparing high-income and low- and middle-income country host perspectives on students’ short-term experiences in global health: a qualitative analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Thousands of students travel yearly from high-income countries (HICs) to low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) for short-term experiences in global health, with much less travel by LMIC students to HICs. Little structured research has been done to seek host perspectives, particularly from LMICs, on what they would like to teach learners. By seeking LMIC host perspectives, we aimed to improve global health pedagogy, curriculum design, assessment, and experiential learning, better meeting host goals and expectations. Our additional aim was to improve mutual respect and trust, share power honestly and ethically, and facilitate more genuinely collaborative agenda setting between LMIC and HIC partners. Methods We previously did a hybrid quantitative and qualitative web-based survey from Sept 1, 2015, to Dec 31, 2015, exploring global health competencies with particular attention to LMIC hosts supervising and housing trainees in short-term experiences in global health. 274 host perspectives were gleaned from 38 countries speaking 22 languages. In this qualitative study, we analysed open-ended questions and responses not previously covered from the same survey data. 97 of 274 responses were selected for qualitative analysis, conducted via content analysis and coding, ensuring inter-rater reliability, and comparing HIC and LMIC responses. Findings Four core themes emerged in our content analysis regarding desired global health core competencies: most important global health core competencies; biggest mistakes students make; biggest challenges students face; and what students should remember most in experiential global health education. Interpretation Our qualitative study revealed intriguing comparative results addressing core controversies in global health, such as who "does global health" and where one must be to "do global health". Moving forward we hope this initial survey research will facilitate more genuinely collaborative agenda setting between North–South and East–West partners. Funding Child Family Health International.
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 | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".