Host clinical preceptors’ perceptions of professionalism among learners completing global health electives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aims to gain an understanding of the perceptions of host clinical preceptors in Malawi and Lesotho of the professionalism exhibited by short-term learners from the United States and Canada during short-term global health electives. METHODS: Focus group discussions were conducted with 11 host clinical preceptors at two outpatient pediatric HIV clinics in sub-Saharan Africa (Malawi and Lesotho). These clinics host approximately 50 short-term global health learners from the United States and Canada each year. Focus group moderators used open-ended discussion guides to explore host clinical preceptors' perceptions of the professionalism of short-term global health learners. Thematic analysis with an inductive approach was used to identify salient themes from these focus group discussions. RESULTS: Eleven of the 18 possible respondents participated in two focus group discussions. Adaptability, eagerness to learn, active listening, gratitude, initiative, and punctuality was cited as professional behaviors among short-term global health learners. Cited unprofessional behaviors included disregard of local clinicians' expertise and unresponsiveness to feedback. Host clinical preceptors described difficulty providing feedback to short-term global health learners and discrepancies between what may be considered professional in their home setting versus in the study settings. Respondents requested pre-departure orientation for learners and their own orientation before hosting learners. CONCLUSIONS: Both host clinical preceptors and short-term global health learners should be aware that behaviors that may be considered best practice in one clinical setting may be perceived as unprofessional in another. Future studies to develop a common definition of professionalism during short-term global health electives are merited.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".