Availability of global health opportunities in North American Paediatric Orthopaedic Fellowship Programmes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Orthopaedic residents are increasingly seeking international health electives (IHEs) during training, many of which involve providing paediatric orthopaedic care. However, little is known about the availability of IHEs during orthopaedic fellowship training. Our study sought to assess the global health opportunities available to North American paediatric orthopaedic fellows. METHODS: We conducted an online, REDCap-based survey of paediatric orthopaedic fellowship programme directors (PDs) in the United States and Canada. The survey link was sent by the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America (POSNA) Evidence-Based Medicine Committee to all POSNA-approved paediatric orthopaedic fellowship PDs. Follow-up reminder emails were delivered at set time intervals. RESULTS: The overall response rate was 55% (26/47). Only three of 26 responding programmes (11.5%) offered a structured global health programme but 42.3% of programmes (11/26) reported fellow IHE participation within the last ten years. In all, 91% of PDs reported that fellows were extremely satisfied with their IHE, and 91% agreed that IHEs are valuable for trainees. Perceived barriers to fellow participation in IHEs included lack of funding, lack of established partner sites, lack of interest among fellows and concerns related to time away compromising clinical/call coverage. In all, 65.4% of PDs agree that IHE participation during training plays a major role in shaping fellows' future volunteer activities. CONCLUSION: There are limited global health opportunities among North American paediatric orthopaedic fellowship programmes, with only 11.5% offering a structured global health programme. Greater efforts to establish sustainable funding and international partnerships may increase opportunities for IHEs during paediatric orthopaedic fellowship training. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".