The Impact of Participating in Surgical Trips to Low Income, Low Resource Countries on Professional Development of Plastic Surgery Trainees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Title: The impact of participating in surgical trips to low income, low resource countries on professional development of plastic surgery trainees. Objective: Global health initiatives have increased in popularity in recent years, yet international surgical volunteerism remains controversial. Though many U.S. residencies incorporate global health initiatives, there is no standardization of the role that surgical volunteerism plays in resident education. Our goal was to evaluate the impact of surgical volunteerism on former plastic surgery trainees during and after residency. Methods: An electronic survey was distributed to 35 graduates of the plastic surgery residency program at the University of Minnesota between 1991 and 2019. The survey included 28 yes/no questions and free responses. The response rate was 100% (n = 35). Results: 34 of 35 former graduates (97.1%) participated in at least one international surgical trip during residency. All participants had exposure to cleft surgery, and 82.4% reported a predominance of cleft cases. 23.5% of graduates have continued to perform cleft surgery as part of their practice, and 47.1% have continued to embark on surgical trips post-residency. Participants reported that volunteering on international surgical trips have made them more adaptable in the operating room (91.2%), gave them a better understanding of the challenges of poverty (97.1%), and helped them to provide better care for marginalized patients in low resource settings (70.6%). One hundred percent of participants reported that international surgical trips were an important part of their residency training (n = 34). Conclusions: International surgical volunteer work can provide an invaluable experience during training, and they should be offered by plastic surgery residency programs. Supporting resident involvement in surgical trips can have long term ramifications in their careers and commitment to helping the underserved.
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) | 0.000 | 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".