IntroductionThe Dutch Medical Doctor-Global Health (MD-GH) prepares to work in low-resource settings (LRS) by completing a hybrid postgraduate training program of 2 years and 9 months, with clinical and public health exposure in the Netherlands and a Global Health residency in LRS. The objectives of the program include acquiring clinical skills to work as a physician in a setting with different (often more severe) pathology and limited resources. In public health teaching, emphasis is given, among other, to adapting to a culturally different environment. After graduation, MD-GH work in a wide variety of countries and settings for variable time. As part of a curriculum review, this study examines MD-GHs' perception of the quality of the training program and provides recommendations for improvement.MethodsA qualitative study was performed. Thematic analysis was applied to semi-structured interviews with 23 MD-GH who graduated between 2017 and 2021.ResultsMD-GHs predominantly worked as clinicians; several were (also) involved in management or capacity building. The clinical training program adequately addressed general skills, but did not sufficiently prepare for locally encountered, often severe, pathology. During the training, adequate supervision with clear learning goals was found pivotal to a positive learning experience. Gaps included clinical training in Internal Medicine (particularly infectious diseases and non-communicable diseases) and Paediatrics. Public Health teaching as well as cultural awareness should be intensified and introduced earlier in the program. The Global Health residency was considered important, but tasks and learning outcomes varied. Teaching, supervision, and capacity building were considered increasingly important key elements of working in LRS. Consensus favoured the current duration of the training program without extension.DiscussionWhile the generalist nature of the MD-GH training was appreciated, the program would benefit from additional clinical training in infectious diseases, non-communicable diseases, and Paediatrics. Moving forward, emphasis should be placed on structured mentorship, enhanced public health teaching, and standardized residency programs with clearly delineated objectives to better equip MD-GH professionals for their multifaceted roles in LRS. Moreover, future revisions of the training program should incorporate the perspectives of host institutes in LRS and tailor the training needs.
MULTIFILE
From the article: "Various programs in higher education feel a need to teach project management skills to students. Measuring the effect of education is a challenge especially when focused on behavioral skills. Research on learning gains usually turns to the method of Students Assessment of Learning Gains (SALG), which can be questioned on reliability. This article constructs five design criteria for an improved Students Assessment of Learning Gains (SALG): measure satisfaction, use pre- and posttests, use perceived ability, account for learning stage one and account for attrition. A first test on a semester of a professional master in project management yields ambiguous results. The second test with a 360 degrees measurement is performed on the same semester with different students. The post test is scheduled for June 2014, results will be reported at the World Congress."
MULTIFILE
BACKGROUND: To evaluate whether a training programme is a feasible approach to facilitate occupational health professionals' (OHPs) use of knowledge and skills provided by a guideline.METHODS: Feasibility was evaluated by researching three aspects: 'acceptability', 'implementation' and 'limited efficacy'. Statements on acceptability and implementation were rated by OHPs on 10-point visual analogue scales after following the training programme (T2). Answers were analysed using descriptive statistics. Barriers to and facilitators of implementation were explored through open-ended questions at T2, which were qualitatively analysed. Limited efficacy was evaluated by measuring the level of knowledge and skills at baseline (T0), after reading the guideline (T1) and directly after completing the training programme (T2). Increase in knowledge and skills was analysed using a non-paramatric Friedman test and post-hoc Wilcoxon signed rank tests (two-tailed).RESULTS: The 38 OHPs found the training programme acceptable, judging that it was relevant (M: 8, SD: 1), increased their capability (M: 7, SD: 1), adhered to their daily practice (M: 8, SD: 1) and enhanced their guidance and assessment of people with a chronic disease (M: 8, SD: 1). OHPs found that it was feasible to implement the programme on a larger scale (M: 7, SD: 1) but foresaw barriers such as 'time', 'money' and organizational constraints. The reported facilitators were primarily related to the added value of the knowledge and skills to the OHPs' guidance and assessment, and that the programme taught them to apply the evidence in practice. Regarding limited efficacy, a significant increase was seen in OHPs' knowledge and skills over time (X2 (2) = 53.656, p < 0.001), with the median score improving from 6.3 (T0), 8.3 (T1) and 12.3 (T2). Post-hoc tests indicated a significant improvement between T0 and T1 (p < 0.001) and between T1 and T2 (p < 0.001).CONCLUSIONS: The training programme was found to be a feasible approach to facilitate OHPs' use of knowledge and skills provided by the guideline, from the perspective of OHPs generally (acceptability and implementation) and with respect to their increase in knowledge and skills in particular (limited efficacy).
DOCUMENT
