During the last decades students have become a target group for cities like Amsterdam. They are addressed as the talented forces that cities need in order to face increasing global competitiveness, a force which itself is represented as giving cities their dynamic edge.
The internationalization of higher education has been driven by an increasingly globalized and interconnected world. One concept that embodies this internationalization process is global citizenship, which can be promoted through student mobility, internationalization-at-home, or other forms of intercultural learning. While global citizenship remains a broad and highly contested term, the increased interest of its role in higher education has inspired research in different fields. The aim of this paper is to provide a review of existing research approaches to studying global citizenship, and to formulate future research directions that may integrate these approaches into a holistic framework. By reviewing literature from different fields in the social sciences, we have identified three main research approaches: intercultural competence, social identification with a global community, and civic engagement. While each approach reflects an important dimension of global citizenship, they remain separate in the literature, complicating the understanding and application of global citizenship in higher education. Therefore, for each approach we present a general conceptualization and a brief overview of prior findings. We discuss how integrating these approaches can lead to a more holistic understanding of global citizenship and guide future avenues for research and practice in higher education.
Objective: Effective healthcare innovations are often not adopted and implemented. An implementation strategy based on facilitators and barriers for use as perceived by healthcare professionals could increase adoption rates. This study therefore aimed to identify the most relevant facilitators and barriers for use of an innovative breast cancer aftercare decision aid (PtDA) in healthcare practice. Methods: Facilitators and barriers (related to the PtDA, adopter and healthcare organisation) were assessed among breast cancer aftercare health professionals (n = 81), using the MIDI questionnaire. For each category, a backward regression analysis was performed (dependent = intention to adopt). All significant factors were then added to a final regression analysis to identify to most relevant determinants of PtDA adoption. Results: Expecting higher compatibility with daily practice and clinical guidelines, more positive outcomes of use, higher perceived relevance for the patient and increased self-efficacy were significantly associated with a higher intention to adopt. Self-efficacy and perceived patient relevance remained significant in the final model. Conclusions: Low perceived self-efficacy and patient relevance are the most important barriers for health professions to adopt a breast cancer aftercare PtDA. Practice implications: To target self-efficacy and perceived patient relevance, the implementation strategy could apply health professional peer champions.
