US medical specialty global health training and the global burden of disease
Author(s) -
Vanessa Kerry,
Rochelle P. Walensky,
Alexander C. Tsai,
Regan W. Bergmark,
Brian A. Bergmark,
Chaturia Rouse,
David R. Bangsberg
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
journal of global health
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.581
H-Index - 34
eISSN - 2047-2986
pISSN - 2047-2978
DOI - 10.7189/jogh.03.020406
Subject(s) - specialty , global health , curriculum , medicine , family medicine , disease burden , disease , medical education , gerontology , public health , psychology , nursing , pathology , pedagogy
Background Rapid growth in global health activity among US medical specialty education programs has lead to heterogeneity in types of activities and global health training models. The breadth and scope of this activity is not well chronicled. Methods Using a standardized search protocol, we examined the characteristics of US medical residency global health programs by number of programs, clinical specialty, nature of activity (elective, research, extended curriculum based field training), and geographic location across seven different clinical medical residency education specialties. We tabulated programmatic activity by clinical discipline, region and country. We calculated the Spearman's rank correlation coefficient to estimate the association between programmatic activity and country–level disease burden. Results Of the 1856 programs assessed between January and June 2011, there were 380 global health residency training programs (20%) working in 141 countries. 529 individual programmatic activities (elective–based rotations, research programs, extended curriculum–based field training, or other) occurred at 1337 specific sites. The majority of the activities consisted of elective–based rotations. At the country level, disease burden had a statistically significant association with programmatic activity (Spearman's ρ = 0.17) but only explained 3% of the total variation between countries. Conclusions There were a substantial number of US medical specialty global health programs, but a relative paucity of surgical and mental health programs. Elective–based programs were more common than programs that offer longitudinal experiences. Despite heterogeneity, there was a small but statistically significant association between program location and the global burden of disease. Areas for further study include the degree to which US–based programs develop partnerships with their program sites, the significance of this activity for training, and number and breadth of programs in medical specialty global health education in other countries around the world.
Accelerating Research
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom
Address
John Eccles HouseRobert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom