SynthesisInternational journal of public health2019
Development of a theoretical framework for assessment of quality of primary care medical service trips in Latin America.
Synthesis in International journal of public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reliability of the Service Trip Audit Tool to assess the quality of short-term medical missions.International health · 2021Article
- Long-Term Impact of Interprofessional Medical Mission Service Trips in Sierra Leone.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Article
- Using a Health Equity Lens to Evaluate Short-Term Experiences in Global Health (STEGH).Annals of global health · 2020Article
- Global health training in Canadian family medicine residency programmes.Family medicine and community health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesShort-term medical service trips (MSTs) are a controversial modality for addressing the health of marginalized populations. Despite their prevalence, there are no routinely used evaluative frameworks. This study used stakeholder consensus to validate a literature-based framework for MST best practices.
methodsA recent systematic review was used to construct a preliminary list of best practices for short-term MSTs. We then recruited a multidisciplinary panel of academics, medical professionals, program coordinators, and non-medical volunteers for a three-round e-Delphi consensus-building exercise to review the list. A 7-point Likert scale was used, with mean scores 4-7 representing rejection, scores < 2 representing acceptance, and elements scoring in between being redistributed for discussion.
resultsThe literature review identified 30 best practices. Twenty-six stakeholders were recruited for the e-Delphi panel, with 73.1% responding to all three rounds. Eighteen elements were accepted into the final framework.
conclusionsThis framework identifies essential MST best practices and enables volunteers to compare organizations. Future research should translate this framework into an assessment tool and initiate dialogue between host communities, local clinicians, and sending organizations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30617500What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.