ArticleAnnals of global health2020
Using a Health Equity Lens to Evaluate Short-Term Experiences in Global Health (STEGH).
Article in Annals of global health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ghanaian views of short-term medical missions: The pros, the cons, and the possibilities for improvement.Globalization and health · 2021Article
- Building Effective and Equitable Global Midwifery Collaborations: Research, Education, and Clinical Learning.Journal of midwifery & women's healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The growing popularity of short-term experiences in global health (STEGH) has given rise to increasing criticism around their purported benefits and outcomes. With the global health and development community's growing focus on improving population health and equity worldwide as outlined in the United Nation's Sustainable Development Goals, there is a growing opportunity to examine and optimize the conduct of STEGH using an outcomes and equity focused lens. Objectives: This viewpoint aims to develop a framework that can be used to plan and evaluate STEGH on outcomes underpinned by a health equity focus. Methods: Drawing on logic model theory, the analysis first identifies extant issues and their drivers around the planning, implementation, and evaluation of tradition STEGH (focused on clinical service provision.) The analysis then explores various definitions of health equity, settling on a broad definition around context that promotes health for all as opposed to equity of access to healthcare services. With that definition as the ultimate benchmark of success, the analysis then proposes questions that can be used to determine how and when a STEGH might best be deployed to meet that goal. Findings: Traditional reliance on process outputs from service-based approaches have historically limited an understanding of if and how STEGH might advance health equity. Using an outcomes-focused approach identifies critical questions around the value of such experiences, when weighed against a broad definition of equity and other key global health themes such as sustainability, cultural humility, and impact. Measuring STEGH against the goal of improving population health status and equity worldwide allows careful consideration of the appropriateness and effectiveness of such efforts on their own and in concert with other interventions. Conclusions: The extent to which health equity is advanced should be the ultimate metric used to evaluate not only STEGH, but any global health endeavours.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.