SynthesisAnnals of global health2022
A Systematic Review of Global Health Assessment for Education in Healthcare Professions.
Synthesis in Annals of global health, 2022. 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.
- Article
- Translating and validating the gay affirmative practice scale for nurses in mainland China.Sexual medicine · 2024Article
- Advancing Access to Quality LGBTQIA+ Health Care: Gender Discrimination, Socio-Cultural, and Mental Health Issues: A Mixed-Method Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Learner Milestones to Guide Decolonial Global Health Education.Annals of global health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveEmphasis on global health education is growing, with schools/colleges developing relevant courses, areas of concentration, and other didactic content. Organizations such as the Consortium of Universities for Global Health (CUGH) provide guidance for competencies in global health, but evaluation strategies are lacking. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to identify methods and tools utilized to assess knowledge, skills, and attitudes in global health courses for health science students.
methodsA systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. The initial search was conducted using controlled vocabularies to screen PubMed, EMBASE, Global Health using Ovid, CINAHL, and ERIC from January 1997 to March 2020. Included articles detailed students in health professions, described a didactic educational intervention related to global health, and described assessment strategies and results.
resultsA total of 12,113 titles/abstracts were identified. Based on the study inclusion criteria, 545 full texts were reviewed, and 79 full-text articles were selected for qualitative synthesis. Findings of the research revealed that cultural competence (70.9%) was evaluated most often, followed by health disparities (26.6%) and global health itself (12.7%). Most articles used quantitative assessment methods (86.1%), with surveys being the predominant method. A total of 91.1% of studies assessed perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs, while fewer evaluated knowledge (43.0%) and skills (19.0%). The most common validated tool employed was the Inventory for Assessing the Process of Cultural Competence (IAPCC).
conclusionsBased of the results of this study, the majority of the assessment tools utilized for global health education focused on cultural competence. One of the important findings of this research is the lack of validated instruments to assess students' skills in health disparities and global health. Given the recent global pandemic, these skills are essential for educating health care professionals to enhance global health.
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.