ArticleBMC medical education2025
Dutch post-graduate training in Global Health and Tropical Medicine: a qualitative study on graduates' perspectives.
Article in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe Dutch Medical Doctor-Global Health (MD-GH) prepares to work in low-resource settings (LRS) by completing a hybrid postgraduate training program of 2 years and 9 months, with clinical and public health exposure in the Netherlands and a Global Health residency in LRS. The objectives of the program include acquiring clinical skills to work as a physician in a setting with different (often more severe) pathology and limited resources. In public health teaching, emphasis is given, among other, to adapting to a culturally different environment. After graduation, MD-GH work in a wide variety of countries and settings for variable time. As part of a curriculum review, this study examines MD-GHs' perception of the quality of the training program and provides recommendations for improvement.
methodsA qualitative study was performed. Thematic analysis was applied to semi-structured interviews with 23 MD-GH who graduated between 2017 and 2021.
resultsMD-GHs predominantly worked as clinicians; several were (also) involved in management or capacity building. The clinical training program adequately addressed general skills, but did not sufficiently prepare for locally encountered, often severe, pathology. During the training, adequate supervision with clear learning goals was found pivotal to a positive learning experience. Gaps included clinical training in Internal Medicine (particularly infectious diseases and non-communicable diseases) and Paediatrics. Public Health teaching as well as cultural awareness should be intensified and introduced earlier in the program. The Global Health residency was considered important, but tasks and learning outcomes varied. Teaching, supervision, and capacity building were considered increasingly important key elements of working in LRS. Consensus favoured the current duration of the training program without extension. DISCUSSION: While the generalist nature of the MD-GH training was appreciated, the program would benefit from additional clinical training in infectious diseases, non-communicable diseases, and Paediatrics. Moving forward, emphasis should be placed on structured mentorship, enhanced public health teaching, and standardized residency programs with clearly delineated objectives to better equip MD-GH professionals for their multifaceted roles in LRS. Moreover, future revisions of the training program should incorporate the perspectives of host institutes in LRS and tailor the training needs.
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.