ArticleBMC surgery2025
Assessing a partnership-based model of surgical education in the Global South: a mixed methods study of the University of Global Health Equity, Rwanda.
Article in BMC surgery, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWorkforce shortages, resource limitations, and inadequate capacity in African higher education institutions are significant challenges that hinder their global competitiveness in generating knowledge products. Academic partnerships have been established to address these gaps. It is essential to evaluate these partnerships to ensure they align with principles of ethics, equity, reciprocity, and the achievement of shared goals. The University of Global Health Equity (UGHE) is an institution that employs a partnership-based model to deliver high-quality surgical education. The aim of the study was to assess its partnership based surgical education programs.
methodsThis study was conducted at UGHE using a sequential exploratory mixed-methods design that incorporates perspectives of learners, facility and partners. Qualitative interviews were conducted with students, faculty, and partners involved in UGHE’s surgical education programs within the last three years. Thematic analysis was employed to interpret the interview data. Quantitative data were summarized using descriptive statistics and presented in charts and tables with integration in a joint display.
resultsTwenty-one interviews were conducted, revealing 4 key themes from the thematic analysis: (1) A needs-based approach is used to determine the suitability of partnerships (2), UGHE and its partners worked towards equitable outcomes (3), Positive outcomes of the partnership model (4) Challenges faced in delivering surgical education using a partnership model and proposed solutions. Most participants viewed the model positively, identifying benefits such as diverse exposure, improved student experiences, faculty development, and technology transfer. However, institutional and systemic gaps that limit maximum benefits were noted. The quantitative survey had a 42% response rate with 31 responses from undergraduate and postgraduate students. All students agreed that didactic and simulation sessions led by UGHE partners enhanced their learning. A significant difference (p <.001) was found between postgraduate and undergraduate students’ responses regarding the adequacy of time for partner-facilitated sessions.
conclusionsThe results underscore the significant positive impact of UGHE’s institutional partnership-based model in delivering surgical education, especially in enhancing student learning and faculty capacity. However, communication gaps, lack of resources, and time prevent the partnership-based model from reaching full potential.
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.