ArticleBMJ open2026
Impact of international observerships on Ukrainian healthcare professionals during the war: a cross-sectional survey study.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Association Between External Training and Self-Reported Competence Improvement Among County Hospital Healthcare Providers: A Cross-Sectional Study from China.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis cross-sectional survey study evaluates the influence of international observerships organised by the coalition of healthcare professionals from academic institutions-the Ukrainian Alliance for Medical Exchange and Development (UA-MED)-on the professional development, knowledge transfer and clinical practice improvement of Ukrainian healthcare professionals during the war.
methodsA total of 263 international observerships were facilitated for 204 Ukrainian medical professionals across the institutions in the USA, Canada, Europe and Australia during 2022-2024. To assess the impact of these observerships, a survey was administered focusing on overall satisfaction, procedural knowledge gained and challenges faced when implementing new techniques on return. The primary outcome was the success score, defined as a composite score of implementing new procedures, initiating quality improvement projects and knowledge dissemination efforts.
resultsA total of 128 medical professionals from 45 Ukrainian institutions who completed 138 observerships in 27 institutions abroad participated in the survey (response rate of 62.7%). Observers varied by profession: surgeons (32.8%), radiation oncologists (14.8%), medical oncologists (11.7%), anaesthesiologists (11.7%) and others. Observerships lasted a median of 4 weeks; 74.1% included conference attendance. The average success and satisfaction scores were 6.5/10 and 9.3/10, respectively.The majority (92.7%) reported a shift in perception of how to practise medicine and 75.5% implemented new procedures on returning to Ukraine. Encouraged to disseminate knowledge, participants provided informal training to colleagues (67.3%), prepared presentations for their institutions (65.5%) and national conferences (32.7%), incorporated learnt materials into educational lectures (39.1%) and engaged in all the activities above (15.5%).
conclusionsThe international observerships played an important role in enhancing the reported skills and knowledge of Ukrainian healthcare professionals during the war. Improvements were reported in clinical practice, medical education and the implementation of new procedures. The success of these observerships underscores the potential for similar programmes in other low-income and middle-income countries/upper-middle-income countries.
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.