Scholarlink

Background <p>Global health electives (GHEs) are increasingly integrated into residency and fellow training programs within the United States, offering benefits for trainees and institutions. However, limited data exists on the investment host institutions make to provide these experiences. This study aimed to explore the costs, benefits, and contextual factors that influence whether hosting visiting physician trainees is viewed as a worthwhile investment by GHE host sites.</p> Methods <p>We conducted a qualitative study using reflexive thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with 11 physician educators from nine designated Mayo International Health Program (MIHP) global partner sites across Africa, Asia, and Central and South America. Participants included both national and expatriate physicians with longstanding institutional partnerships with Mayo Clinic. Interviews were transcribed, coded, and analyzed to identify key themes related to host experiences.</p> Results <p>All participants acknowledged both the costs and benefits of hosting physician trainees on GHEs. Costs included time spent coordinating logistics, orienting and supervising trainees, and providing housing and resources, often within resource-constrained settings. Benefits included clinical workload support, educational contributions, staff morale enhancement, and institutional capacity strengthening. Perceptions of reciprocity varied where some felt their institution and the visiting trainee benefited equally, while others believed the visiting trainee gained more. Hosts identified strategies to improve reciprocity, such as stronger institutional partnerships, provision of relevant supplies, and bi-directional exchange programs. Three contextual factors strongly influenced whether hosts viewed their investment as worthwhile: trainees’ language proficiency, level of training and engagement, and rotation duration. Despite costs noted, many hosts described GHE experiences as a meaningful investment when trainees were well-prepared, engaged, and stayed for at least one month.</p> Conclusions <p>Host institutions recognize value in hosting GHEs, yet this value is contingent upon thoughtful elective design. Trainee characteristics and rotation logistics significantly impact perceived reciprocity and institutional benefit. To ensure GHEs are ethical and sustainable, sending institutions should prioritize longer rotations, match trainees’ experience to host capacity, direct pre-departure planning, and foster ongoing, reciprocal partnerships. Continuing to explore host perspectives is critical to developing more equitable and impactful global health training programs for all parties.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Host site experiences with resident and fellow global health electives: a qualitative study

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月7日

查看全文
  • Robyn L. Kuchler,
  • Stephen P. Merry,
  • Adam P. Sawatsky

摘要

Background

Global health electives (GHEs) are increasingly integrated into residency and fellow training programs within the United States, offering benefits for trainees and institutions. However, limited data exists on the investment host institutions make to provide these experiences. This study aimed to explore the costs, benefits, and contextual factors that influence whether hosting visiting physician trainees is viewed as a worthwhile investment by GHE host sites.

Methods

We conducted a qualitative study using reflexive thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with 11 physician educators from nine designated Mayo International Health Program (MIHP) global partner sites across Africa, Asia, and Central and South America. Participants included both national and expatriate physicians with longstanding institutional partnerships with Mayo Clinic. Interviews were transcribed, coded, and analyzed to identify key themes related to host experiences.

Results

All participants acknowledged both the costs and benefits of hosting physician trainees on GHEs. Costs included time spent coordinating logistics, orienting and supervising trainees, and providing housing and resources, often within resource-constrained settings. Benefits included clinical workload support, educational contributions, staff morale enhancement, and institutional capacity strengthening. Perceptions of reciprocity varied where some felt their institution and the visiting trainee benefited equally, while others believed the visiting trainee gained more. Hosts identified strategies to improve reciprocity, such as stronger institutional partnerships, provision of relevant supplies, and bi-directional exchange programs. Three contextual factors strongly influenced whether hosts viewed their investment as worthwhile: trainees’ language proficiency, level of training and engagement, and rotation duration. Despite costs noted, many hosts described GHE experiences as a meaningful investment when trainees were well-prepared, engaged, and stayed for at least one month.

Conclusions

Host institutions recognize value in hosting GHEs, yet this value is contingent upon thoughtful elective design. Trainee characteristics and rotation logistics significantly impact perceived reciprocity and institutional benefit. To ensure GHEs are ethical and sustainable, sending institutions should prioritize longer rotations, match trainees’ experience to host capacity, direct pre-departure planning, and foster ongoing, reciprocal partnerships. Continuing to explore host perspectives is critical to developing more equitable and impactful global health training programs for all parties.