Peer mentorship to build research capacity among members of the International Student Surgical Network (InciSioN): a proof of concept study.

BACKGROUND: International Student Surgical Network (InciSioN) is the largest student and trainee global surgery interest group worldwide and its members have contributed significantly to global surgery research. The InciSioN Research Capacity-Building (IReCaB) program aimed to enhance the research skills and confidence of participants via a peer mentorship model. METHODS: After an open call to members of InciSioN to enroll, participants' knowledge of research methods and the process was evaluated through a test to assign mentor and mentee roles, with mentors being those who scored ≥ 20/25. Mentors then delivered a series of four webinars to help disseminate research methodology to mentees. Finally, mentees were tested on their knowledge of research and their satisfaction with the program was also evaluated. RESULTS: Fifty-two participants, mostly from LMICs (n = 23/52, 44.2%) were enrolled, and 36 completed the program. There was a significant improvement in the proportion of questions answered correctly on the post-program test (R = 0.755, p < 0.001). Post-IReCaB test scores were greater than pre-IReCaB scores (p < 0.001). The difference in confidence after the course was also significant (p < 0.001). IReCaB participants successfully designed, implemented, and published an international cross-sectional study. CONCLUSION: This study showed improvements in participants' understanding of theoretical components of scientific research. We offer a model for research capacity building that can be implemented, modeled, and further refined by similar organizations with academic research goals.

Ethnicity-related stereotypes and their impacts on medical students: A critical narrative review of health professions education literature.

BACKGROUND: Stereotypes are oversimplified beliefs about groups of people. Social psychology concepts and theories describing ethnicity-related stereotypes are well reported in non-medical educational settings. In contrast, the full impact of stereotyping on medical students, and the extent to which they were represented in health professions education (HPE) is less well-described. Using the lens of social psychological theory, this review aimed to describe ethnicity-related stereotypes about medical students portrayed in HPE literature and the impacts of those stereotypes. METHODS: A critical narrative approach was undertaken. Social psychology concepts and theories were used as a framework through which to review the impacts of ethnicity-related stereotypes on medical students as described in HPE literature. A database search of Ovid MEDLINE, JSTOR, Project Muse, and PsychINFO was conducted to identify both theoretical and empirical articles relating to this topic in the HPE literature. Data was synthesised using thematic analysis, giving particular care to appraise the evidence from perspectives in social psychology. FINDINGS: In HPE, the experiences and impact of stereotyping on learners from minority ethnic groups was explained by social psychology concepts such as stereotype threat, stereotype reactance, attributional ambiguity, self-fulfilling prophecy, stereotype boost, stereotype lift, and stereotype masking. Stereotype boost and stereotype lift were particularly described among students who identified as White, whereas stereotype threat was described more commonly among students from minority ethnics groups. The impact of stereotyping is not just on assessment, but may be across all teaching and learning activities at medical school. INTERPRETATION: Social psychology concepts and theories can be used to describe the experience and impact of ethnicity-related stereotypes in HPE. Educators can better support learners from minority ethnic groups by self-reflecting over assumptions about individuals from minority ethnic groups, as well as minimise the impact of stereotyping and bias to create more inclusive learning environments.

Undergraduate Surgical Education: a Global Perspective.

Undergraduate surgical education is failing to prepare medical students to care for patients with surgical conditions, and has been significantly compromised by the COVID-19 pandemic. We performed a literature review and undertook semi-structured reflections on the current state of undergraduate surgical education across five countries: Egypt, Morocco, Somaliland, Kenya, and the UK. The main barriers to surgical education at medical school identified were (1) the lack of standardised surgical curricula with mandatory learning objectives and (2) the inadequacy of human resources for surgical education. COVID-19 has exacerbated these challenges by depleting the pool of surgical educators and reducing access to learning opportunities in clinical environments. To address the global need for a larger surgical workforce, specific attention must be paid to improving undergraduate surgical education. Solutions proposed include the development of a standard surgical curriculum with learning outcomes appropriate for local needs, the incentivisation of surgical educators, the incorporation of targeted online and simulation teaching, and the use of technology.

Systematic analysis of authorship demographics in global surgery.

BACKGROUND: Global surgery has recently gained prominence as an academic discipline within global health. Authorship inequity has been a consistent feature of global health publications, with over-representation of authors from high-income countries (HICs), and disenfranchisement of researchers from low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). In this study, we investigated authorship demographics within recently published global surgery literature. METHODS: We performed a systematic analysis of author characteristics, including gender, seniority and institutional affiliation, for global surgery studies published between 2016 and 2020 and indexed in the PubMed database. We compared the distribution of author gender and seniority across studies related to different topics; between authors affiliated with HICs and LMICs; and across studies with different authorship networks. RESULTS: 1240 articles were included for analysis. Most authors were male (60%), affiliated only with HICs (51%) and of high seniority (55% were fully qualified specialist or generalist clinicians, Principal Investigators, or in senior leadership or management roles). The proportion of male authors increased with increasing seniority for last and middle authors. Studies related to Obstetrics and Gynaecology had similar numbers of male and female authors, whereas there were more male authors in studies related to surgery (69% male) and Anaesthesia and Critical care (65% male). Compared with HIC authors, LMIC authors had a lower proportion of female authors at every seniority grade. This gender gap among LMIC middle authors was reduced in studies where all authors were affiliated only with LMICs. CONCLUSION: Authorship disparities are evident within global surgery academia. Remedial actions to address the lack of authorship opportunities for LMIC authors and female authors are required.