An OxPLORE Initiative Evaluating Children's Surgery Resources Worldwide: A Cross-sectional Implementation of the OReCS Document.

BACKGROUND: The Global Initiative for Children's Surgery (GICS) group produced the Optimal Resources for Children's Surgery (OReCS) document in 2019, listing standards of children's surgical care by level of healthcare facilities within low resource settings. We have previously created and piloted an audit tool based on the OReCS criteria in a high-income setting. In this study, we aimed to validate its use in identifying gaps in children's surgery provision worldwide. METHODS: Our OReCS audit tool was implemented in 10 hospitals providing children's surgery across eight countries. Collaborators were recruited via the Oxford Paediatrics Linking Our Research with Electives (OxPLORE) international network of medical students and trainees. The audit tool measured a hospital's current capacity for children's surgery. Data were analysed firstly to express the percentage of 'essential' criteria met for each specialty. Secondly, the 'OxPLORE method' was used to allocate each hospital specialty a level based on procedures performed and resources available. A User Evaluation Tool (UET) was developed to obtain feedback on the ease of use of the tool. RESULTS: The percentage of essential criteria met within each category varied widely between hospitals. The level given to hospitals for subspecialties based on OReCS criteria often did not reflect their self-defined level. The UET indicated the audit tool was practicable across multiple settings. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend the use of the OReCS criteria to identify areas for local hospital improvement and inform national children's surgical plans. We have made informed suggestions to increase usability of the OReCS audit tool.

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.