Collaborative healthcare education programmes for continuing professional education in low and middle-income countries: A Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) systematic review. BEME Guide No. 65

Abstract

Background: Large discrepancies exist between standards of healthcare provision in high-income (HICs) and low and middle-income countries (LMICs). The root cause is often financial, resulting in poor infrastructure and under-resourced education and healthcare systems. Continuing professional education (CPE) programmes improve staff knowledge, skills, retention, and practice, but remain costly and rare in low-resource settings. One potential solution involves healthcare education collaborations between institutions in HICs and LMICs to provide culturally appropriate CPE in LMICs. To be effective, educational partnerships must address the challenges arising from differences in cultural norms, language, available technology and organisational structures within collaborating countries. Methods: Seven databases and other sources were systematically searched on 7 July 2020 for relevant studies. Citations, abstracts, and studies were screened and consensus was reached on which to include within the review. 54 studies were assessed regarding the type of educational programme involved, the nature of HIC/LMIC collaboration and quality of the study design. Results: Studies varied greatly regarding the types and numbers of healthcare professionals involved, pedagogical and delivery methods, and the ways in which collaboration was undertaken. Barriers and enablers of collaboration were identified and discussed. The key findings were: 1. The methodological quality of reporting in the studies was generally poor. 2. The way in which HIC/ LMIC healthcare education collaboration is undertaken varies according to many factors, including what is to be delivered, the learner group, the context, and the resources available. 3. Western bias was a major barrier. 4. The key to developing successful collaborations was the quality, nature, and duration of the relationships between those involved. Conclusion: This review provides insights into factors that underpin successful HIC/LMIC healthcare CPE collaborations and outlines inequities and quality issues in reporting.

Synthesis of Existent Oncology Curricula for Primary Care Providers: A Scoping Review With a Global Equity Lens

“…Developing a globally relevant curriculum on cancer is a significant challenge needing to address multiple considerations including local cancer prevalence, differences in language, technology and drug availability, cultural norms, and health care structure between HICs and LMICs. 160 Our results revealed that most curricula were designed and implemented within HICs, with only six programs developed in LMICs. 161 Therefore, existing curricula may not be suitable to implement globally and a new cocreated curriculum, one which reconciles the issues noted above and represents the global cancer burden, is needed.…”

An Internal Medicine Learning Collaborative Facilitating a Virtual Continuing Medical Education Program in Guyana and the Wider Caribbean During the COVID-19 Pandemic

“…Hill et al described common barriers in their systematic review, including Western bias and cultural differences. Five progressive stages were identified that collaborators might need to navigate to have a successful and equal collaboration: personal values, relationships, resilience, benefits, and feed-forward [ 17 ]. We found that the systematic review by Hill et al provides an excellent framework for creating a collaborative program and can provide insight into current and past collaborations.…”

Disseminating surgical experience for sustainable benefits: the Urolink experience

“…Any educative support an HIC NGO provides to an LMIC should, therefore, aim to provide the widest education to the greatest number of people, about conditions and their treatment that are relevant to their locality. That training should be able to deliver a sustainable service, affordable within the constraints of the human and technological assets available locally [24].…”