Dataset Information

Limited availability of global health opportunities in US orthopaedic trauma fellowship programs.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Orthopaedic residents are increasingly seeking international health electives (IHEs) during training, and many such experiences involve providing orthopaedic trauma care. However, little is known about the availability of IHEs during orthopaedic trauma fellowship training. The purpose of our study is to assess the global health opportunities available to US orthopaedic trauma fellows.

Method

We conducted an online, Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap)-based survey of orthopaedic trauma fellowship program directors (PDs) in the United States. The survey link was sent by the Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA) Fellowship Committee to all US OTA-approved orthopaedic trauma fellowship PDs. Follow-up reminder e-mails were delivered at set time intervals from baseline over a period of 4 weeks.

Results

The overall response rate was 80% (43/54). Only 3 of 43 responding programs (7%) offer a structured global health program, but over the last 10 years, 12.5% of the remaining programs (5/40) have had a fellow participate in an IHE during fellowship training. Around 100% of PDs reported fellow satisfaction with their IHEs, and all PDs agreed that the educational experience provided by their fellows' IHE participation was valuable. Among programs with no recent fellow IHE participation and without a structured global health program, 9% of PDs (3/35) expect to institute such a program. Lack of funding, lack of established international partner sites, and fellow time away were the most common perceived barriers to IHE participation. A total of 54% of PDs agree that participation in an IHE during training plays a major role in shaping fellows' future professional and volunteer activities.

Conclusion

There are limited global health opportunities among US orthopaedic trauma fellowship programs, with only 7% (3/43) offering a structured global health program. Perceived barriers include lack of funding, lack of established partner sites, and concerns related to clinical/call coverage. Greater efforts to establish sustainable funding and international partnerships may increase opportunities for IHEs during orthopaedic trauma fellowship training.

SUBMITTER: Shaw J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7997153 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: There is growing interest in global health among medical trainees. Medical schools and residencies are responding to this trend by offering global health opportunities within their programs. Among United States (US) graduating pediatric residents, 40% choose to subspecialize after residency training. There is limited data, however, regarding global health opportunities within traditional post-residency, subspecialty fellowship training programs. The objectives of this study were to explore the availability and type of global health opportunities within Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited pediatric subspecialty fellowship training programs, as noted by their online report, and to document change in these opportunities over time. METHODS: The authors performed a systematic online review of ACGME-accredited fellowship training programs within a convenience sample of six US pediatric subspecialties. Utilizing two data sources, the American Medical Association-Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database Access (AMA-FREIDA) and individual program websites, all programs were coded for global health opportunities and opportunity types were stratified into predefined categories. Comparisons were made between 2008 and 2011 using Fisher exact test. All analyses were conducted using SAS Software v. 9.3 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). RESULTS: Of the 355 and 360 programs reviewed in 2008 and 2011 respectively, there was an increase in total number of programs listing global health opportunities on AMA-FREIDA (16% to 23%, p=0.02) and on individual program websites (8% to 16%, p=0.004). Nearly all subspecialties had an increased percentage of programs offering global health opportunities on both data sources; although only critical care experienced a significant increase (p=0.04, AMA-FREIDA). The types of opportunities differed across all subspecialties. CONCLUSIONS: Global health opportunities among ACGME-accredited pediatric subspecialty fellowship programs are limited, but increasing as noted by their online report. The availability and types of these opportunities differ by pediatric subspecialty.

Project description:ObjectiveWe surveyed Orthopaedic Surgery Residency (OSR) programs to determine international opportunities by the academic institutional region within the United States, location of the international experience, duration, residency program year (PGY), funding source, and resident participation to date.DesignWe emailed a survey to all OSR programs in the United States to inquire about global opportunities in their residency programs. Further contact was made through an additional e-mail and up to three telephone calls. Data were analyzed using descriptive and chi-square statistics. This study was institutional review board exempt.SettingThis research study was conducted at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, a tertiary care facility in conjunction with the University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Medicine.ParticipantsThe participants of this research study included program directors and coordinators of all OSR programs (185) across the United States.ResultsA total of 102 OSR programs completed the survey (55% response rate). Notably, 50% of the responding programs offered a global health opportunity to their residents. Of the institutions that responded, those in the Midwest or South were more likely to offer the opportunity than institutions found in other US regions, although regional differences were not significant. Global experiences were most commonly: in Central or South America (41%); 1 to 2 weeks in duration (54%); and during PGY4 or PGY5 (71%). Furthermore, half of the programs provided full funding for the residents to participate in the global experience. In 33% of the programs, 10 or more residents had participated to date.ConclusionsInterest in global health among medical students is increasing. OSR programs have followed this trend, increasing their global health opportunities by 92% since 2015. Communicating the availability of and support for international opportunities to future residents may help interested students make informed decisions when applying to residency programs.

Project description:Rationale: Clinical and research training opportunities in global health are of increasing interest to medical trainees, but little is known about such opportunities in U.S.-based pulmonary and pulmonary/critical care medicine (PCCM) fellowship programs.Objectives: Summarize currently available global health-related training opportunities and identify potential barriers to implementing global health curricula among U.S.-based PCCM fellowship programs.Methods: We sent a confidential, online, targeted needs assessment to PCCM fellowship program directors and associate program directors. Data collected included program demographics, currently available global health-related clinical and research training opportunities, potential barriers to the implementation of global health-related programmatic content, and perceived interest in global health-related training opportunities by current and/or prospective trainees. To evaluate for nonresponse bias, we performed an online search to identify global health-related training opportunities offered by nonresponding programs.Results: Out of 171 surveyed programs, 63 PCCM fellowship programs (37%) provided survey responses. Most responses (n = 56, 89%) were from combined PCCM training programs; 66% (n = 40) of programs offered at least one component of global health-related clinical or research training. Overall, 27% (n = 17) had a Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award Institutional Research Training Grant (National Institutes of Health T32), 73% (n = 46) had fewer than 35 faculty members, and 51% (n = 32) had at least one faculty member conducting global health-focused research. Most responding programs (66%, n = 40) offered at least one global health-related educational component. Among programs that would like to offer global health-related training components, the most common barriers included competing priorities for lecture content and a lack of in-division mentors with global health experience, a champion for global health-related activities, and established partnerships outside the United States.Conclusions: PCCM program leaders are interested in offering global health-related training opportunities, but important barriers include lack of mentorship, dedicated fellowship time, and established global partnerships. Future research is needed to better understand global health-related interests and training needs of incoming fellows and to design creative solutions for providing global health-related training across academic institutions with variable global health-related training capacities.

Project description:PurposeTo survey orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship program directors to determine the current research productivity of both fellows and faculty in Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship programs in the United States.MethodsAn anonymous 18-question survey was distributed via e-mail to all 95 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship program directors in the United States. Descriptive statistics were used for data analysis. Questions included whether fellows are required to complete a certain number of projects during their fellowship year and whether fellows have protected research time.ResultsOf the programs, 31 (33%) responded to the survey. Twenty-four programs (80%) require fellows to complete 1 to 4 projects. Twenty-one programs (71%) provide 4 to 8 hours of weekly protected research time. Twenty-four programs (77%) publish 1 to 2 manuscripts per fellow during the fellowship. Twenty-two programs (71%) have fellows work on 1 to 2 projects at a time. Annually, 26 programs (84%) give 0 to 5 podium presentations, 24 (80%) present 0 to 5 posters, and 15 (48%) report 0 to 5 publications. Twenty-four programs (77%) have research fellows and/or assistants to help with research. The presence of dedicated research assistants and more than 25 annual fellowship program publications were found to be useful screening data for more than 2 and more than 4 average publications per fellow, respectively.ConclusionsThe research productivity of orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship programs may be an important consideration for applicants. Applicants who desire to be productive in research during their fellowship year should consider programs with dedicated research assistants and/or programs that publish more than 25 times annually.Clinical relevanceThis is a descriptive epidemiologic study that helps define the research productivity landscape in orthopaedic sports medicine fellowships. A more accurate understanding of sports medicine fellowship research experience may facilitate a better match between a program's research expectations and an applicant's research interests.

Project description:Purpose To determine the proportion of faculty members at the top orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship programs who completed a fellowship at one of these programs themselves, how many remained at their fellowship training programs as an attending (institutional loyalty), where they most commonly completed residency and medical school, and to characterize their research productivity. Methods The fellowship programs of current orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship faculty members at each of the top 10 orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship programs (based on a recent study) were determined by searching program websites or contacting program coordinators. For each program, we determined the proportion of faculty members who completed fellowship at one of these top 10 programs and the proportion who remained at their fellowship program as an attending. Residency and medical school information was found for faculty members on their professional websites. To determine research output, each faculty member’s name was searched within the Scopus database and the number of publications was recorded. Results Data were obtained from each of the top 10 sports medicine fellowship programs. Fifty-eight of 82 (70.7%) fellowship faculty members completed fellowship at a top 10 program. Regarding institutional loyalty, 36 of 82 (43.9%) fellowship faculty members remained at the program where they trained, with one program led entirely by alumni. The average number of publications per faculty member was 130.6, with a range among the 10 programs of 23-355.8. Conclusions Most orthopaedic sports medicine fellowship faculty at the top perceived training programs completed a fellowship at one of these same programs and maintain high research productivity. Clinical Relevance Orthopaedic surgery trainees who wish to become faculty members at one of the top orthopaedic sports medicine training programs should aim to match into one of these top programs when applying for fellowship.

Project description:IntroductionThe purpose of this study was to determine which components of sports medicine fellowships are most important to applicants when reviewing fellowship websites during the application process.MethodsAn anonymous survey was distributed to 492 fellowship applicants from the 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 cycles. The survey included questions about the importance of including components of fellow education, recruitment, and experience on program websites. The weighted average of responses determined each component's rank, with 5 being "very important" and 1 being "not at all important." Responses were analyzed by application cycle, current position, and sex using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test.ResultsSixty-five applicants participated in the survey and completed the demographics section, resulting in a 13.2% response rate. According to participants, the most important components to include on fellowship websites were exposure to advanced operative sports medicine techniques (weighted average, 4.62), complexity of cases performed (4.52), and number of cases performed (4.50). Analysis demonstrated statistically significant differences in opinion between application cycles for flexibility for conducting a remote interview (P = .0074), jobs obtained by previous fellows (P = .019), national rank of department (P = .021), program's geographic location (P = .026), protected academic time (P = .038), current positions for criteria for fellows' performance evaluations (P = .028), program's geographic location (P = .0097), and protected academic time (P = .0079). There were statistically significant differences in opinion between current positions regarding flexibility for conducting a remote interview (P = .0026), jobs obtained by previous fellows (P = .012), and national rank of department (P = .0013).ConclusionsOrthopaedic sports medicine fellowship applicants believe that it is most important to include information about the volume and complexity of fellows' cases and their day-to-day commitments on program websites.Clinical relevanceThis information would enable applicants to identify programs that will support professional development and allow program directors to communicate expectations.