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

Hill, Elaine Alais susannna orcid iconORCID: 0000-0003-4984-9446, Gurbutt, Dawne, Makuloluwa, Thamasi, Gordon, Morris orcid iconORCID: 0000-0002-1216-5158, Georgiou, Rachel, Roddam, Hazel orcid iconORCID: 0000-0002-0637-1801, Seneviratne, Sujatha, Byrom, Anna, Pollard, Kerry et al (2021) 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. Medical Teacher, 43 (11). pp. 1228-1241. ISSN 0142-159X

[thumbnail of Version of Record]
Preview
PDF (Version of Record) - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.

5MB

Official URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2021.1962832

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.


Repository Staff Only: item control page