Gaps in studies of global health education: an empirical literature review.
Gaps in studies of global health education: an empirical literature review.
复制标题
DOI：
10.3402/gha.v8.25709
复制
发表时间：
2015
影响因子：
2.6
通讯作者：
Wang J
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Liu Y;Zhang Y;Liu Z;Wang J
全球健康激发了许多学生，并吸引了许多院系的兴趣，从而启动了许多关于全球健康研究和教育的学术项目的建立。全球健康教育反映了对医学教育中社会责任的日益重视。这项研究旨在找出全球健康教育研究中的差距。使用布尔搜索技术对实证研究进行了批判性的文献回顾。总共确定了238篇文章，其中包括16篇综述。自2010年以来，关于全球健康教育的研究数量激增。总结了四个方面的差距。首先，94.6%的全球健康教育研究是在北美和欧洲国家进行的，其中65.6%在美国进行，其次是加拿大(14.3%)和英国(9.2%)。只有七项研究(2.9%)在亚洲国家进行，五项(2.1%)在大洋洲进行，两项(0.8%)在南美洲/加勒比国家进行。定性研究154篇(64.4%)，研究定量研究26.8%。其次，选修课和培训或计划是全球健康教育最常用的方法。第三，全球健康教育的标准化存在差距。最后，它主要针对医学生、住院医生和医生。它没有满足所有医学相关专业学生进行全球健康教育的要求。全球健康教育将是实现健康公平、减少健康差距以及未来职业生涯的潜在有影响力的工具。现在是建立和扩大全球卫生教育的时候了，特别是在发展中国家。全球健康教育应融入初级医学教育。建议采用跨学科方法和跨专业协作。应该倡导发达国家在全球健康教育方面的合作和支持，以缩小差距，创造更多的互惠互利。
Global health has stimulated a lot of students and has attracted the interest of many faculties, thereby initiating the establishment of many academic programs on global health research and education. global health education reflects the increasing attention toward social accountability in medical education. This study aims to identify gaps in the studies on global health education. A critical literature review of empirical studies was conducted using Boolean search techniques. A total of 238 articles, including 16 reviews, were identified. There had been a boom in the numbers of studies on global health education since 2010. Four gaps were summarized. First, 94.6% of all studies on global health education were conducted in North American and European countries, of which 65.6% were carried out in the United States, followed by Canada (14.3%) and the United Kingdom (9.2%). Only seven studies (2.9%) were conducted in Asian countries, five (2.1%) in Oceania, and two (0.8%) in South American/Caribbean countries. A total of 154 studies (64.4%) were qualitative studies and 64 studies (26.8%) were quantitative studies. Second, elective courses and training or programs were the most frequently used approach for global health education. Third, there was a gap in the standardization of global health education. Finally, it was mainly targeted at medical students, residents, and doctors. It had not granted the demands for global health education of all students majoring in medicine-related studies. Global health education would be a potentially influential tool for achieving health equity, reducing health disparities, and also for future professional careers. It is the time to build and expand education in global health, especially among developing countries. Global health education should be integrated into primary medical education. Interdisciplinary approaches and interprofessional collaboration were recommended. Collaboration and support from developed countries in global health education should be advocated to narrow the gap and to create further mutual benefits.