M. Boulos2, C. Q. Stephens2, E. Ramly1, B. Nwomeh3, S. Orloff4, S. Krishnaswami2 1Oregon Health And Sciences University,Department Of Surgery,Portland, OR, USA 2Oregon Health And Sciences University,Division Of Pediatric Surgery,Portland, OR, USA 3Ohio State University,Department Of Pediatric Surgery,Columbus, OH, USA 4Oregon Health And Sciences University,Division Of Abdominal Organ Transplant Surgery,Portland, OR, USA
Introduction:
Global surgery has recently gained prominence within public health, and has growing interest among surgical trainees. Despite variable endorsement within academia, we hypothesized that overall Academic Global Surgery (AGS) work and institutional backing has increased over the last decade.
Methods:
We conducted a longitudinal study comparing two surveys of U.S. academic surgery department involvement in AGS. In 2009, a SUS and AAS survey explored AGS efforts, institutional support, perceived benefit to individuals and institutions, and next steps for field advancement. A follow-up survey was conducted in 2017 to evaluate interim change. Surveys were sent to program directors, chairpersons and faculty in global surgery using Survey Monkey©. Comparisons were analyzed by Chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests with significance at p≤0.05.
Results:
In 2017, 118 respondents initiated the survey compared to 117 in 2009. International partnerships increased significantly (60 vs 38%, p<.001), with programs spanning the globe and doubling in Africa (65 vs 30%, p=.001). Most AGS efforts remained structured as short-term clinical volunteerism (57 vs 47%, p=.41), with a notable rise in clinical research (57 vs 20%, p=.005) and new capacity building initiatives (49%). While trainee participation increased (44 vs 23%, p=.008), faculty involvement did not.
Significant changes in institutional support were reported, with increases in long-term time allowances and a 2-fold growth in internal funding (Table 1). Extramural funding also notably expanded. While credit toward academic promotion was more common, most institutions still had no structure to recognize faculty efforts. Significant increases were found in perception of individual professional enhancement and improvement of U.S. trainee education through AGS, but not in benefits to the institution. Perception of low and middle-income (LMIC) trainee benefit (74 vs 84%, p=.08) and provision of unavailable clinical care (64 vs 76%, p=.08) remained high. Priorities for future work included training of local workforces (94%) and validation of AGS through development of formal career tracks with contractual and financial support (84%).
Conclusion:
Over the past 8 years, AGS programs increased significantly and had provision of longer time allowances and internal funding. However, many departments remain without formal structure to facilitate longitudinal faculty efforts, despite acknowledged benefit to U.S. and LMIC trainee education. Further growth of AGS will require a clear delineation of the benefit to U.S. institutions, as ongoing institutional support will ensure sustained faculty involvement, thus enabling AGS to more closely focus on improving LMIC surgical capacity.