From Short-term Surgical Missions Towards Sustainable Partnerships

NCT04450823 | Completed Results

• 1 other identifier: 2020-01
• Study Type: observational
• Target: 61
• Locations: 1 country
• Sites: 1

Brief Summary

Introduction: Recently, the devastating consequences of neglected surgical care in global health became apparent with an estimated five billion people lacking access to safe surgical and anesthesia care. Traditionally, short-term surgical missions were the predominant strategy how surgical care was supported in Low- and Middle-Income Countries. Although surgical missions have been criticized in recent literature they are still being performed on a large scale. The aim of this study is to provide recommendations for persons and organizations involved in surgical mission on how to strengthen surgical care in LMICs in the future. Method: An online survey was developed for members of foreign teams. Data was collected on 5 topics, consisting of: 1) basic characteristics of the missions, 2) main activities, 2) follow-up and reporting, 3) the local registration process for foreign teams and 4) collaboration with local stakeholders.

Conditions

Global Surgery; Medical Missions

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (14)

• Q7: Country Where the Last Mission Took Place

  Answer on the question: What was the country where your last mission took place?

  approximately 20 minutes

• Q8: Name of the Place and Hospital Where the Last Mission Took Place

  List with names of the places and hospitals where the last mission took place

  approximately 20 minutes

• Q9: Number of Participants Per Organization

  Name of the organization that supported the last mission of the participant

  approximately 20 minutes

• Q10: Countries Where the NGOs Are Based

  List of countries where the supporting NGOs of the last mission are based

  approximately 20 minutes

• Q11: Importance of Potential Activities

  Points provided (1-4) for four potential activities of a visiting team (more points = more important activity) The points provided by all participants are summed per specific activity and the total scores are compared The four potential activities are: * Treat patients yourself * Provide surgical equipment and consumables for the local team * Provide free treatment * Facilitate teaching of local staff Scale with importance of potential activities. Maximum score: 4x58 = 232

  approximately 20 minutes

• Q12: Activities That Where Missing in Question 11.

  Respondents that were missing this activity as an option in question 11 Total number of respondents that were missing an activity: 29 Activities that were missing: * Financial collaboration * Advocacy * Academic collaboration * Sustainability * Collaboration with local staff * Follow-up

  approximately 20 minutes

• Q13. Medical Registration is Required in the Host Country

  Medical registration in the host country is required for specialists performing short-term reconstructive missions Participants of the survey were asked what they think of this statement: * Strongly agree * Agree * Neither agree nor disagree * Disagree * Strongly disagree

  approximately 20 minutes

• Q14: The Process of Obtaining Medical Registration Was Straightforward

  The Process of Obtaining Medical Registration Was Straightforward Participants of the survey were asked what they think of this statement: * Strongly agree * Agree * Neither agree nor disagree * Disagree * Strongly disagree

  approximately 20 minutes

• Q15: Collaboration

  What can you say about the collaboration between authorities in LMICs and visiting surgical teams? Participants of the survey were asked to choose one of the following answers on this question: * collaboration is present but improvement is needed * there is no collaboration and it should be developed as a priority * collaboration has no benefits nor disadvantages * collaboration will likely be more harmful than beneficial for the mission

  approximately 20 minutes

• Q16. What Should Have a Higher Priority in the Hospital of Your Last Mission?

  What should have a higher priority in the hospital of your last mission ? Respondents were asked to choose on the these two answers: Teaching in anesthesia care or teaching in surgical care

  approximately 20 minutes

• Q17. A Structured Follow-up Strategy is Required

  A structured follow-up strategy (\>6 months) of patients is required for short-term reconstructive surgical missions. Participants of the survey were asked what they think of this statement: * Strongly agree * Agree * Neither agree nor disagree * Disagree * Strongly disagree

  approximately 20 minutes

• Q18. One Month After the Mission, an Official Report is Recommended

  One month after the mission, an official report on the outcome including all complications encountered is recommended for all missions. Participants of the survey were asked what they think of this statement: * Strongly agree * Agree * Neither agree nor disagree * Disagree * Strongly disagree

  approximately 20 minutes

• Q19. A Written Long-term Strategy is Recommended at the Start of a New Project.

  A written long-term strategy (\>5 years) with clear goals, developed by the visiting team and the local actors together, is recommended at the start of a new project. Participants of the survey were asked what they think of this statement: * Strongly agree * Agree * Neither agree nor disagree * Disagree * Strongly disagree

  approximately 20 minutes

• Q20. Suggestions to Improve the Impact of Short Term Reconstructive Missions.

  What would you suggest to improve the impact of short term reconstructive missions? The answers were categorized and the three most mentioned categories are: * Teaching of local staff * Follow-up * Building sustainable partnerships The three activities were mentioned in total 68 times in the comments The distribution among the three categories is shown below

  approximately 20 minutes

Interventions

no intervention OTHER

no intervention study, survey amongst health workers

Eligibility Criteria

• Sex: all
• Healthy Volunteers: Yes
• Age Groups: Child (0-17), Adult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)
• Sampling Method: Non-Probability Sample

Study Population

An international group of members of foreign teams, that did participate in at least one short-term surgical mission in a hospital in a LMIC

You may qualify if:

• Members of foreign teams, that did participate in at least one short-term surgical mission in a hospital in a LMIC

Sponsors & Collaborators

• Global Surgery Amsterdam: lead

Study Sites (1)

Global surgery amsterdam

Amsterdam, North Holland, 1105BD, Netherlands

Location

Limitations and Caveats

An important limitation of this study is that most of the respondents are medical doctors from HICs. Another possible 'selection bias' that could have occurred concerns (over-) representation of experts from the Netherlands.

Results Point of Contact

• Title: Dr Matthijs Botman
• Organization: Global Surgery Amsterdam

matthijsbotman@gmail.com

0031648073683

Publication Agreements

• PI is Sponsor Employee: No
• Restrictive Agreement: No

Study Design

• Study Type: observational
• Observational Model: OTHER
• Time Perspective: CROSS SECTIONAL
• Sponsor Type: OTHER
• Responsible Party: PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
• PI Title: Principal investigator

Study Record Dates

• First Submitted: June 20, 2020
• First Posted: June 30, 2020
• Study Start: June 1, 2019
• Primary Completion: October 30, 2019
• Study Completion: October 30, 2019
• Last Updated: December 19, 2020
• Results First Posted: August 5, 2020

Record last verified: 2020-11

Data Sharing

• IPD Sharing: Will share
• Shared Documents: STUDY PROTOCOL
• Time Frame: ASAP

Locations

NL (1)