Johns Hopkins School of Public Health.
STAR.
Ann Glob Health. 2021 Jul 12;87(1):64. doi: 10.5334/aogh.3212. eCollection 2021.
This paper aims to depict unique perspectives and to compare and contrast three leadership programs for global health in order to enable other training institutions to design impactful curricula.
We purposively selected three global health training programs. We used a six-step curriculum development framework to systematically compare the curriculum process across programs and to identify best practices and factors contributing to the impact of each of these programs.
All three fellowship programs undertook an intentional and in-depth approach to curriculum development. Each identified competencies related to leadership and technical skills. Each defined goals, though the goals differed to align with the desired impact of the program, ranging from improving the impact of HIV programming, supporting stronger global health program implementation, and supporting the next generation of global health leaders. All programs implemented the curriculum through an onboarding phase, a delivery of core content in different formats, and a wrap-up or endline phase. During implementation, each program also utilized networking and mentoring to enhance connections and to support application of learning in work roles. Programs faced overlapping challenges and opportunities including funding, strengthening partnerships, and finding ways to engage and support alumni.
Local ownership of programs is critical, including tailoring curricula to the needs of specific contexts. Strong partnerships and resources are needed to ensure program sustainability and impact.
Global health competencies and curricula should be linked to local health system needs and contexts where learners are working.Emphasizing both individualistic and collectivist approaches to learning is important in engaging and supporting diverse global health learners.Emphasizing mentorship and opportunities to apply learning in contexts where learners are working is important in order to provide support to learners as they work to integrate what they are learning into their professional roles and activities.Partnerships and resources-including donor support-are essential to implement and sustain robust leadership curricula and to provide opportunities for experiential and didactic learning.
本文旨在描绘独特视角,并比较和对比三个全球卫生领导力计划,以使其他培训机构能够设计有影响力的课程。
我们有目的地选择了三个全球卫生培训计划。我们使用了一个六步课程开发框架,系统地比较了各个计划的课程流程,并确定了每个计划的最佳实践和促成其影响力的因素。
所有三个研究员计划都对课程开发采取了有意和深入的方法。每个计划都确定了与领导力和技术技能相关的能力。每个计划都定义了目标,但目标因与计划期望的影响相一致而有所不同,范围从改善 HIV 规划的影响、支持更强有力的全球卫生方案实施,到支持下一代全球卫生领导者。所有计划都通过入职阶段、以不同形式提供核心内容以及收尾或结束阶段来实施课程。在实施过程中,每个计划还利用网络和指导来增强联系,并支持将学习应用于工作角色。计划面临着重叠的挑战和机遇,包括资金、加强伙伴关系以及寻找吸引和支持校友的方法。
对计划的本地所有权至关重要,包括根据具体情况调整课程以满足需求。需要强大的伙伴关系和资源来确保计划的可持续性和影响力。
全球卫生能力和课程应与学习者所在的当地卫生系统需求和背景联系起来。强调个人主义和集体主义的学习方法对于吸引和支持多样化的全球卫生学习者很重要。强调指导和在学习者工作的背景下提供应用学习的机会对于为学习者提供支持很重要,因为他们努力将所学内容融入到专业角色和活动中。伙伴关系和资源,包括捐助支持,对于实施和维持强大的领导力课程以及为体验式和理论学习提供机会至关重要。