Search

Introduction: Health professions education (HPE) has adopted the conceptualization of validity as an argument. However, the theoretical and practical aspects of how validity arguments should be developed, used and evaluated in HPE have not been deeply explored. Articulating the argumentation theory undergirding validity and validation can help HPE better operationalise validity as an argument. To better understand this, the authors explored how HPE validity scholars conceptualise assessment validity arguments and argumentation, seeking to understand potential consequences of these views on validation practices. Methods: The authors used critical case sampling to identify HPE assessment validity experts in three ways: (1) participation in a prominent validity research group, (2) appearing in a bibliometric study of HPE validity publications and (3) authorship of recent HPE validity literature. Qualitative semi‐structured interviews were conducted with 16 experts in HPE assessment validity from four different countries. The authors used reflexive thematic analysis to develop themes relevant to their research question. Results: The authors developed three themes grounded in participants' responses: (1) In theory, HPE validity is a social and situated argument. (2) In practice, the absence of audience and evaluation stymies the social nature of HPE validity. (3) Lack of validity argumentation creates and maintains power differentials within HPE. Participants articulated that current HPE validation practices are rooted in post‐positivist epistemology when they should be situated (i.e. context‐dependent), audience‐centric and inclusive. Discussion: When discussing validity argumentation in theory, participants' descriptions reflect an interpretivist lens for evaluation that is misaligned with real‐world validity practices. This misalignment likely arises from HPE's adoption of "validity as an argument" as a slogan, without integrating theoretical and practical principles of argumentation theory. How do HPE experts conceptualize the argumentation aspect of validity? @Midwest_MedPeds @ab_martini @LaraVarpio @erikdriessen @DrDanSchumacher explore the gap between theory and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Many health professions education (HPE) scholars frame assessment validity as a form of argumentation in which interpretations and uses of assessment scores must be supported by evidence. However, what are purported to be validity arguments are often merely clusters of evidence without a guiding framework to evaluate, prioritise, or debate their merits. Argumentation theory is a field of study dedicated to understanding the production, analysis, and evaluation of arguments (spoken or written). The aim of this study is to describe argumentation theory, articulating the unique insights it can offer to HPE assessment, and presenting how different argumentation orientations can help reconceptualize the nature of validity in generative ways. Methods: The authors followed a five‐step critical review process consisting of iterative cycles of focusing, searching, appraising, sampling, and analysing the argumentation theory literature. The authors generated and synthesised a corpus of manuscripts on argumentation orientations deemed to be most applicable to HPE. Results: We selected two argumentation orientations that we considered particularly constructive for informing HPE assessment validity: New rhetoric and informal logic. In new rhetoric, the goal of argumentation is to persuade, with a focus on an audience's values and standards. Informal logic centres on identifying, structuring, and evaluating arguments in real‐world settings, with a variety of normative standards used to evaluate argument validity. Discussion: Both new rhetoric and informal logic provide philosophical, theoretical, or practical groundings that can advance HPE validity argumentation. New rhetoric's foregrounding of audience aligns with HPE's social imperative to be accountable to specific stakeholders such as the public and learners. Informal logic provides tools for identifying and structuring validity arguments for analysis and evaluation. In #HPE we often conceptualize validity as an argument. But what is argumentation? From what guiding principles might HPE draw? @Midwest_MedPeds @DrDanSchumacher @erikwdriessen @LaraVarpio review argumentation theory to explore these questions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: While authorship plays a powerful role in the academy, research indicates many authors engage in questionable practices like honorary authorship. This suggests that authorship may be a contested space where individuals must exercise agency—a dynamic and emergent process, embedded in context—to negotiate potentially conflicting norms among published criteria, disciplines and informal practices. This study explores how authors narrate their own and others' agency in making authorship decisions. Method: We conducted a mixed‐methods analysis of 24 first authors' accounts of authorship decisions on a recent multi‐author paper. Authors included 14 females and 10 males in health professions education (HPE) from U.S. and Canadian institutions (10 assistant, 6 associate and 8 full professors). Analysis took place in three phases: (1) linguistic analysis of grammatical structures shown to be associated with agency (coding for main clause subjects and verb types); (2) narrative analysis to create a 'moral' and 'title' for each account; and (3) dialectic integration of (1) and (2). Results: Descriptive statistics suggested that female participants used we subjects and material verbs (of doing) more than men and that full professors used relational verbs (of being and having) more than assistant and associate. Three broad types of agency were narrated: distributed (n = 15 participants), focusing on how resources and work were spread across team members; individual (n = 6), focusing on the first author's action; and collaborative (n = 3), focusing on group actions. These three types of agency contained four subtypes, e.g. supported, contested, task‐based and negotiated. Discussion: This study highlights the complex and emergent nature of agency narrated by authors when making authorship decisions. Published criteria offer us starting point—the stated rules of the authorship game; this paper offers us a next step—the enacted and narrated approach to the game. Konopasky et al highlight the complex nature of agency in author teams. Interviews with first authors suggest three broad agency types: distributed (across team and resources), individual (first author) and collaborative (joint action). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Processes involved in the regulation of learning have been researched for decades, because of its impact on academic and workplace performance. In fact, self‐regulated learning is the focus of countless studies in health professions education and higher education in general. While we will always need competent individuals who are able to regulate their own learning, developments in healthcare require a shift from a focus on the individual to the collective: collaboration within and between healthcare teams is at the heart of high‐quality patient care. Concepts of collaborative learning and collective competence challenge commonly held conceptualisations of regulatory learning and call for a focus on the social embeddedness of regulatory learning and processes regulating the learning of the collective. Therefore, this article questions the alignment of current conceptualisations of regulation of learning with demands for collaboration in current healthcare. We explore different conceptualisations of regulation of learning (self‐, co‐, and socially shared regulation of learning), and elaborate on how the integration of these conceptualisations adds to our understanding of regulatory learning in healthcare settings. Building on these insights, we furthermore suggest ways forward for research and educational practice. Bransen et al. explore the concept of 'self' to argue that the health professions need to shift from striving to optimize self‐regulation to understanding how to effectively regulate across self‐, co‐, and shared‐regulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: When medical education programs have difficulties recruiting or retaining clinical teachers, they often introduce incentives to help improve motivation. Previous research, however, has shown incentives can unfortunately have unintended consequences. When and why that is the case in the context of incentivizing clinical teachers remains unclear. The purposes of this study, therefore, were to understand what values and motivations influence teaching decisions; and to delve deeper into how teaching incentives have been perceived. Methods: An interpretive description methodology was used to improve understanding of the development and delivery of teaching incentives. A purposeful sampling strategy identified a heterogenous sample of clinical faculty teaching in undergraduate and postgraduate contexts. Sixteen semi‐structured interviews were conducted and transcripts were analyzed using an iterative process to develop a thematic structure that accounts for general trends and individual variations. Results: Clinicians articulated interrelated and dynamic personal and environmental factors that had linear, dual‐edged and inverted U‐shaped impacts on their motivations towards teaching. Barriers were frequently rationalized away, but cumulative barriers often led to teaching attrition. Clinical teachers were motivated when they felt valued and connected to their learners, peers, leadership, and/or the medical education community. While incentives aimed at producing these connections could be perceived as supportive, they could also negatively impact motivation if they were impersonal, inequitable, inefficient, or poorly framed. Discussion/Conclusion: These findings reinforce the literature suggesting that it is necessary to proceed with caution when labeling any particular factor as a motivator or barrier to teaching. They take us deeper, however, towards understanding how and why clinical teachers' perceptions are unique, dynamic and fluid. Incentive schemes can be beneficial for teacher recruitment and retention, but must be designed with nuance that takes into account what makes clinicians feel valued if the strategy is to do more good than harm. When do incentives backfire? Wisener et al. explore how schemes intended to support clinicians in their teaching roles should be crafted with care given their complex – and at times surprising – influences on motivation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: We expect physicians to be lifelong learners. Participation in clinical practice is an important potential source of that learning. To support physicians in this process, a better understanding of how they learn in clinical practice is necessary. This study investigates how physicians recognise and use informal feedback from interactions with patients in outpatient settings as learning cues to adjust their communication behaviours in daily practice. Methods: To understand physicians' use of informal feedback, we combined non‐participant observations with semi‐structured interviews. We enrolled 10 respiratory physicians and observed 100 physician‐patient interactions at two teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. Data collection and analysis were performed iteratively according to the principles of constructivist grounded theory. Results: Following stages of open, axial and selective coding, we were able to conceptualise how physicians use cues to reflect on and adjust their communication. In addition to vast variations within and across patient encounters, we observed recurring adjustments in physicians' communication behaviours in response to specific informal feedback cues. Physicians recognised and used these cues to self‐monitor communication performance. They had established 'communication repertoires' based on multiple patient interactions, which many saw as learning opportunities contributing to the development of expertise. Our findings, however, show differences in physicians' individual levels of sensitivity in recognising and using learning opportunities in daily practice, which were further influenced by contextual, personal and interpersonal factors. Whereas some described themselves as having little inclination to change, others used critical incidents to fine‐tune their communication repertoires, and yet others constantly reshaped them, seeking learning opportunities in their daily work. Conclusions: There is large variation in how physicians use learning cues from daily practice. To enhance learning in and from daily practice, we propose turning workplace learning into a collaborative effort with the aim of increasing awareness and the use of informal performance‐relevant feedback. Sehlbach et al. use observations and interviews to examine how physicians use informal feedback for professional development, highlighting how workplace learning could be improved through collaboration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Medical students are expected to self‐regulate their learning within complex and unpredictable clinical learning environments. Research increasingly focuses on the effects of social interactions on the development of self‐regulation in workplace settings, a notion embodied within the concept of co‐regulated learning (CRL). Creating workplace learning environments that effectively foster lifelong self‐regulated learning (SRL) requires a deeper understanding of the relationship between CRL and SRL. The aim of this study was therefore to explore medical students' perceptions of CRL in clinical clerkships and its perceived impact on the development of their SRL. Methods: We conducted semi‐structured interviews with 11 purposively sampled medical students enrolled in clinical clerkships at one undergraduate competency‐based medical school. Data collection and analysis were conducted iteratively, informed by principles of constructivist grounded theory. Data analysis followed stages of open, axial and selective coding, which enabled us to conceptualise how co‐regulation influences the development of students' self‐regulation. Results: Data revealed three interrelated shifts in CRL and SRL as students progressed through clerkships. First, students' CRL shifted from a focus on peers to co‐regulation with clinician role models. Second, self‐regulated behaviour shifted from being externally driven to being internally driven. Last, self‐regulation shifted from a task‐oriented approach towards a more comprehensive approach focusing on professional competence and identity formation. Students indicated that if they felt able to confidently and proactively self‐regulate their learning, the threshold for engaging others in meaningful CRL seemed to be lowered, enhancing further development of SRL skills. Conclusions: Findings from the current study emphasise the notion that SRL and its development are grounded in CRL in clinical settings. To optimally support the development of students' SRL, we need to focus on facilitating and organising learners' engagement in CRL from the start of the medical curriculum. Is self‐regulated learning entirely self‐regulated? Bransen et al. share data demonstrating it to be embedded in co‐regulated learning, characterized shifts in regulatory focus, drivers for regulation, and co‐regulation partners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite increasing calls for patient and public involvement in health‐care quality improvement, the question of how patient evaluations can contribute to physician learning and performance assessment has received scant attention. Objective: The objective of this study was to explore, amid calls for patient involvement in quality assurance, patients' perspectives on their role in the evaluation of physician performance and to support physicians' learning and decision making on professional competence. Design: A qualitative study based on semi‐structured interviews. Setting and Participants: The study took place in a secondary care setting in the Netherlands. The authors selected 25 patients from two Dutch hospitals and through the Dutch Lung Foundation, using purposive sampling. Methods: Data were analysed according to the principles of template analysis, based on an a priori coding framework developed from the literature about patient empowerment, feedback and performance assessment. Results: The analysis unearthed three predominant patient perspectives: the proactive perspective, the restrained perspective and the outsider perspective. These perspectives differed in terms of perceived power dynamics within the doctor‐patient relationship, patients' perceived ability, and willingness to provide feedback and evaluate their physician's performance. Patients' perspectives thus affected the role patients envisaged for themselves in evaluating physician performance. Discussion and conclusion: Although not all patients are equally suitable or willing to be involved, patients can play a role in evaluating physician performance and continuing training through formative approaches. To involve patients successfully, it is imperative to distinguish between different patient perspectives and empower patients by ensuring a safe environment for feedback. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Authorship has major implications for researchers' careers. Hence, journals require researchers to meet formal authorship criteria. However, researchers frequently admit to violating these criteria, which suggests that authorship is a complex issue. This study aims to unpack the complexities inherent in researchers' conceptualisations of questionable authorship practices and to identify factors that make researchers vulnerable to engaging in such practices. Methods: A total of 26 North American medical education researchers at a range of career stages were interviewed. Participants were asked to respond to two vignettes, of which one portrayed honorary authorship and the other described an author order scenario, and then to describe related authorship experiences. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Results: Participants conceptualised questionable authorship practices in various ways and articulated several ethically grey areas. Personal and situational factors were identified, including hierarchy, resource dependence, institutional culture and gender; these contributed to participants' vulnerability to and involvement in questionable authorship practices. Participants described negative instances of questionable authorship practices as well as situations in which these practices were used for virtuous purposes. Participants rationalised engagement in questionable authorship practices by suggesting that, although technically violating authorship criteria, such practices could be reasonable when they seemed to benefit science. Conclusions: Authorship guidelines portray authorship decisions as being black and white, effectively sidestepping key dimensions that create ethical shades of grey. These findings show that researchers generally recognise these shades of grey and in some cases acknowledge having bent the rules themselves. Sometimes their flexibility is driven by benevolent aims aligned with their own values or prevailing norms such as inclusivity. At other times participation in these practices is framed not as a choice, but rather as a consequence of researchers' vulnerability to individual or system factors beyond their control. Taken together, these findings provide insights to help researchers and institutions move beyond recognition of the challenges of authorship and contribute to the development of informed, evidence‐based solutions. Ever felt taken advantage of as an author? The researchers who conducted this study identify personal & situational factors (e.g., hierarchy, resource dependence, institutional culture and gender) that contribute to vulnerability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: In shared decision‐making (SDM), physicians encourage the patient to participate in the care process. The theory of planned behaviour describes that behaviour is dependent on intention. In its turn, intention is explained by attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioural control. In orthopaedics, little is known about current SDM behaviour and how to promote it.The aim of the present study was to gain insight into the SDM behaviour of orthopaedic residents and supervisors by measuring levels of intention, attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control. Furthermore, we aimed to determine the predictors of intention for SDM. Methods: A questionnaire survey study was conducted among orthopaedic surgeons and residents working in the care of hip and knee osteoarthritis, to determine their intentions, attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control regarding SDM. Results: Of the 385 physicians approached, 71 residents and 64 orthopaedic surgeons participated. Residents and the supervisors alike had positive intentions regarding SDM. Intention for SDM behaviour was explained by attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioural control, with perceived behavioural control having the strongest association. In residents, the intention to engage in SDM was more hampered by a lower level of perceived behavioural control than in surgeons. Conclusions: Physicians are willing to perform SDM and consider SDM as favourable in the orthopaedic clinic. The implementation of SDM is mainly hampered by experienced barriers that they cannot control. These findings underline the importance of incorporating SDM in the curriculum of postgraduates. Possibilities for efficient SDM implementation should be explored, to overcome perceived barriers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context It is widely acknowledged that assessment can affect student learning. In recent years, attention has been called to 'programmatic assessment', which is intended to optimise both learning functions and decision functions at the programme level of assessment, rather than according to individual methods of assessment. Although the concept is attractive, little research into its intended effects on students and their learning has been conducted. Objectives This study investigated the elements of programmatic assessment that students perceived as supporting or inhibiting learning, and the factors that influenced the active construction of their learning. Methods The study was conducted in a graduate-entry medical school that implemented programmatic assessment. Thus, all assessment information, feedback and reflective activities were combined into a comprehensive, holistic programme of assessment. We used a qualitative approach and interviewed students ( n = 17) in the pre-clinical phase of the programme about their perceptions of programmatic assessment and learning approaches. Data were scrutinised using theory-based thematic analysis. Results Elements from the comprehensive programme of assessment, such as feedback, portfolios, assessments and assignments, were found to have both supporting and inhibiting effects on learning. These supporting and inhibiting elements influenced students' construction of learning. Findings showed that: (i) students perceived formative assessment as summative; (ii) programmatic assessment was an important trigger for learning, and (iii) the portfolio's reflective activities were appreciated for their generation of knowledge, the lessons drawn from feedback, and the opportunities for follow-up. Some students, however, were less appreciative of reflective activities. For these students, the elements perceived as inhibiting seemed to dominate the learning response. Conclusions The active participation of learners in their own learning is possible when learning is supported by programmatic assessment. Certain features of the comprehensive programme of assessment were found to influence student learning, and this influence can either support or inhibit students' learning responses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Medical Education 2012: 46: 738-747 Context Medical schools worldwide are increasingly switching to student-centred methods such as problem-based learning (PBL) to foster lifelong self-directed learning (SDL). The cross-cultural applicability of these methods has been questioned because of their Western origins and because education contexts and learning approaches differ across cultures. Objectives This study evaluated PBL's cross-cultural applicability by investigating how it is applied in three medical schools in regions with different cultures in, respectively, East Asia, the Middle East and Western Europe. Specifically, it investigated how students' cultural backgrounds impact on SDL in PBL and how this impact affects students. Methods A qualitative, cross-cultural, comparative case study was conducted in three medical schools. Data were collected through 88 semi-structured, in-depth interviews with Year 1 and 3 students, tutors and key persons involved in PBL, 32 observations of Year 1 and 3 PBL tutorials, document analysis, and contextual information. The data were thematically analysed using the template analysis method. Comparisons were made among the three medical schools and between Year 1 and 3 students across and within the schools. Results The cultural factors of uncertainty and tradition posed a challenge to Middle Eastern students' SDL. Hierarchy posed a challenge to Asian students and achievement impacted on both sets of non-Western students. These factors were less applicable to European students, although the latter did experience some challenges. Several contextual factors inhibited or enhanced SDL across the cases. As students grew used to PBL, SDL skills increased across the cases, albeit to different degrees. Conclusions Although cultural factors can pose a challenge to the application of PBL in non-Western settings, it appears that PBL can be applied in different cultural contexts. However, its globalisation does not postulate uniform processes and outcomes, and culturally sensitive alternatives might be developed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Medical Education 2010: 44 : 140–147 Context Mentors are increasingly involved in doctor performance assessments. Mentoring seems to be a key determinant in achieving the ultimate goal of those assessments, namely, improving doctor performance. Little is known, however, about how mentors perceive and fulfil this role. Objective The aim of this paper is to expand understanding of the role of mentors in performance assessment. Methods Thirty-eight mentors undertook formative performance assessments of their peers in a pilot study. A mixed-methods design was used, consisting of a postal survey ( n = 28) and qualitative interviews with a subset of mentors ( n = 11). Individual semi-structured interviews were completed and transcripts were analysed by two researchers using a grounded theory approach. Results The results of the survey showed that 89% of mentors intended to continue in their mentorship role. Interviews revealed that mentors used several strategies in the assessments, including: contrasting and collating information; posing reflective questions, and goal setting. Mentors experienced difficulty in disregarding their views of the doctors evaluated. Some mentors noticed obstacles with specific interview skills such as ‘paying attention to their colleagues’ strengths’ and ‘enabling doctors to find their own solutions’. Mentors reported that they and their organisations benefited from the assessments. The perceived benefits included: improved interview skills; increased solidarity, and increased mutual respect. Conclusions The study provides insights into what mentors can do to increase the chance that externally derived information is integrated into doctors’ self-assessments. Mainly, mentors used strategies aimed at effectively delivering feedback and encouraging reflection. However, we found that mentors who took part in our study appeared to struggle with a number of obstacles related to: time investment; familiarity with the doctor assessed, and the acquiring of specific interview skills. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To determine the differential effects of a paper-based versus a web-based portfolio in terms of portfolio quality, user-friendliness and student motivation. Methods An experimental design was used to compare Year 1 medical students' reflective portfolios. The portfolios differed in presentation medium only (i.e. web-based versus paper-based). Content analysis, a student questionnaire and mentor interviews were used to evaluate portfolio quality, user-friendliness and student motivation. A total of 92 portfolios were scored independently by 2 raters using a portfolio quality-rating instrument. Results Portfolio structure, quality of reflection and quality of evidence showed no significant effects of presentation medium. Multi-level analysis showed a significant effect for student motivation: web-based portfolios scored 0.39 more than paper-based portfolios ( P < 0.05; effect size 0.76). The mentors reported no differences in portfolio quality, except that there were more visuals in web-based portfolios. Students spent significantly more time preparing the web-based than the paper-based portfolios (15.4 hours versus 12.2 hours; t = 2.1, P < 0.05; effect size 0.46). The 2 student groups did not differ significantly in terms of their satisfaction with the portfolio. The mentors perceived the web-based portfolios as more user-friendly. Conclusions The web-based portfolios were found to enhance students' motivation, were more user-friendly for mentors, and delivered the same content quality compared with paper-based portfolios. This suggests that web-based presentation may promote acceptance of portfolios by students and teachers alike. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context The portfolio is becoming increasingly accepted as a valuable tool for learning and assessment. The validity of portfolio assessment, however, may suffer from bias due to irrelevant qualities, such as lay-out and writing style. We examined the possible effects of such qualities in a portfolio programme aimed at stimulating Year 1 medical students to reflect on their professional and personal development. In later curricular years, this portfolio is also used to judge clinical competence. Methods We developed an instrument, the Portfolio Analysis Scoring Inventory, to examine the impact of form and content aspects on portfolio assessment. The Inventory consists of 15 items derived from interviews with experienced mentors, the literature, and the criteria for reflective competence used in the regular portfolio assessment procedure. Forty portfolios, selected from 231 portfolios for which ratings from the regular assessment procedure were available, were rated by 2 researchers, independently, using the Inventory. Regression analysis was used to estimate the correlation between the ratings from the regular assessment and those resulting from the Inventory items. Results Inter-rater agreement ranged from 0.46 to 0.87. The strongest predictor of the variance in the regular ratings was ‘quality of reflection’ (R 0.80; R2 66%). No further items accounted for a significant proportion of variance. Irrelevant items, such as writing style and lay-out, had negligible effects. Conclusions The absence of an impact of irrelevant criteria appears to support the validity of the portfolio assessment procedure. Further studies should examine the portfolio's validity for the assessment of clinical competence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim Portfolios are often used as an instrument with which to stimulate students to reflect on their experiences. Research has shown that working with portfolios does not automatically stimulate reflection. In this study we addressed the question: What are the conditions for successful reflective use of portfolios in undergraduate medical education? Methodology/research design We designed a portfolio that was aimed at stimulating reflection in early undergraduate medical education, using experiences described in the medical education literature and elsewhere. Conditions for reflective portfolio use were identified through interviews with 13 teachers (mentors), who were experienced in mentoring students in the process of developing their portfolios. The interviews were analysed according to the principles of grounded theory. Results The conditions for successful reflective use of portfolios that emerged from the interviews fell into 4 categories: coaching; portfolio structure and guidelines; relevant experiences and materials, and summative assessment. According to the mentors, working with a portfolio designed to meet these conditions will stimulate students' reflective abilities. Conclusion This study shows that portfolios are a potentially valuable method of assessing and developing students' reflective skills in undergraduate medical training, provided certain conditions for effective portfolios are recognised and met. Portfolios have a strong potential for enhancing learning and assessment but they are very vulnerable and may easily lead to disappointment. Before implementing portfolios in education, one should first consider whether the necessary conditions can be fulfilled, including an appropriate portfolio structure, an appropriate assessment procedure, the provision of enough new experiences and materials, and sufficient teacher capacity for adequate coaching and assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors reflect on the importance of health professions education in producing professionals who will provide the best health care to the population. Also cited are the need to create regulations and positive attitudes benefiting international travel, global meetings, and global health, as well as the need for elected officials to ensure that international health educational activities and collaborations should be freely allowed.

In this article, the author discusses the article of M. Stamm and B. Buddegerg-Fischer which emphasize the significance of mentors in medical education. The author states that a compelling relationship of having one or more mentors to the objective career success. It mentions that the article proves the essentiality and positive impact of mentoring on the administration of patient care. It offers tips on how to overcome the barriers on mentoring which include incentives and skills training.