A framework for revising preservice curriculum for nonphysician clinicians: The mozambique experience.

Mozambique, with approximately 0.4 physicians and 4.1 nurses per 10,000 people, has one of the lowest ratios of health care providers to population in the world. To rapidly scale up health care coverage, the Mozambique Ministry of Health has pushed for greater investment in training nonphysician clinicians, Tιcnicos de Medicina (TM). Based on identified gaps in TM clinical performance, the Ministry of Health requested technical assistance from the International Training and Education Center for Health (I-TECH) to revise the two-and-a-half-year preservice curriculum. A six-step process was used to revise the curriculum: (i) Conducting a task analysis, (ii) defining a new curriculum approach and selecting an integrated model of subject and competency-based education, (iii) revising and restructuring the 30-month course schedule to emphasize clinical skills, (iv) developing a detailed syllabus for each course, (v) developing content for each lesson, and (vi) evaluating implementation and integrating feedback for ongoing improvement. In May 2010, the Mozambique Minister of Health approved the revised curriculum, which is currently being implemented in 10 training institutions around the country. Key lessons learned: (i) Detailed assessment of training institutions' strengths and weaknesses should inform curriculum revision. (ii) Establishing a Technical Working Group with respected and motivated clinicians is key to promoting local buy-in and ownership. (iii) Providing ready-to-use didactic material helps to address some challenges commonly found in resource-limited settings. (iv) Comprehensive curriculum revision is an important first step toward improving the quality of training provided to health care providers in developing countries. Other aspects of implementation at training institutions and health care facilities must also be addressed to ensure that providers are adequately trained and equipped to provide quality health care services. This approach to curriculum revision and implementation teaches several key lessons, which may be applicable to preservice training programs in other less developed countries.

Global Mental Health: Five Areas for Value-Driven Training Innovation.

OBJECTIVE: In the field of global mental health, there is a need for identifying core values and competencies to guide training programs in professional practice as well as in academia. This paper presents the results of interdisciplinary discussions fostered during an annual meeting of the Society for the Study of Psychiatry and Culture to develop recommendations for value-driven innovation in global mental health training. METHODS: Participants (n = 48), who registered for a dedicated workshop on global mental health training advertised in conference proceedings, included both established faculty and current students engaged in learning, practice, and research. They proffered recommendations in five areas of training curriculum: values, competencies, training experiences, resources, and evaluation. RESULTS: Priority values included humility, ethical awareness of power differentials, collaborative action, and "deep accountability" when working in low-resource settings in low- and middle-income countries and high-income countries. Competencies included flexibility and tolerating ambiguity when working across diverse settings, the ability to systematically evaluate personal biases, historical and linguistic proficiency, and evaluation skills across a range of stakeholders. Training experiences included didactics, language training, self-awareness, and supervision in immersive activities related to professional or academic work. Resources included connections with diverse faculty such as social scientists and mentors in addition to medical practitioners, institutional commitment through protected time and funding, and sustainable collaborations with partners in low resource settings. Finally, evaluation skills built upon community-based participatory methods, 360-degree feedback from partners in low-resource settings, and observed structured clinical evaluations (OSCEs) with people of different cultural backgrounds. CONCLUSIONS: Global mental health training, as envisioned in this workshop, exemplifies an ethos of working through power differentials across clinical, professional, and social contexts in order to form longstanding collaborations. If incorporated into the ACGME/ABPN Psychiatry Milestone Project, such recommendations will improve training gained through international experiences as well as the everyday training of mental health professionals, global health practitioners, and social scientists.