With equity in mind: Evaluating an interactive hybrid global surgery course for cross-site interdisciplinary learners.

There is limited understanding of the role of transcultural, cross-site educational partnerships for global surgery training between high- and low- or middle-income country (LMIC) institutions. We describe the development, delivery, and appraisal of a hybrid, synchronous, semester-long Global Surgical Care course by global health collaborators from widely different contexts, and evaluate the equity of the collaboration. The course was collaboratively modified by surgical educators and public health professionals with emphasis on collaboration ethics. Faculty from high-income and LMICs were paired to deliver lectures. To collaborate internationally, students and faculty participated either onsite or online. Perceptions and knowledge gained were quantitatively evaluated through participant and faculty cross-sectional surveys, using Likert scales, prioritization rankings, and free text responses analysed qualitatively. Equity was assessed using the Fair Trade Learning rubric and additional probes. Thirty-five learners from six institutions participated. Teams produced mock National, Surgical, Obstetric, and Anaesthesia Plans (NSOAPs) for selected LMICs, and reported a 9% to 65% increase in self-reported global health competencies following the course. Online learners had favourable perceptions of learning, but experienced connectivity challenges. Barriers to effective group work included time differences and logistics of communication for dispersed team members. Individuals taking the course for academic credit scored significantly higher than other learners in peer assessments of participation (8.56±1.53 versus 5.03±3.14; p<0.001). Using the Fair Trade Rubric, 60% of equity indicators were ideal, and no respondents perceived neo-colonialism in the partnership. Blended, synchronous, interdisciplinary global surgery courses based on "North-South" partnerships with a focus on equity in design and delivery are feasible but require careful and deliberate planning to minimize epistemic injustice. Such programs should address surgical systems strengthening, and not create dependency. Equity in such engagements should be evaluated and monitored in an ongoing fashion to stimulate discussion and continuous improvement.