Defining a Framework and Evaluation Metrics for Sustainable Global Surgical Partnerships

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to use expert consensus to build a concrete and realistic framework and checklist to evaluate sustainability in global surgery partnerships (GSPs). Background: Partnerships between high-resourced and low-resourced settings are often created to address the burden of unmet surgical need. Reflecting on the negative, unintended consequences of asymmetrical partnerships, global surgery community members have proposed frameworks and best practices to promote sustainable engagement between partners, though these frameworks lack consensus. This project proposes a cohesive, consensus-driven framework with accompanying evaluation metrics to guide sustainability in GSPs. Methods: A modified Delphi technique with purposive sampling was used to build consensus on the definitions and associated evaluation metrics of previously proposed pillars (Stakeholder Engagement, Multidisciplinary Collaboration, Context-Relevant Education and Training, Bilateral Authorship, Multisource Funding, Outcome Measurement) of sustainable GSPs. Results: Fifty global surgery experts from 34 countries with a median of 9.5 years of experience in the field of global surgery participated in 3 Delphi rounds. Consensus was achieved on the identity, definitions, and a 47-item checklist for the evaluation of the 6 pillars of sustainability in GSPs. In all, 29% of items achieved consensus in the first round, whereas 100% achieved consensus in the second and third rounds. Conclusions: We present the first framework for building sustainable GSPs using the input of experts from all World Health Organization regions. We hope this tool will help the global surgery community to find noncolonial solutions to addressing the gap in access to quality surgical care in low-resource settings.