Catherine Binda

As the field of global surgery develops, increased attention is being paid to its ethical considerations. However, there is a dearth of research on ethical challenges in global surgery that includes the voices of providers from Low- and Middle-Income Countries. This project seeks to understand the ethical concerns, considerations, and priorities in global surgery collaborations from the perspective of surgical care providers in Liberia. Using purposive/convenience sampling methods, we recruited eight surgical care providers (surgeons [n = 3], nurses [n = 3], and general practitioners [n = 2]). Participants included six males and two females from four different sites in Liberia. All had experience in international partnerships for humanitarian surgical work in both urban and rural locations. Semi-structured interviews were conducted using an interview guide and transcribed using a voice recognition program. Following transcript cleaning and verification, interviews were analyzed using thematic coding with qualitative coding software. Prominent themes included justice, consent, colonial legacies, fairness, sustainability, and system strengthening. Ultimately, this study underscores the ethical complexities of surgical care delivery in low-resource settings and the need for collaborative, context-sensitive, and sustainable solutions.

Objective: This project aimed to achieve international consensus on core learning objectives for global surgery education. Background: As global surgery emerges as an academic field, there is a growing need for consensus-driven learning objectives to guide education and training. Existing curricula vary widely and lack multidisciplinary input. Methods: A modified Delphi consensus was conducted with an international panel of global surgery experts. A scoping review informed an initial list of learning objectives, categorized into 14 domains based on the Consortium of Universities for Global Health framework. Panelists rated objectives over three iterative survey rounds, with consensus defined as ≥80% agreement within ±1 Likert point of the median. Results: Sixty-one experts from 26 countries across all World Health Organization (WHO) regions participated, representing surgery (40.1%), anesthesia (14.8%), obstetrics and gynecology (14.8%), general practitioners with and without enhanced surgical skills (16.4%), and allied health fields (6.6%). The majority (57.4%) had over 10 years of experience in global surgery. Across three Delphi rounds, 120 learning objectives reached consensus, covering key domains such as the global burden of surgical disease, surgical system strengthening, ethics and equity, health policy, and sustainable development. A total of 25 (20.8%) objectives were designated for introductory learners, 55 (45.8%) for advanced learners, and 40 (33.3%) for both levels. Conclusion: This Delphi consensus provides a structured, globally relevant framework for global surgery education, supporting curriculum development and competency-based training. These findings underscore the importance of aligning global surgery education with evolving healthcare priorities while ensuring adaptability across diverse surgical contexts.

Indigenous Peoples across North America and Oceania experience worse health outcomes compared to non-Indigenous people, including increased post-operative mortality. Several gaps in data exist regarding global differences in surgical morbidity and mortality for Indigenous populations based on geographic locations and across surgical specialties. The aim of this study is to evaluate disparities in post-operative outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines. Eight electronic databases were searched with no language restriction. Studies reporting on Indigenous populations outside of Canada, the USA, New Zealand, or Australia, or on interventional procedures were excluded. Primary outcomes were post-operative morbidity and mortality. Secondary outcomes included reoperations, readmission rates, and length of hospital stay. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale was used for quality assessment. Eighty-four unique observational studies were included in this review. Of these, 67 studies were included in the meta-analysis (Oceania n = 31, North America n = 36). Extensive heterogeneity existed among studies and 50% were of poor quality. Indigenous patients had 1.26 times odds of post-operative morbidity (OR = 1.26, 95% CI: 1.10–1.44, p<0.01) and 1.34 times odds of post-operative infection (OR = 1.34, 95% CI: 1.12–1.59, p<0.01) than non-Indigenous patients. Indigenous patients also had 1.33 times odds of reoperation (OR = 1.33, 95% CI: 1.02–1.74, p = 0.04). In conclusion, we found that Indigenous patients in North American and Oceania experience significantly poorer surgical outcomes than their non-Indigenous counterparts. Additionally, there is a low proportion of high-quality research focusing on assessing surgical equity for Indigenous patients in these regions, despite multiple international and national calls to action for reconciliation and decolonization to improve quality surgical care for Indigenous populations.

Indigenous Peoples across North America and Oceania experience worse health outcomes compared to non-Indigenous people, including increased post-operative morbidity and mortality. No data is available on global differences in surgical morbidity and mortality between geographic locations and across surgical specialties. The aim of this study is to evaluate disparities in post-operative morbidity and mortality between Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations. This scoping review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with PRISMA-ScR and MOOSE guidelines. Eight electronic databases were searched with no language restriction. Studies reporting on Indigenous populations outside of Canada, the USA, New Zealand, or Australia, or on interventional procedures were excluded. Primary outcomes were post-operative morbidity and mortality. Secondary outcomes included reoperations, readmission rates, and length of hospital stay. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale was used for quality assessment. Eighty-four unique observational studies were included in this review. Of these, 67 studies were included in the meta-analysis (Oceania n=31, North America n=36). Extensive heterogeneity existed among studies and 50% were of poor quality. Indigenous patients worldwide had 1.26 times higher odds of post-operative morbidity (OR=1.26, 95% CI: 1.10-1.44, p<0.01) and 1.34 times higher odds of post-operative infection (OR=1.34, 95% CI: 1.12-1.59, p<0.01) than non-Indigenous patients. Indigenous patients also had 1.33 times higher odds of reoperation (OR=1.33, 95% CI: 1.02-1.74, p=0.04) and longer hospital stays (SMD=0.09; 95% CI: 0.02-1.08; p=0.05). In conclusion, we found that Indigenous patients experience significantly poorer surgical outcomes than their non-Indigenous counterparts. Additionally, there remains a paucity of high-quality research focusing on assessing and improving surgical equity for Indigenous patients worldwide, despite multiple international and national calls to action for reconciliation and decolonization to improve access to quality surgical care for Indigenous populations.