ABSTRACT
Objective:
To evaluate the overseas experiences of our intensive care unit doctors and to determine out the reasons for our doctors who couldnot go and what support they wanted.
Materials and Methods:
The created questionnaire was delivered to the doctors via the internet. The survey consisted of three main parts. They were asked in the first part, sociodemographic characteristics; in the second part, how long they went abroad, how they choose the center, from whom they received support; in the third part, the reasons why our physicians who donot have been abroad experienced could not go, on which subject/center they want to gain professional experience, and how to get support in this regard.
Results:
31.4% of the 156 participants had professional abroad experience. 55% of those who went stated that they found the center with their own efforts, and very few (13 people, 26%) stated that they received support from the education/administrative unit of the institution they worked during the admission. In academically titled physicians, the level of foreign language and the importance given to education abroad were quite high. It was determined that the frequency of reading articles was correlated only with the duration of the profession. The most common reasons for physicians who couldnot get a chance to go was not being able to find a clinic/scholarship program to go to/not being informed (63.5%) and high accommodation/living fees (48.4%).
Conclusion:
Professional overseas experience has a high contribution to our physicians and our health system. The biggest obstacle for our physicians who cannot attend is not being able to find a center/clinic to go to. We think that the institutions/associations to which they are affiliated can support this issue.
Keywords:
Critical care, overseas experience, foreign language
References
1Zavlin D, Jubbal KT, Noé JG, Gansbacher B. A comparison of medical education in Germany and the United States: from applying to medical school to the beginnings of residency. GMS Ger Med Sci 2017;15:1-12.
2de Wet C, Yelland M. The challenges and opportunities in medical education for digital ‘natives’ and ‘immigrants’ in Scotland and abroad. Scott Med J 2015;60:152-4.
3Öğretim Üyesi Yetiştirme Programı (ÖYP Kalkınma Bakanlığı Destekli/ÖYP-YÖK) | Araştırmalar Koordinatörlüğü [Internet]. ODTÜ. [cited 2022 Sep 2]. Available from: http://ak.metu.edu.tr/ogretim-uyesi-yetistirme-programi-oyp-kalkinma-bakanligi-desteklioyp-yok
4Karakütük K, Özdemir Y. Bilim İnsanı Yetiştirme Projesi (BİYEP) ve Öğretim Üyesi Yetiştirme Programı’nın (ÖYP) Değerlendirilmesi. Eğitim ve Bilim 2011;36:26-38.
5von Eye A, Mun EY, Mair P. Log-linear modeling. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Statistics 2012;4:218-23.
6Altaş D, Sağırlı M, Giray S. Yurtdışında Çalışıp Türkiye’ye Dönen Akademisyenlerin Eğitim Durumları, Gidiş ve Dönüş Sebepleri Arasındaki İlişki Yapısının Loglineer Modeller ile İncelenmesi. Marmara Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi 2014;21:401-21.
7Menderis İA. Amerika veya İngiltere’de öğrenim görüp Türkiye’de öğretim üyesi olanların Türkiye ve öğrenim gördükleri ülkenin yükseköğretim sistemleri arasındaki tespit ettikleri farklar. Bildiriler Kitabı; 2013:96-113.
8Tamamaki K, Nishio H. Study abroad experience is related to Japanese doctors’ behavior to see foreign patients. Kobe J Med Sci 2013;59:10-6.
9Cherniak WA, Drain PK, Brewer TF. Educational Objectives of International Medical Electives - a narrative literature review. Acad Med 2013;88:1778-81.
10Bozkur S. Erasmus + değişim programı ile artan etkileşimin gençlerin kimliği üzerine etkileri (tez). Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü; 2019.
