Background: Global health education and training experiences are in high demand. Mentorship plays an important role in successful training, but academic institutions often lack formalized mentorship support. This study aimed to evaluate perceptions of global health mentorship across disciplines at Johns Hopkins University and to understand how to better support faculty mentorship for global health training. Methods: This is a retrospective study that used qualitative methods to assess the perceptions of students who participated in the Johns Hopkins Center for Global Health (CGH) field placement program from 2011–2013 and CGH faculty who may have served as their mentors. Qualitative data was gathered through 30 individual in-depth interviews and 4 focus groups capturing both faculty and student perspectives. Data were analyzed inductively until thematic saturation was reached; a theoretical model, which we call the “building blocks of global health mentorship” model, emerged to serve as an analytical and synthesizing framework. Findings: A series of factors influenced global health mentorship from an individual to institutional level, including motivation, expectation alignment, finances, time, and knowledge. Both students and faculty reported the importance of motivation and aligned expectations to the mentorship experience and, more broadly, the overseas experience. Mentorship relationships were identified by students and faculty as either a catalyst or a hindrance to the training experience from both a personal and a professional point of view. Many faculty mentioned insufficient institutional support and financial resources, which negatively influenced their capacity to serve as mentors. Conclusions: Many factors, ranging from individual to institutional, influence mentorship for both faculty and students, which in turn influence international experiences. The underlying role of institutional support emerged as a highly salient influencing factor. Global health programs should harness the faculty and students’ motivations and expectations, as well as provide better support to faculty serving as mentors.

Many socioecological factors influence an overseas field experience, which in turn produces important effects on students' career choices, and faculty members appreciate the opportunity to serve as mentors. The most vital support mechanisms suggested for faculty and students included available funding, clear preparation, and communication facilitation across the experiential continuum.

BackgroundGlobal Health is an inherently interdisciplinary field but overseas training in global health, particularly among health science institutions, has been an ‘individual’ or ‘individual discipline’ experience. Team-based training is an approach to global health education which is increasing in popularity; research on team-training demonstrates that teams are more productive than individuals. In 2015, the Johns Hopkins Center for Global Health (CGH) developed the Global Established Multidisciplinary Sites (GEMS) program, an interdisciplinary training program which was designed to establish a new norm in global health training by bringing interdisciplinary teams of faculty and students together to identify and solve complex global health challenges. This research aims to evaluate the program’s first year and contribute to the literature on interdisciplinary team training. We conducted 22 in-depth interviews with students, faculty, and local collaborators from 3 GEMS project sites. Findings were analyzed for themes through a framework approach.ResultsThe program exposed students, faculty, and collaborators to a wide range of disciplines in global health. Students’ desire to learn how other disciplines contribute to global health solutions was an important motivator for joining GEMS; many participants including faculty and collaborators valued exposure to multiple disciplines. Mentorship and communication were a challenge across all teams in part due to members having distinct “disciplinary languages”. Balancing disciplinary representation on teams and establishing work plans were also key challenges.ConclusionsBased on the data the CGH provides four recommendations for institutions developing global health interdisciplinary teams to optimize team functioning and address challenges in mentorship, language, and roles: 1) address interdisciplinary communication early, 2) develop work plans during group formation, 3) meet as a team prior to travel, and 4) establish regular check ins. This article provides first-hand reflections on interdisciplinary team experiences in a global context and provides a pathway for the development of innovative strategies in global health training.