Global health is increasingly present in the formal educational curricula of medical schools across North America. In 2008, students at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine (JHUSOM) perceived a lack of structured global health education in the existing curriculum and began working with the administration to enhance global health learning opportunities, particularly in resource-poor settings. Key events in the development of global health education have included the introduction of a global health intersession mandatory for all first-year students; required pre-departure ethics training for students before all international electives; and the development of a clinical global health elective (Global Health Leadership Program, GHLP). The main challenges to improving global health education for medical students have included securing funding, obtaining institutional support, and developing an interprofessional program that benefits from the resources of the Schools of Medicine, Public Health, and Nursing. Strategies used included objectively demonstrating the need for and barriers to more structured global health experiences; obtaining guidance and modifying existing resources from other institutions and relevant educational websites; and harnessing institution-specific strengths including the large Johns Hopkins global research footprint and existing interprofessional collaborations across the three schools. The Johns Hopkins experience demonstrates that with a supportive administration, students can play an important and effective role in improving global health educational opportunities. The strategies we used may be informative for other students and educators looking to implement global health programs at their own institutions.

No abstract

Background: Rates of postpartum visit attendance are low among all women, and particularly for low-income women. Experts in obstetrics, women's health, and health disparities are calling for novel, holistic approaches to postpartum care to better meet the needs of women and that respond to existing health care disparities. Materials and Methods: We conducted a single-site parallel-arm randomized controlled trial to determine the feasibility and effect of a co-located, co-timed 4–6 weeks postpartum obstetrics visit and well-newborn pediatric visit ( i.e ., “mommy-baby visit”) compared with an enhanced usual postpartum visit, that is, staff scheduled the postpartum visit for the patient before hospital discharge. Results: One hundred sixteen women, of whom 76.7% ( n = 89) were Latina immigrants, were enrolled postdelivery and randomized to a mommy-baby visit ( n = 58, 49.5%) or to enhanced usual care ( n = 58, 50.4%). Almost all study participants attended their postpartum visit ( n = 109, 94.0%). There was no significant difference in postpartum visit attendance rate by randomization assignment (91.4% of mommy-baby vs. 96.6% of enhanced usual care participants). Study participants, mommy-baby intervention and enhanced usual care arms combined, were significantly more likely to attend the postpartum visit than historical controls (94.0% vs. 69.7%, respectively, p < 0.001). Conclusions: In a randomized controlled trial, we showed postpartum visit attendance rates were high for participants in both the mommy-baby and enhanced usual care arms. Postpartum visit scheduling assistance was provided to all participants and may have increased postpartum visit attendance and thereby attenuated the effect of the intervention. It is encouraging that a low-cost, low-tech, low-touch intervention, that is, postpartum appointment scheduling before hospital discharge, could increase postpartum visit attendance.