BackgroundGrowing concerns about the value and effectiveness of short-term volunteer trips intending to improve health in underserved Global South communities has driven the development of guidelines by multiple organizations and individuals. These are intended to mitigate potential harms and maximize benefits associated with such efforts.MethodThis paper analyzes 27 guidelines derived from a scoping review of the literature available in early 2017, describing their authorship, intended audiences, the aspects of short term medical missions (STMMs) they address, and their attention to guideline implementation. It further considers how these guidelines relate to the desires of host communities, as seen in studies of host country staff who work with volunteers.ResultsExisting guidelines are almost entirely written by and addressed to educators and practitioners in the Global North. There is broad consensus on key principles for responsible, effective, and ethical programs--need for host partners, proper preparation and supervision of visitors, needs assessment and evaluation, sustainability, and adherence to pertinent legal and ethical standards. Host country staff studies suggest agreement with the main elements of this guideline consensus, but they add the importance of mutual learning and respect for hosts.ConclusionsGuidelines must be informed by research and policy directives from host countries that is now mostly absent. Also, a comprehensive strategy to support adherence to best practice guidelines is needed, given limited regulation and enforcement capacity in host country contexts and strong incentives for involved stakeholders to undertake or host STMMs that do not respect key principles.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12992-018-0330-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Increasing demand for global health education in medical training has driven the growth of educational programs predicated on a model of short-term medical service abroad. Almost two-thirds of matriculating medical students expect to participate in a global health experience during medical school, continuing into residency and early careers. Despite positive intent, such short-term experiences in global health (STEGHs) may exacerbate global health inequities and even cause harm. Growing out of the "medical missions" tradition, contemporary participation continues to evolve. Ethical concerns and other disciplinary approaches, such as public health and anthropology, can be incorpo rated to increase effectiveness and sustainability, and to shift the culture of STEGHs from focusing on trainees and their home institutions to also considering benefits in host communities and nurtur ing partnerships. The authors propose four core principles to guide ethical development of educational STEGHs: (1) skills building in cross-cultural effective ness and cultural humility, (2) bidirectional participatory relationships, (3) local capacity building, and (4) long-term sustainability. Application of these principles highlights the need for assessment of STEGHs: data collection that allows transparent compar isons, standards of quality, bidirectionality of agreements, defined curricula, and ethics that meet both host and sending countries' standards and needs. To capture the enormous potential of STEGHs, a paradigm shift in the culture of STEGHs is needed to ensure that these experiences balance training level, personal competencies, medical and cross-cultural ethics, and educational objectives to minimize harm and maximize benefits for all involved.

Contemporary interest in in short-term experiences in global health (STEGH) has led to important questions of ethics, responsibility, and potential harms to receiving communities. In addressing these issues, the role of local engagement through partnerships between external STEGH facilitating organization(s) and internal community organization(s) has been identified as crucial to mitigating potential pitfalls. This perspective piece offers a framework to categorize different models of local engagement in STEGH based on professional experiences and a review of the existing literature. This framework will encourage STEGH stakeholders to consider partnership models in the development and evaluation of new or existing programs.The proposed framework examines the community context in which STEGH may occur, and considers three broad categories: number of visiting external groups conducting STEGH (single/multiple), number of host entities that interact with the STEGH (none/single/multiple), and frequency of STEGH (continuous/intermittent). These factors culminate in a specific model that provides a description of opportunities and challenges presented by each model.Considering different models, single visiting partners, working without a local partner on an intermittent (or even one-time) basis provided the greatest flexibility to the STEGH participants, but represented the least integration locally and subsequently the greatest potential harm for the receiving community. Other models, such as multiple visiting teams continuously working with a single local partner, provided an opportunity for centralization of efforts and local input, but required investment in consensus-building and streamlining of processes across different groups.We conclude that involving host partners in the design, implementation, and evaluation of STEGH requires more effort on the part of visiting STEGH groups and facilitators, but has the greatest potential benefit for meaningful, locally-relevant improvements from STEGH for the receiving community. There are four key themes that underpin the application of the framework: Meaningful impact to host communities requires some form of local engagement and measurementSingle STEGH without local partner engagement is rarely ethically justifiedModels should be tailored to the health and resource context in which the STEGH occursSending institutions should employ a model that ultimately benefits local receiving communities first and STEGH participants second.Accounting for these themes in program planning for STEGH will lead to more equitable outcomes for both receiving communities and their sending partners.

Increasing demand for Short-term Experiences in Global Health (STEGH), particularly among medical trainees, has seen a growth in programming that brings participants from high-income countries to low and middle-income settings in order to engage in service, teaching or research activities. Historically the domain of faith-based organizations conducting “missions”, STEGH are now offered by diverse groups including academic institutions, non-profit organizations, and the private sector, either as dedicated for-profits or through corporate social responsibility arms. The growing popularity of STEGH has resulted in concerns about their negative impacts on host communities. Traditional STEGH are often crafted with little or no input from host community leaders, and this results in activities that do not address locally identified priorities. Other concerns include culturally incongruent programming and the creation of parallel systems that disrupt established local services and redirect scarce local resources, which fosters dependency instead of building capacity. One concern specific to trainees also includes trainee provision of services beyond their scope and training level. To address these concerns, this paper presents a comprehensive framework that aims to categorize promising interventions that might promote greater responsibility in STEGH. Based on the micro-meso-macro framework, this paper proposes various interventions as incentives and disincentives to be deployed at the individual, program, and societal levels to promote greater responsibility in STEGH. Deployed altogether, the interventions contemplated by this framework would foster the optimal context  required to encourage responsibility, minimize harms, and optimize host community outcomes for STEGH.