Submitted: 4 May 2020
Accepted: 3 August 2020
Published online: 5 January, TAPS 2021, 6(1), 3-29
https://doi.org/10.29060/TAPS.2021-6-1/RA2351

Elisha Wan Ying Chia^1,2, Huixin Huang^1,2, Sherill Goh^1,2, Marlyn Tracy Peries^1,2, Charlotte Cheuk Yiu Lee^2,3, Lorraine Hui En Tan^1,2, Michelle Shi Qing Khoo^1,2, Kuang Teck Tay^1,2, Yun Ting Ong^1,2, Wei Qiang Lim^1,2, Xiu Hui Tan^1,2, Yao Hao Teo^1,2, Cheryl Shumin Kow^1,2, Annelissa Mien Chew Chin⁴, Min Chiam⁵, Jamie Xuelian Zhou^2,6,7 & Lalit Kumar Radha Krishna^1,2,5,7-10

¹Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore; ²Division of Supportive and Palliative Care, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore; ³Alice Lee Centre for Nursing Studies, National University of Singapore, Singapore; ⁴Medical Library, National University of Singapore Libraries, National University of Singapore, Singapore; ⁵Division of Cancer Education, National Cancer Centre Singapore, Singapore; ⁶Lien Centre of Palliative Care, Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School, Singapore; ⁷Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School, Singapore; ⁸Centre for Biomedical Ethics, National University of Singapore, Singapore; ⁹Palliative Care Institute Liverpool, Academic Palliative & End of Life Care Centre, University of Liverpool; ¹⁰PalC, The Palliative Care Centre for Excellence in Research and Education, Singapore

Abstract

Introduction: Whilst the importance of effective communications in facilitating good clinical decision-making and ensuring effective patient and family-centred outcomes in Intensive Care Units (ICU)s has been underscored amidst the global COVID-19 pandemic, training and assessment of communication skills for healthcare professionals (HCPs) in ICUs remain unstructured

Methods: To enhance the transparency and reproducibility, Krishna’s Systematic Evidenced Based Approach (SEBA) guided Systematic Scoping Review (SSR), is employed to scrutinise what is known about teaching and evaluating communication training programmes for HCPs in the ICU setting. SEBA sees use of a structured search strategy involving eight bibliographic databases, the employ of a team of researchers to tabulate and summarise the included articles and two other teams to carry out content and thematic analysis the included articles and comparison of these independent findings and construction of a framework for the discussion that is overseen by the independent expert team.

Results: 9532 abstracts were identified, 239 articles were reviewed, and 63 articles were included and analysed. Four similar themes and categories were identified. These were strategies employed to teach communication, factors affecting communication training, strategies employed to evaluate communication and outcomes of communication training.  

Conclusion: This SEBA guided SSR suggests that ICU communications training must involve a structured, multimodal approach to training. This must be accompanied by robust methods of assessment and personalised timely feedback and support for the trainees. Such an approach will equip HCPs with greater confidence and prepare them for a variety of settings, including that of the evolving COVID-19 pandemic.

Keywords:           Communication, Intensive Care Unit, Assessment, Skills Training, Evaluation, COVID-19, Medical Education

Practice Highlights

• The global COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the importance of effective communications in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU).
• ICU communications training should adopt a longitudinal, structured and multimodal approach.
• Robust stepwise evaluation of learner outcomes via Kirkpatrick’s Hierarchy is needed.
• Supportive host organisation and conducive learning environment and are key to successful curricula.

I. INTRODUCTION

The COVID-19 pandemic has placed immense strain on intensive care units (ICU)s with healthcare teams and resources stretched to meet the sudden increased healthcare demands of critically ill patients. To further complicate the situation, ICU teams are called to not only communicate closely with colleagues in a bid to support them but also counsel families confronting acute distress and uneasy waits separated from their loved ones due to restrictions to visiting in an effort to limit the spread of this pandemic (Ministry of Health, 2020; World Health, 2020). From breaking bad news (Blackhall, Erickson, Brashers, Owen, & Thomas, 2014; J. Yuen & Carrington Reid, 2011), to conveying the need for sedation and intubation (Carrillo Izquierdo, Diaz Agea, Jimenez Rodriguez , Leal Costa, & Sanchez Exposito, 2018) and providing progress reports on critically ill patients (Curtis et al., 2005; Curtis, White, Curtis, & White, 2008; Yang et al., 2020), communication skills amongst ICU healthcare professionals (HCPs) are pivotal in reassuring anxious, emotional and stressed patients and families (Ahrens, Yancey, & Kollef, 2003; Foa et al., 2016; Kirchhoff et al., 2002). Good communication in the ICU has also been shown to improve patient-physician relationships (K. G. Anderson & Milic, 2017), patient and family-centred outcomes, quality of care, and patient and family satisfaction (Bloomer, Endacott, Ranse, & Coombs, 2017; Cao et al., 2018; Currey, Oldland, Considine, Glanville, & Story, 2015). Effective communications between HCPs in ICU also enhances clinical decision-making (Kleinpell, 2014), reduces medication and treatment errors (Clark, Squire, Heyme, Mickle, & Petrie, 2009; Happ et al., 2014; Sandahl et al., 2013), decreases physician burnout (Rachwal et al., 2018), and improves staff retention and satisfaction (Hope et al., 2015).

With evidence suggesting that poor communication skills (Downar, Knickle, Granton, & Hawryluck, 2012; Foa et al., 2016) and training (Smith, O’Sullivan, Lo, & Chen, 2013) are likely to increase patients’ (Dithole, Sibanda, Moleki, & Thupayagale ‐ Tshweneagae, 2016) and families’ (Curtis et al., 2008) stress, adversely affect care and recovery (Dithole et al., 2016), and increase healthcare costs (Kalocsai et al., 2018), some authors have suggested that effective communication skills are at least as important (Adams, Mannix, & Harrington, 2017; Cicekci et al., 2017; Van Mol, Boeter, Verharen, & Nijkamp, 2014) to good patient care as clinical acumen (Curtis et al., 2001a). Yet despite evidence of the importance of communication skills in ICU, communication skills training remains inconsistent, variable and not evidence-based in most ICU settings (Adams et al., 2017; Berlacher, Arnold, Reitschuler-Cross, Teuteberg, & Teuteberg, 2017; Bloomer et al., 2017; D. A. Boyle et al., 2017; Miller et al., 2018; Sanchez Exposito et al., 2018).

With this in mind, a systematic scoping review (SSR) is proposed to map current approaches to communications skills training in ICUs (Munn et al., 2018) and potentially guide design of a communications training programme. An SSR allows for systematic extraction and synthesis of actionable and applicable information whilst summarising available literature across a wide range of pedagogies and practice settings employed to understand what is known about teaching and evaluating communication training programmes for HCPs in the ICU setting (Munn et al., 2018).

 II. METHODS

To overcome concerns about the transparency and reproducibility of SSR, a novel approach called Krishna’s Systematic Evidenced Based Approach (henceforth SEBA) is proposed (Kow et al., 2020; Krishna et al., 2020; Ngiam et al., 2020). This SEBA guided SSR (henceforth SSRs in SEBA) adopts a constructivist perspective to map this complex topic from multiple angles (Popay et al., 2006) whilst a relativist lens helps account for variability in communication skills training (Crotty, 1998; Ford, Downey, Engelberg, Back, & Curtis, 2012; Pring, 2000; Schick-Makaroff, MacDonald, Plummer, Burgess, & Neander, 2016).

To provide a balanced review, the research team was supported by the medical librarians from the National University of Singapore’s (NUS) Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine (YLLSoM), the National Cancer Centre Singapore (NCCS) and local educational experts and clinicians at the NCCS, the Palliative Care Institute Liverpool, YLLSoM and Duke-NUS Medical School (henceforth the expert team). The research and expert teams adopted an interpretivist approach as they proceeded through the five stages of SEBA (Figure 1).

Figure 1. The SEBA Process

A. Stage 1: Systematic Approach

1) Determining the title and research question: The research and expert teams agreed upon the goals, population, context and concept to be evaluated in this SSR. The two teams then agreed that the primary research question should be “What is known about teaching and evaluating communication training programs for HCPs in the ICU setting?” The secondary research questions were “How are communication skills taught and assessed in the ICU setting?” and “How effective have such interventions been as described in the published literature?”

2) Inclusion criteria: A Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Study Design (PICOS) format was adopted to guide the research process (Peters, Godfrey, Khalil, et al., 2015a; Peters, Godfrey, McInerney, et al., 2015b) (Table 1).

PICOS	Inclusion Criteria	Exclusion Criteria
Population	·       Undergraduate and postgraduate healthcare providers (e.g. doctors, medical students, nurses, social workers) within ICU setting ·       ICU settings including medical, surgical, cardiology and neurology ICU ·       Communication between healthcare providers and patients in the ICU, or between healthcare providers in the ICU and patients’ families ·       Communication between or within healthcare providers’ teams in the ICU	·       Articles focusing solely on neonatal/ paediatric ICU setting ·       Articles focusing solely on speech therapy/ physical therapy/ occupational therapy ·       Non-ICU settings (e.g. general wards, emergency department) ·       Non-medical professions (e.g. Science, Veterinary, Dentistry) ·       Communication carried out over technological platforms
Intervention	·       Need for/ importance of interventions to teach communication in ICU setting ·       Facilitators and barriers to teaching communication in ICU setting ·       Recommendations, interventions, methods (e.g. tools, simulations, videos), curriculum content and assessments used for teaching communication in ICU setting
Comparison	·       Comparisons of various interventions, methods, curricula and evaluation methods used to teach or assess communication in ICU setting and its impact upon patients, healthcare providers, healthcare, and society
Outcome	·       Impact of interventions on patients, healthcare providers, healthcare, and society ·       Evaluation methods to assess interventions, methods, or curriculum used to teach communication
Study design	·       Articles in English or translated to English ·       All study designs including: o    Mixed methods research, meta-analyses, systematic reviews, randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, cross-sectional studies, and descriptive papers o    Case reports and series, ideas, editorials, and perspectives ·       Publication dates: 1st January 2000 – 31st December 2019 ·       Databases: PubMed, ERIC, JSTOR, Embase, CinaHL, Scopus, PsycINFO, Google Scholar

Table 1. PICOS

Nine members of the research team carried out independent searches for articles published between 1st January 2000 – 31st December 2019 in eight bibliographic databases (PubMed, ERIC, JSTOR, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, Psycinfo and Google Scholar). The searches were carried out between 27th January 2020 and 14th February 2020. The PubMed search strategy can be found in Supplementary Material A. An independent hand search was done to identify key articles.

3) Extracting and charting: Nine members of the research team independently reviewed the titles and abstracts identified and created individual lists of titles to be included which were discussed online. Consensus was achieved on the final list of articles to be included using (Sambunjak, Straus, & Marusic, 2010)’s “negotiated consensual validation” approach through collaborative discussion and negotiation on points of disagreement on online meetings.

B. Stage 2. Split Approach

Working in three independent groups, the reviewers analysed the included articles using the ‘split approach’ (Ng et al., 2020). In one group, four researchers independently reviewed and summarised all the included articles in keeping with according recommendations set out by Wong, Greenhalgh, Westhorp, Buckingham, and Pawson (2013)’s “RAMESES publication standards: meta-narrative reviews” and Popay et al. (2006)’s “Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews”. The four research team members then discussed their individual findings at online meetings and employed ‘negotiated consensual validation’ to achieve consensus on the tabulated summaries (Sambunjak et al., 2010). The tabulated summaries served to highlight key points from the included articles.

The four members of the research team also employed the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) (Reed et al., 2008) and the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Studies (COREQ) (Tong, Sainsbury, & Craig, 2007) also evaluated the quality of qualitative and quantitative studies included in this review.

Concurrently, the second group of five researchers analysed all the included articles using (Braun & Clarke, 2006)’s approach to thematic analysis then discussed their individual findings at online meetings and employed ‘negotiated consensual validation’ to achieve consensus on the final themes (Sambunjak et al., 2010). The third group of four researchers employed Hsieh and Shannon (2005)’s approach to directed content analysis to independently analyse all the included articles, discussed their independent findings online and employed ‘negotiated consensual validation’ to achieve consensus on the final themes (Sambunjak et al., 2010). This split approach consisting of the tabulated summaries and concurrent thematic analysis and content analysis enhances the reliability of the analyses. The tabulated summaries also help ensure that important themes are not lost.

1) Thematic analysis: Phase 1 of Braun and Clarke (2006)’s approach saw the team ‘actively’ reading the included articles to find meaning and patterns in the data. In phase 2, ‘codes’ were constructed from the ‘surface’ meaning (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Sawatsky, Parekh, Muula, Mbata, & Bui, 2016; Voloch, Judd, & Sakamoto, 2007) and collated into a code book to code and analyse the rest of the articles using an iterative step-by-step process. As new codes emerged, these were associated with previous codes and concepts (Price & Schofield, 2015). In phase 3, the categories were organised into themes that best depict the data. In phase 4, the themes were refined to best represent the whole data set and discussed. In phase 5, the research team discussed the results of their independent analysis online and at reviewer meetings. “Negotiated consensual validation” was used to determine a final list of themes (Sambunjak et al., 2010).

2) Directed content analysis: Hsieh and Shannon (2005)’s approach to directed content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005) was employed in three stages.

Using deductive category application (Elo & Kyngäs, 2008; Wagner-Menghin, de Bruin, & van Merriënboer, 2016), the first stage (Mayring, 2004; Wagner-Menghin et al., 2016) saw codes drawn from the article “Enhancing collaborative communication of nurse and physician leadership into two intensive care units” (D. K. Boyle & Kochinda, 2004). Drawing upon Mayring (2004)’s account, each code was defined in the code book that contained “explicit examples, definitions and rules” drawn from the data. The code book served to guide the subsequent coding process.

Stage 2 saw the four reviewers using the ‘code book’ to independently extract and code the relevant data from the included articles. Any relevant data not captured by these codes were assigned a new code that was also described in the code book. In keeping with deductive category application (Wagner-Menghin et al., 2016), coding categories and their definitions were revised. The final codes were compared and discussed with the final author to enhance the reliability of the process (Wagner-Menghin et al., 2016). The final author checked the primary data sources to ensure that the codes made sense and were consistently employed. The reviewers and the final author used “negotiated consensual validation” to resolve any differences in the coding (Sambunjak et al., 2010). The final categories were selected (Neal, Neal, Lawlor, Mills, & McAlindon, 2018) based on whether they appeared in more than 70% of the articles reviewed (Curtis et al., 2001b; Humble, 2009).

The narrative produced was guided by the Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) Collaboration guide (Haig & Dozier, 2003) and the STORIES (Structured approach to the Reporting In healthcare education of Evidence Synthesis) statement (Gordon & Gibbs, 2014).

III. RESULTS

9532 abstracts were identified from ten databases, 239 articles reviewed, and 63 articles were included as shown in Figure 2 (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, & Altman, 2009).

Figure 2. PRISMA Flowchart

3) Comparisons between summaries of the included articles, thematic analysis and directed content analysis: In keeping with SEBA approach the findings of each arm of the split approach was discussed amongst the research and expert teams. The themes identified using Braun and Clarke (2006)’s approach to thematic analysis were how to teach and evaluate communication training in ICU and the factors affecting training.

The categories identified using Hsieh and Shannon (2005)’s approach to directed content analysis were 1) strategies employed to teach communication, 2) factors affecting communication training, 3) strategies employed to evaluate communication, and 4) outcomes of communication training. These categories reflected the major issues identified in the tabulated summaries.

These findings were reviewed with the expert team who agreed that given that the themes identified could be encapsulated by the categories identified, the categories and the themes will be presented together.

a) Strategies employed to teach communication in ICU: 61 articles described various interventions used to teach communication in the ICU. 19 involved ICU physicians, 18 involved ICU nurses, 4 saw participation of ICU physicians and nurses, 13 included the multidisciplinary team in the ICU, 1 was aimed at medical interns, 2 at medical students, 2 at nursing students, and 2 at both medical and nursing students. Given the overlap between teaching strategies, topics taught, and assessment methods employed in ICU communication training for nurses, doctors, nursing and medical students and HCPs in the literature, we discuss and generalise the results across HCPs.    

In curriculum design, seven studies (D. K. Boyle & Kochinda, 2004; Hope et al., 2015; Krimshtein et al., 2011; Lorin, Rho, Wisnivesky, & Nierman, 2006; McCallister, Gustin, Wells-Di Gregorio, Way, & Mastronarde, 2015; Miller et al., 2018; Sullivan, Rock, Gadmer, Norwich, & Schwartzstein, 2016) designed a curriculum based on extensive reviews of literature on teaching communication. Brunette and Thibodeau-Jarry (2017) used Kern’s 6-step approach to curriculum development to design a structured curriculum targeted at meeting the needs identified whilst Sullivan et al. (2016) and Lorin et al. (2006) used the authors’ own experiences in tandem with existing literature to guide curriculum design. W. G. Anderson et al. (2017) designed a communication training workshop based on behaviour theories whilst McCallister et al. (2015) based their curriculum on principles of shared decision-making and patient-centred communication. Northam, Hercelinskyj, Grealish, and Mak (2015) conducted a pilot study before implementing their intervention.

Topics included in the curriculum were categorised into “core topics”, or topics essential to the curriculum, and “advanced” which may be useful to incorporate into the curriculum. Core topics were deemed as topics that were most frequently cited in the literature or are crucial across a variety of interactions in the ICU setting such as history taking, relationship skills as well as on common scenarios in the ICU such as breaking bad news and communicating difficult decisions. “Advanced’ topics, though important, are not mentioned as frequently and appeared to be more site specific and sociocultural and ethical issues. These topics are outlined in Table 2 (full table with references found in Supplementary Material B). The methods employed are outlined in Table 3 (full table with references found in Supplementary Material C).

Published online: 7 January, TAPS 2020, 5(1), 8-15
DOI: https://doi.org/10.29060/TAPS.2020-5-1/RA2087

Justin Bilszta¹, Jayne Lysk¹, Ardi Findyartini² & Diantha Soemantri²

¹Department of Medical Education, Melbourne Medical School, University of Melbourne, Australia; ²Department of Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Indonesia, Indonesia

Abstract

Practice Highlights

• Successful transnational collaborative FDI requires genuine collaboration and partnership.
• Curriculum blueprinting with the awareness of cultural nuances is important for a collaborative FDI.
• Long-term sustainability needs to be considered and planned in light of the resource challenges.

I. INTRODUCTION

The opportunities to develop and foster collaborative partnerships across the globe in the field of higher education are growing. There are many forms of transnational collaboration in education; however, the majority of university collaborations are symbolised by ‘providers and buyers’, with buying countries being developing nations and provider countries based in developed ones (Nhan & Nguyen, 2018). This contrasts with non-economically driven forms of transnational collaboration which generally include partnerships looking to expand areas of research, knowledge or working on international curriculum (Carciun & Orosz, 2018), Regardless of the form, research into collaborative international partnerships reveal common challenges including issues of joint decision making, the different learning cultures and hierarchical structures, and sustainability of program outcomes (Allen, 2014; Caniglia et al., 2017; Kim, Lee, Park, & Shin, 2017; Sullivan, Forrester, & Al-Makhamreh, 2010; Yoon et al., 2016). This has implications for any new or emerging form of international collaboration and its continuing success.

One expanding area of non-economically driven transnational collaborations in higher education has been faculty development. These partnerships have been flourishing in many different disciplines and similar challenges concerning the establishment and long term sustainability have been identified. This paper contributes to the study of transnational collaborations in higher education by focusing specifically on faculty development in the field of medical education. It firstly reviews the challenges associated with international collaborations involved in faculty development. The authors then critically reflect on an example of an international collaboration between researchers from medical schools in Indonesia and Australia through the lens of the experiences of those involved.

Faculty development initiatives (FDIs) in medical schools are an inseparable part of the internationalisation of medical education (Harden, 2006). In this era of globalisation, medical faculty should be prepared to teach in a cross-cultural environment (Deardorff, 2009). International collaboration in FDIs aim to tackle challenges in resource and financial constraints as well as to increase the quality of programs by drawing on expertise and best evidence from different centres and countries (Burdick, Amaral, Campos, & Norcini, 2011; Burdick et al., 2010; Harden, 2006; Kim et al., 2015; Yoon et al., 2016). Despite the push to develop international collaborations in FDIs many countries, particularly those in developing nations, find this especially challenging (Kim et al., 2017; Sherman & Chappell, 2018) and there are several reasons for this. The first relates to the dominant model of foreign ownership and control. Whitehead et al. in their recent commentary on this issue highlighted the trend for educational collaborations to flow in one direction – Europe and North American to other parts of the world – with control of the curriculum and academic structures resting with the ‘foreign expert’ (Whitehead, Wondimagegn, Baheretibeb, & Brian, 2018). The second challenge centres around the limitations on the opportunities for faculty development because of heavy teaching loads, a lack of a well-trained faculty who can provide professional training, limited infrastructure and competing demands for research and clinical services (Alkan, 2000). The World Health Organization has recognised this critical problem for faculty development and its long term impact on creating a healthcare workforce fit for purpose in the 21st century (Buchan & Campbell, 2013). As clinical education changes health provider practice, it can have wide-ranging effects on the health of a population, especially in underdeveloped countries (Boulet, Bede, McKinley, & Norcini, 2007). Thus, FDIs must reflect the contexts and requirements of developing countries if they are to surmount these challenges.

Southeast Asia has its specific challenges that need to be recognised. Although in some countries it is heavily modelled on Western education systems, the medical education culture has innumerable adaptations and innovations with identified socio-economic, cultural and institutional barriers (Amin, 2004; Majumder, 2004). Cultural and community needs differ vastly and with one of the smallest number of medical schools per million population (Boulet et al., 2007), the lack of human and institutional capacity to satisfactorily address the healthcare needs of populations in this region is stark (Kanchanachitra et al., 2011). Although there are international FDIs provided by developed countries for academic institutions in Southeast Asia there is limited evidence as to their effectiveness and benefits to teaching practice gained by participants (Phuong, Duong, & McLean, 2015; Steinert et al., 2006). Other commonly cited challenges for FDI development include: a divide between the education contexts and expectations of Asian and Western countries (T. P. Lam & Y. Y. B. Lam, 2009); a lack of English ability which adversely impacts on establishing an effective international collaboration as well as in delivery of the FDI content to participants (Ferry et al., 2006); and where countries in Southeast Asia have tried to develop and implement their own FDIs (World Health Organization, 2013) insufficient resources and shortage of qualified educators result in significant limitations in achieving self-sufficiency.

II. CONTEXT

The Faculty of Medicine Universitas Indonesia (FMUI) and the Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital, are committed to supporting the role of clinical teachers. An introductory FDI–Clinical Teacher Course (CTC)–has been available since 2008 to clinical teachers wanting to develop their teaching practice. The CTC is designed to support clinicians in the practical delivery of teaching and primarily focuses on the principles and techniques of teaching and supervising in clinical settings, the development of clinical reasoning skills, teaching procedural skills, and assessment practices in clinical settings. Training materials have been developed by the Department of Medical Education FMUI and the trainers are teaching staff from the Universitas Indonesia Academic Health System community. The CTC meets the provision of a minimum of 40 hours of training as regulated by the Directorate General of Higher Education, Ministry of Research and Higher Education and Universitas Indonesia.

In 2015, a formal collaboration (Partnerships in Clinical Education) between FMUI and the University of Melbourne (UoM) Medical School’s Excellence in Clinical Teaching (EXCITE) program was established. EXCITE is a series of linked award courses for clinical teachers from all health-related disciplines, that supports them in the practical delivery of teaching into the clinical workplace and provides a deeper understanding of the theories underpinning clinical education. A key aim of the FMUI–UoM collaboration was to develop an innovative and culturally relevant teaching program for clinical teachers from FMUI, that leveraged pedagogical strengths of the CTC and EXCITE programs and their teaching staff. The impetus for this collaboration was the long-standing professional relationships between academics from UoM and FMUI and was borne from FMUI recognising the need to develop, not just the practical delivery of teaching to their medical students, but opportunities for their clinical teachers to be exposed to cutting-edge clinical education practice. Importantly, any educational initiative needed to consider Indonesian academic and cultural traditions and be developed specifically for Indonesian clinical teachers, rather than simply transplanting or imposing an external (i.e. Western) teaching program ill-suited to the Indonesian context (Bleakley, Brice, & Bligh, 2008; Hodges, Maniate, Martimianakis, Alsuwaidan, & Segouin, 2009; Waterval, Frambach, Driessen, & Scherpbier, 2014).

III. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Much of the research into transnational collaborations have focused on the issue pertaining to quality assurance, regulation and accreditation of educational programs; translocation of curriculum and intercultural understanding; institutional and management strategic decision making; and student choice and academic mobility (Kosmützky & Putty, 2015). However, few studies have evaluated the critical factors for the success or failure of sustainable partnerships (Waterval, Driessen, Scherpbier, & Frambach, 2018; Waterval et al., 2014) particularly from the perspective of those who have negotiated the challenges of establishing such a transnational partnership. In this light, the focus of this paper is to provide the reader with insights on how to facilitate transnational collaboration viewed through the lens of the experiences of those involved. Its aim is not to provide a step-by-step process for the development of an FDI but critically reflect on the process by which the collaboration was established, and management of both the partnership and differences in context between medical schools in Indonesia and Australia. When read in conjunction with the companion paper published in the previous issue (Findyartini, Bilszta, Lysk, & Soemantri, 2019), we hope that the reader will gain an appreciation of better ways to foster transnational collaborations to drive educational reform.

IV. INSIGHTS

A. Insight 1 – Actively Foster Genuine Collaboration

Collaboration is a process of working together, which involves not only cooperation and communication, but also trust, respect and understanding, in order to establish an interdependent relationship that will augment the contributions of each party involved (Pike et al., 1993). As outlined, a key focus of the FMUI–UoM collaboration was to consider Indonesian academic and cultural traditions to develop an FDI specifically for Indonesian clinical teachers, rather than simply transplanting or imposing an external (i.e. Western) teaching model.

Research into successful international education partnerships has identified several key elements to ensure success with the most important of these being communication, mutual respect, humility and trust (Tupe, Kern, Salvant, & Talero, 2015). The relevance of a trusting relationship to collaborative performance has been repeatedly emphasised (Bachmann, 2001; Das & Teng, 2001; Fryxell, Dooley, & Vryza, 2002) and Bovill, Jordan, and Watters (2014) have highlighted that partners need to share a sense of mutual responsibility and benefit from a project, contribute expertise, effort and resource equally and for this contribution is to be recognised by the other partner (Bovill et al., 2015).

To ensure that externally the FMUI–UoM partnership was perceived as a genuine collaborative process, one of the very first initiatives undertaken was a needs assessment activity involving a broad mix of clinical teachers from FMUI. This activity was facilitated by staff from the FMUI Department of Medical Education with staff from UoM as active observers. This activity resulted in a mutual sharing of ideas and perspectives thereby allowing clinical teachers from FMUI to 1) share information on the current status of clinical teacher training at FMUI; 2) identify internal and external factors that influence the introduction and efficacy of FDIs at FMUI; 3) reach a consensus on practical visions of future health professions education at FUMI and; 4) discuss methods of delivering FDIs and the pros and cons of each format.

Whilst the focus of the needs assessment was to inform the development of the FDI, the learning for the research team was the importance of active engagement with clinical teaching leaders and a greater understanding for the UoM team of the cultural and academic context in which FMUI clinical teachers deliver their teaching activities. This led to a recognition of the cultural importance of negotiation and discussion when proposing change and of spending time in person and in location with those impacted by change (Tupe et al., 2015; Zhang & Huxham, 2009). Of significance, this activity emphasised the bilateral exchange of educational expertise and experiences rather than a unilateral flow of ideas, materials, and experts from one context (UoM) to another (FMUI) as well as the process of developing the collaborative partnership rather than concentrating merely on the educational product (Keay, May, & O’Mahony, 2014).

Importantly, a small but significant part of actively maintaining a collaborative mindset and approach was regular contact between the researchers, through both formal (e.g. email and exchanging documentation) and informal (e.g. social media) means. These methods of collaboration, whether scheduled or unscheduled, contributed to building and maintaining rapport which then enhanced mutual respect and co-construction of strategies and approaches to achieving the collaborative project goals.

B. Insight 2 – Utilise Curriculum Blueprinting as a Means Rather Than an End

There are three well-documented barriers to curriculum delivery in international partnerships–that a shared curriculum will inevitably result in a ‘variability in expectations, decision-making, and academic performance’ (Coleman, 2003, p. 359); content knowledge and delivery, and teaching skills, will differ between academic contexts (Heffernan & Poole, 2005; Shams & Huisman, 2012); and the inherent weakness of relying only on documents when engaging in curriculum mapping processes as these maps only describe what is intended to take place in the learning environment, not necessarily what does take place (Hays, 2016) and why.

To overcome these barriers a three-step process was undertaken using the paradigm of the designed-delivered-experienced curriculum (Prideaux, 2003): 1) a formalised curriculum blueprinting exercise comparing the CTC and EXCITE program at the Graduate Certificate level (i.e. the designed curriculum); 2) the curriculum map was then supplemented with experiences of the research team who had delivered into their respective FDIs (i.e. the delivered curriculum); and 3) acknowledging the experiences of participants of both FDIs (i.e. the experienced curriculum). This blueprinting activity highlighted areas of pedagogical similarities (e.g. the characteristics of providing effective feedback to students; using OSCEs to assess student performance in the clinical setting) and differences (e.g. engaging peers in a process of peer feedback of teaching) and provided a trigger for frank discussion and reflection, with both groups of researchers freely and honestly questioning the pedagogical decisions made for their individual FDIs. It was through this iterative process of challenge and reflexivity, rather than the blueprinting activity itself, that meant that decisions on the pedagogical framework and selection of teaching and learning activities and education resources was a collaborative and shared process.

Visualising the curriculum and making visible the structure of both programs made decisions related to modifying pedagogical approaches self-evident and consequently, the goals and objectives of the FDI become more important in guiding planning and development, rather than control of the content, and recognition that content can be represented and interpreted from multiple perspectives. Through this process, the curriculum blueprint represented the collaborative thought process used to establish the FDI. The presence of the document encouraged dynamic discussions among the researchers in attempting to create an evidence-based, best practice FDI while still considering the characteristics of those who would be participating.

C. Insight 3 – Awareness of Cultural Nuances is Vital

Successful international collaborations necessarily involve multiple interwoven dimensions of leadership, organisation, collaboration, and personal growth, the relevance of which is inseparable from society and social frameworks (Eldridge & Cranston, 2009). In the context of this project, not only did societal cultural differences have to be considered but also the different academic and clinical medicine and teaching cultures of Australia and Indonesia. When undertaking transnational teaching projects in other countries, it is important that the assumptions made about one’s own and others’ cultures are both questioned (Maher, Sicchia, & Stein, 2003). But this itself provides an opportunity to compare and contrast both cultures, thereby fostering greater understanding, and appreciation of, the nuances of both.

Although the researchers had well established professional and personal relationships and extensive knowledge of both countries and cultures, there was still a need–especially on the side of the UoM team–to observe the Indonesian academic culture in vivo and the interaction and relationships between faculty members from different clinical disciplines. This then needed to be overlayed with an understanding of the social structures which govern Indonesian life and the influences of factors such as age, gender and religious background on how individuals and communities of practice interact. As others have highlighted (Yudhi, Nanere, & Nsubuga-Kyobe, 2006) difficulties in negotiation between Indonesia and Australia can be avoided by having a better cultural understanding of each other.

The aforementioned needs analysis activity was an important lens through which the UoM researchers could observe how clinical teachers as individuals within FMUI interact, as well as how FMUI as an educational organisation functions. This was developed further when the FMUI researchers had the opportunity to audit the EXCITE Graduate Certificate in Clinical Teaching program. This allowed the FMUI researchers to observe the Australian context within the same paradigms as the UoM researchers had the Indonesian context. An outcome of this was the opportunity to compare, contrast and challenge perceptions about teaching and learning in both settings and how this is influenced by social and cultural norms. Extensive discussion within, and between, both teams of researchers were vitally important to explicitly examine, and challenge, established assumptions (Bleakley et al., 2008) around teaching in the clinical environment and the pedagogical structure of an FDI. Early and Ang’s (2003) model of cultural intelligence − cognition (‘do I know what is going on?), motivation (‘am I motivated to act?’ which the research teams re-visualised as ‘what needs to be changed?’) and behaviour (‘can I act appropriately and effectively?’ which again was re-visualised as ‘can I make change appropriately and effectively?’) − provided a framework for these discussions and led to a better understanding of the working context of both partners. As observed by others, the need for genuine respect for complex contexts, practices, and paradigms of thinking, as an integral part of developing cultural competence among the researches, cannot be overemphasised (Mertens, 2009).

D. Insight 4 – Actively Engage and Empower Colleagues to Champion the Work of the Transnational Collaboration

Developing collaborative partnerships based on sustainable equitable relationships in which sociocultural and power differences are acknowledged, demanded participation and a shared vision at every stage of the project (Heron & Reason, 2001). From the outset, both FMUI and UoM had an agreed goal to provide a pathway for FMUI clinical teachers to further develop their teaching practice including articulation into a higher degree program at UoM and/or advanced study in clinical teaching and clinical leadership delivered locally.

Success required, not just a program built on a sold and justifiable pedagogy but ‘buy-in’ from senior clinical teaching leaders who not only share a passion for teaching themselves, but also recognise the need to support the development of junior teachers by exposing them to innovative and best practice methods of teaching training; and long term sustainability through training a pool of FMUI education leaders who could not only deliver the FDI as designed but also make changes in response to feedback from both participants and local needs. Importantly, the collaborative partnership needed to acknowledge the hierarchical nature of academic culture in Indonesia. This type of academic culture has been recognised as a potential impediment to the selection of participants for FDIs as this can restrict the pool of participants because of screening by senior academics and administrators (Kim et al., 2017).

The 1st Advanced Clinical Teacher Training and Training on Trainers Workshop was an important step in ensuring senior clinical teaching/education leaders were involved in the process of developing the FDI, thereby becoming de facto members of the research team, and took ownership of the program structure and curriculum objectives. Importantly, these ‘champions’ were able to describe to their teaching colleagues that rather than a transplanted, imposed and/or culturally misaligned program, the newly developed FDI grew out of a shared desire to create a program developed specifically for Indonesian clinical teachers. At all times the researchers were aware of the risk of education imperialism (Bleakley et al., 2008) and the perception that the UoM approach was the only way to deliver an FDI. The ideas of Bruning, Schraw, and Ronning (1999) and Hodges et al. (2009) resonated with our thinking: that learning is highly dependent on individual and social context and activity (Bruning et al., 1999) and therefore by whose criteria should ‘standards…and other culturally specific constructions associated with the practice of medicine’ (Hodges et al., 2009, p. 916) be applied. It is only through having conversations that acknowledge and address these issues – with clinical teaching/education leaders as both participants of the FDI, as well future program leaders – are the seeds of long-term viability planted. These ‘champions’ become co-creators and owners of the program through active contribution, rather than simply passive recipients of learning.

The companion paper published in this issue explores in detail the experiences of participants from the Training on Trainers Workshop (Findyartini et al., 2019).

E. Insight 5 – Identify Resource Challenges to Implementation and Sustainability

Identifying challenges that impact on, and developing strategies to effectively utilise financial, institutional, and human resources, are vital to developing transnational collaborations that are sustainable (Wiek et al., 2013) and successfully capitalise on intercultural, linguistic, and national differences (Pashby & de Oliveira Andreotti, 2016). Caniglia et al. (2017) in their review of factors that influence sustainability in high education collaborations have identified resource allocation as an important consideration for the implementation of a transitional collaboration.

We would agree, but also argue that resource allocation is important for ensuring sustainability. One of the crucial aspects to the success of this project was the funding from the Australian-Indonesia Institute which allowed the research team to meet regularly face-to-face and attend activities in both countries. However, this grant was limited to costs associated with travel and accommodation and consequently much in-kind support was required from both institutions; for example, none of the costs associated with delivery of the Training the Trainer workshop was covered by the Australia–Indonesia Institute grant and expenses such as room hire, catering and photocopying were provided in-kind by FMUI senior management. Another factor which soon became evident was that much of the success of the collaboration depended on the researchers allocating time from other academic activities which could not be backfilled by other staff. This meant much of the time spent working on this project was after-hours or on the weekend. Further, the involvement of administrative staff from both institutions was limited for similar reasons which meant most of the organisational workload also fell back on the researchers.

Although there is an acknowledgment that goodwill from senior management and a commitment to the partnership are important factors ensuring the success of transnational collaborations, very few studies have formally looked at this and to our knowledge, only one (Caniglia et al., 2017) has attempted to systematically evaluate challenges (such as those described above) and strategies related to financial, institutional, and human resources in relation to implementation and sustainability. Given our experiences of having to find the capacity to undertake tasks peripheral to, but important for the success of, the partnership described in this paper, we see an opportunity for further work in this area.

V. CONCLUSION

The approaches that were undertaken in this project actively sought to develop a non-economically driven partnership between universities from Indonesia and Australia. This focus on expanding knowledge and best-practice teaching training, rather than ‘selling of a product’, resulted in pathways of reciprocal learning, the development of new ways of thinking about clinical teacher training and a synergistic approach to designing and implementing a culturally resonant FDI. As a transnational collaboration, the context and requirements of the Indonesian partner were central to the quality of the FDI, and its sustainability. Shared experiences among the researchers and flexibility to implement the best evidence, with adaptation to local needs and values – often referred to as glocalisation – was a key to success. This, in conjunction with a constructivist approach to curriculum mapping, and negotiation over the pedagogical content of the curriculum, mitigated several challenges identified with establishing successful transnational educational collaborations.

Notes on Contributors

Dr Justin Bilszta is a Senior Lecturer in Medical Education, Department of Medical Education, Melbourne Medical School University of Melbourne.

Dr. Jayne Lysk is a Lecturer in Clinical Education, Department of Medical Education, Melbourne Medical School University of Melbourne.

Dr Ardi Findyartini is a Senior Lecturer in Medical Education, currently the Head of Department of Medical Education and Head of Medical Education Unit, Faculty of Medicine Universitas Indonesia.

Dr Diantha Soemantri is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Medical Education and currently the Vice Director (Medical Education) of the Indonesian Medical Education and Research Institute (IMERI), Faculty of Medicine Universitas Indonesia.

Ethical Approval

Ethical approval is not required for a program evaluation type of study as employed in this paper.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Indonesia and the Department of Medical Education, Melbourne Medical School, University of Melbourne for this support of this collaboration.

Funding

This project was supported by the Commonwealth of Australia through the Australia-Indonesia Institute of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Application No: AII00004 of AII Grant Round 1 2014). Generous in-kind support was provided by Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Indonesia and the Department of Medical Education, Melbourne Medical School, University of Melbourne.

Declaration of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

Alkan, M. L. (2000). The global medical school, 2020. Medical Teacher, 22(5), 527-530.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590050110821

Allen, J. F. (2014). Investigating transnational collaboration of faculty development and learning: An argument for making learning culturally relevant. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 8(2), Article 17. https://doi.org/10.20429/ijsotl.2014.080217

Amin, Z. (2004). Medical education in Asia: Is it a time for optimism? ANNALS Academy of Medicine Singapore, 33(2), 264-266.

Bachmann, R. (2001). Trust, power and control in trans-organizational relations. Organization Studies, 22(2), 337-365. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840601222007

Bleakley, A., Brice, J., & Bligh, J. (2008). Thinking the post-colonial in medical education. Medical Education, 42(3), 266-270. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02991.x

Boulet, J., Bede, C., McKinley, D., & Norcini, J. (2007). An overview of the world’s medical schools. Medical Teacher, 29(1), 20-26. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590601131823

Bovill, C., Jordan, L., & Watters, N. (2015). Transnational approaches to teaching and learning in higher education: Challenges and possible guiding principles. Teaching in Higher Education, 20(1), 12-23. https:/doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2014.945162

Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. J., & Ronning, R. R. (1999). Cognitive psychology and instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Buchan, J., & Campbell, J. (2013). Challenges posed by the global crisis in the health workforce. British Medical Journal, 347, f6201-f6201. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f6201

Burdick, W., Amaral, E., Campos, H., & Norcini, J. (2011). A model for linkage between health professions education and health: FAIMER international faculty development initiatives. Medical Teacher, 33(8), 632-637. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2011.590250

Burdick, W. P., Diserens, D., Friedman, S. R., Morahan, P. S., Kalishman, S., Eklund, M. A., . . . Norcini, J. J. (2010). Measuring the effects of an international health professions faculty development fellowship: The FAIMER Institute. Medical Teacher, 32(5), 414-421. https://doi.org/10.3109/01421590903394587

Caniglia, G., Luederitz, C., Groß, M., Muhr, M., John, B., Keeler, L. W., . . . Lang, D. (2017). Transnational collaboration for sustainability in higher education: Lessons from a systematic review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 168, 764-779.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.07.256

Carciun, D., & Orosz, K. (2018). Benefits and costs of transnatioanl collaborative partnerships in higher education. European Expert Network on Economics of Education (EENEE) Analytical Report No 36. Retrieved from http://www.eenee.de/eeneeHome/EENEE/Analytical-Reports.html

Coleman, D. (2003). Quality assurance in transnational education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 7(4), 354-378. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315303255597

Das, T. K., & Teng, B.-S. (2001). Trust, control and risk in strategic alliances: An integrated framework. Organization Studies, 22(2), 251-283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840601222004

Deardorff, D. K. (Ed.) (2009). The SAGE Handbook of Intercultural Competence. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.

Early, P. C., & Ang, S. (2003). Cultural intelligence: Individual interactions across cultures. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Eldridge, K., & Cranston, N. (2009). Managing transnational education: Does national culture really matter? Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 31(1), 67-79. https://doi.org/10.1080/13600800802559286

Ferry, L. H., Job, J., Knutsen, S., Montgomery, S., Petersen, F., Rudatsikira, E., & Singh, P. (2006). Mentoring Cambodian and Lao health professionals in tobacco control leadership and research skills. Tobacco Control, 15(Suppl 1), i42-i47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/tc.2005.015008

Findyartini, A., Bilszta, J., Lysk, J., & Soemantri, D. (2019). Transnational clinical teacher training: Lessons learned and cross-cultural implications. The Asia Pacific Scholar, 4(3), 79-90. https://doi.org/10.29060/TAPS.2019-4-3/OA2088

Fryxell, G. E., Dooley, R. S., & Vryza, M. (2002). After the ink dries: The interaction of trust and control in US‐based international joint ventures. Journal of Management Studies, 39(6), 865-886. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00315

Harden, R. M. (2006). International medical education and future directions: A global perspective. Academic Medicine, 81(12), S22-29. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ACM.0000243411.19573.58

Hays, R. (2016). How to review a medical curriculum. The Asia Pacific Scholar, 1(1), 25-28. https://doi.org/10.29060/TAPS.2016-1-1/SC1009

Heffernan, T., & Poole, D. (2005). In search of ‘‘the vibe’’: Creating effective international education partnerships. Higher Education, 50(2), 223-245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-004-6352-2

Heron, J., & Reason, P. (2001). The practice of co-operative inquiry: Research ‘with’ rather than ‘on’ people. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research: Participative inquiry and practice (pp. 179-188). London: Sage Publications.

Hodges, B. D., Maniate, J.M., Martimianakis, M. A. (Tina), Alsuwaidan, M., & Segouin, C. (2009). Cracks and crevices: Globalization discourse and medical education. Medical Teacher, 31(10), 910-917.
https://doi.org/10.3109/01421590802534932

Kanchanachitra, C., Lindelow, M., Johnston, T., Hanvoravongchai, P., Lorenzo, F. M., Huong, N. L., . . . dela Rosa, J. F. (2011). Human resources for health in southeast Asia: Shortages, distributional challenges, and international trade in health services. The Lancet, 377(9767), 769-781. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(10)62035-1

Keay, J., May, H., & O’Mahony, J. (2014). Improving learning and teaching in transnational education: can communities of practice help? Journal of Education for Teaching, 40(3), 251-266.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2014.903025

Kim, D.-H., Lee, J.-H., Park, J., & Shin, J.-S. (2017). Process-oriented evaluation of an international faculty development program for Asian developing countries: A qualitative study. BMC Medical Education, 17(1), 260.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-017-1101-2

Kim, D.-H., Yoon, H. B., Sung, M., Yoo, D.-M., Hwang, J., Kim, E. J., . . . Shij, J.-S. (2015). Evaluation of an international faculty development program for developing countries in Asia: The Seoul Intensive Course for Medical Educators. BMC Medical Education, 15(1), 224. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-015-0518-8

Kosmützky, A., & Putty, R. (2015). Transcending borders and traversing boundaries: A systematic review of the literature on transnational, offshore, cross-border, and borderless higher education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 20(1), 8-33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315315604719

Lam, T. P., & Lam, Y. Y. B. (2009). Medical education reform: The Asian experience. Academic Medicine, 84(9), 1313-1317. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181b18189

Maher, J., Sicchia, S., & Stein, L. G. (2003). Learning the culture of partnership: A case study in collaboration between a Canadian university and its Costa Rican partner. Canadian Journal of Development Studies/Revue Canadienne d’etudes Du Developpement, 24(1), 107-118. https://doi.org/10.1080/02255189.2003.9668899

Majumder, M. A. A. (2004). Issues and priorities of medical education research in Asia. ANNALS Academy of Medicine Singapore, 33(2), 257-263.

Mertens, D. M. (2009). Transformative research and evaluation. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Nhan, T. T., & Nguyen, H. C. (2018). Quality challenges in transnational higher education under profit-driven motives: The Vietnamese experience. Issues in Educational Research, 28(1), 138-152.

Pashby, K., & de Oliveira Andreotti, V. (2016). Ethical internationalisation in higher education: Interfaces with international development and sustainability. Environmental Education Research, 22(6), 771-787.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2016.1201789

Phuong, T. T., Duong, H. B., & McLean, G. N. (2015). Faculty development in Southeast Asian higher education: A review of literature. Asia Pacific Education Review, 16(1), 107-117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-015-9353-1

Pike, A., McHug, M., Canney, K. C., Miller, N. E., Reiley, P., & Seibert, C. (1993). A new architecture for quality assurance: Nurse-physician collaboration. Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 7(3), 1-8.

Prideaux, D. (2003). ABC of learning and teaching in medicine: Curriculum design. British Medical Journal, 326(7383), 268-270. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7383.268

Shams, F., & Huisman, J. (2012). Managing offshore branch campuses: An analytical framework for institutional strategies. Journal of Studies in International Education, 16(2), 106-127. https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315311413470

Sherman, L. T., & Chappell, K. B. (2018). Global perspective on continuing professional development. The Asia Pacific Scholar, 3(2), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.29060/TAPS.2018-3-2/GP1074

Steinert, Y., Mann, K., Centeno, A., Dolmans, D., Spencer, J., Gelula, M., & Prideaux, D. (2006). A systematic review of faculty development initiatives designed to improve teaching effectiveness in medical education: BEME Guide No. 8. Medical Teacher, 28(6), 497-526. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590600902976

Sullivan, M. P., Forrester, D., & Al-Makhamreh, S. (2010). Transnational collaboration: Evaluation of a social work training workshop in Jordan. International Social Work, 53(2), 217-232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872809355387

Tupe, D. A., Kern, S. B., Salvant, S., & Talero, P. (2015). Building international sustainable partnerships in occupational therapy: A case study. Occupational Therapy International, 22(3), 131-140. https://doi.org/10.1002/oti.1407

Waterval, D. G. J., Driessen, E. W., Scherpbier, A. J. J. A., & Frambach, J. M. (2018). Twelve tips for crossborder curriculum partnerships in medical education. Medical Teacher, 40(5), 514-519.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2018.1429585

Waterval, D. G. J., Frambach, J. M., Driessen, E. W., & Scherpbier, A. J. J. A. (2014). Copy but not paste: A literature review of crossborder curriculum partnerships. Journal of Studies in International Education, 19(1), 65-85.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1028315314533608

Whitehead, C., Wondimagegn, D., Baheretibeb, Y., & Brian, B. H. (2018). The International partner as invited guest: Beyond colonial and import-export models of medical education. Academic Medicine, 93(12), 1760-1763. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000002268

World Health Organisation. (2013). Implementation of the Human Resources for Health Strategy in the Western Pacific Region: A analytical review. Manila: World Health Organisation Regional Office for the Western Pacific. Retrieved August 22, 2019, from
http://www.wpro.who.int/hrh/documents/publications/implementation_of_hrh_strategy_upload.pdf

Wiek, A., Bernstein, M., Laubichler, M., Caniglia, G., Minteer, B., & Lang, D. (2013). A global classroom for international sustainability education. Creative Education, 4(4), 19-28. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2013.44A004

Yoon, H., Shin, J., Lee, S., Kim, D., Sung, M., Amgalan, N., & Chinzorig, T. (2016). Transnational collaboration for faculty development in health professions education in Mongolia. Korean Journal of Medical Education, 28(4), 381-390. https://doi.org/10.3946/kjme.2016.43

Yudhi, W. S., Nanere, M. G., & Nsubuga-Kyobe, A. (2006). A comparative study of negotiation styles of education managers in Australia and Indonesia. In Proceedings of the Asian Forum on Business Education. Retrieved August 22, 2019, from http://www.seameo.org/vl/library/dlwelcome/publications/paper/ABFE06/AFBE06.htm

Zhang, Y., & Huxham, C. (2009). Identity construction and trust building in developing international collaborations. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 45(2), 186-211. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886309333327

*Diantha Soemantri
Department of Medical Education,
Faculty of Medicine, Universitas Indonesia,
Salemba 6 Central Jakarta,
DKI Jakarta, Indonesia 10430
Email: diantha.soemantri@ui.ac.id
dianthasoemantri@yahoo.com