×

Global health training and postgraduate medical education in Australia: the case for greater integration

Global health (GH) is now firmly entrenched as an academic discipline in its own right. Defined as an area for study, research and practice that places a priority on improving health and achieving health equity for all people worldwide, it emphasises transnational health issues, determinants and solutions; involves many disciplines between and beyond the health sciences; and synthesises population-based prevention with individual-level care.1

This article, written from the trainee perspective, considers the relevance of global heath experiences to postgraduate medical education systems in Australia. It examines the risks and benefits of vocational trainee exposure to international rotations in resource-poor settings and makes recommendations for enhanced integration of GH with specialty education programs.

Global health training

Recognition that doctors engaged in GH practice require a skill set beyond that traditionally incorporated into medical curricula has given rise to the concept of GH training.2,3 The groundswell of activity in this area has occurred in North America, where education in GH is increasingly integrated with medical school and postgraduate training programs. Although there is significant variation in the way GH training is delivered, curricula tend to focus heavily on health equity concepts and generally encourage international fieldwork.25 In some institutions, fellowship programs have been developed to allow senior trainees to acquire more advanced skills.6,7

In response to this growth, a comprehensive guidebook for the incorporation of GH training into residency programs has been published.4 Ethical guidelines for overseas rotations have also been produced, including statements by the Working Group on Ethics Guidelines for Global Health Training and trainee associations.5,8 These recognise the ethical complexities involved in international placements.9,10

This evolution is in keeping with a broader movement towards greater social accountability in medical education.11 Consistent with this, a 2010 Lancet commission called for additional emphasis on transformative and interdependent learning in order to produce health professionals who are equipped to face the global challenges of the 21st century.12

To a large extent, the expansion in GH training has been driven by a well documented demand from trainees. For example, a 2007 study of 724 surgical residents in the United States found that 92% were interested in undertaking an international clinical elective and 82% would prioritise this over other opportunities.13 In Canada, a recent survey of 1735 junior doctors identified that 43% had undertaken or planned to undertake GH activities.14

Australian experience

The extent to which Australian graduates are attracted to GH training has not been quantified but there is surrogate evidence of interest. Trainees are increasingly accessing GH learning and networking activities, including Global Health Gateway (an online resource: http://www.globalhealthgateway.org.au), the Global Ideas Forum (a conference for early career health professionals: http://www.globalideasforum.org) and Global Health Drinks (an informal experience-sharing forum in Sydney: http://www.globalhealthdrinks.org). The development of A guide to working abroad for Australian medical students and junior doctors, published as an eSupplement to this Journal, is also indicative of the interest in the area.15

At the undergraduate level, one study has suggested that over 90% of students believe that GH should be a component of medical school programs, and the number of attendees at the annual Australian Medical Students’ Association Global Health Conference continues to rise.16 Membership of university GH groups is also increasing.17

Despite the level of interest, GH training is poorly integrated with postgraduate medical education systems in Australia. Only recently has one college faculty drafted a specific curriculum to prepare fellows for GH practice.18 Key themes include reflective practice, cultural competency, health systems strengthening, community development, aid effectiveness and GH advocacy. While pathways to international work in other disciplines are relatively informal, the requisite skill sets are increasingly being described.19

Among colleges, mechanisms for determining if overseas rotations can be accredited towards fellowship are variable.15 Some have relatively well defined pathways — the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine, for instance, has created a specific option for trainees to undertake accredited training in a resource-poor environment with arrangements for remote supervision.20 Certain other colleges, including the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, have prospective approval processes for senior registrars wishing to undertake overseas placements.15

Although there are now several university-affiliated GH institutes, these are not well integrated with clinical training programs. As a marker of this, growing numbers of medical graduates are enrolling in relevant postgraduate courses, such as Masters of Public Health. These increasingly include a focus on health systems in developing countries.21

In the absence of formal arrangements, access to GH experiences is limited by a number of factors, including a lack of recognition from educational providers, suboptimal supervision arrangements, limited access to cultural competency training, competing training commitments, family responsibilities, loss of income and safety concerns.2,14,15 As a result, vocational trainees interested in working abroad tend to do so outside formal training programs and often through non-governmental organisations or volunteer placement agencies. One example is Médecins Sans Frontières Australia, which in 2012 dispatched 44 doctors (and many other health professionals) to international field settings; a majority of these were non-specialists (Sophie McNamara, Communications Officer, Médecins Sans Frontières Australia, personal communication, February 2013).

Benefits and risks

Reports of Australian trainees undertaking accredited training in overseas settings suggest that GH experiences can feasibly be undertaken as part of specialty education programs.15,22,23 While some aspects of GH education can be undertaken locally, many trainees will eventually seek international clinical experiences. The benefits of rotations in resource-poor settings are summarised in Box 1. Similar advantages have been described internationally.2,5,24

Several published examples illustrate how GH rotations can work in practice.15,22,23 Characteristically, these include service delivery and education components based on mutually agreed learning and development objectives. For instance, a recently described placement for Australasian College for Emergency Medicine trainees in Papua New Guinea includes both a clinical role in a regional emergency department and a teaching appointment at a local university.22,23

GH training based on sound principles has the potential to provide rewarding training experiences for Australian trainees, broker relationships between Australian and overseas health services and education providers, and build health care capacity in host communities. The establishment of international academic partnerships would also lend itself to enhanced regional research capabilities. Together, these developments would allow Australia to increase its practical contribution towards emerging GH challenges (such as chronic disease in the Asia–Pacific region) and help answer the call for greater leadership in the discipline.25

International clinical experiences also carry the potential for harm to the trainee, the training institution and the host community (Box 2).2,5,9,10,24 These risks are similar to those associated with short-term medical missions undertaken outside of mature and sustainable partnerships.26 The negative effects of “voluntourism” have been well described.26,27

Host communities are vulnerable; however, implementation of risk management strategies and observance of ethical guidelines should greatly ameliorate the potential for harm.5,9,24 Any arrangement where one party is exploited for the benefit of another would be unacceptable.

Towards greater integration

Notwithstanding the risks, the demand from trainees and educators for GH experiences means that the establishment of formal GH training pathways in Australia warrants greater consideration. This would align postgraduate training with the broader movement towards social accountability in medical education as well as Australia’s broader aid and foreign policy objectives. Similar calls have recently been made in the United Kingdom.28

Necessary steps as part of this evolution include:

  • attainment of better-quality data on models currently in operation and the extent of interest among trainees;

  • development of guidelines for Australian vocational trainees undertaking placements abroad, which could be supplemented by specialty- and placement-specific advice;

  • integration and mainstreaming of GH education into postgraduate training curricula;

  • incorporation of GH training into medical education conferences, to highlight best practice and encourage the development of evidence-based programs;

  • design, support and evaluation of opportunities for vocational trainees to undertake rotations abroad that are safe, effective and ethically defensible, in part because they are incorporated into mature bilateral relationships and accredited by the relevant training body; and

  • development of mutually beneficial and enduring partnerships between Australian and overseas health services, training institutions and GH agencies, underpinned by a commitment to academic collaboration and the exchange of knowledge and experience.

Although no central body has the capacity or authority to manage this process, incremental change should be achievable with collaboration between trainees, health services and education providers.

Experience from overseas suggests that development of effective GH training systems is likely to occur in an iterative fashion, with qualified institutions that have mature international partnerships leading by example. Medical colleges have a key role to play, drawing on the experience of international affiliates, academic institutes and volunteer deployment agencies.

Fortunately, there is no shortage of guidance to inform the process.35,9,15,24,29 Particularly relevant are previously defined competencies for Australian health professionals working in international health, including in technical, cultural and interpersonal domains.29 Ethical principles for Australian junior doctors practising in overseas settings have also been published and provide a platform for more substantive guidelines.18

More formal systems of GH training in Australia have the potential to create a cohort of doctors with the skills and knowledge necessary to engage in regional health challenges in a global context. Despite the complexity of developing safe and effective programs based on strong and durable international partnerships, the case for change is compelling.

1 Potential benefits of global health training and international rotations

Stakeholder

Benefit

Examples


Trainee

Personal development

Improved cultural safety; enhanced personal awareness; opportunities for leadership; appreciation of the complexities of enacting change as a visitor

Professional development

Exposure to different pathologies; refinement of diagnostic skills; appreciation of unique challenges within different health care systems; rationalisation of health care resources; development of a population and community health perspective

Training institution and/or health service

Enhanced clinical practice

New skills and knowledge sets that can be applied locally; systems improvement based on experience abroad; greater exposure to interprofessional training and practice

Recruitment and retention

Attract and retain trainees with an interest in global health

Mutually beneficial partnerships

Establish international exchanges, offering new training, clinical improvement and research opportunities

Australian community

Improved standards of health care

Complex health care delivered by clinicians with improved clinical, cultural and sociopolitical awareness; enhanced performance based on international knowledge and experience; clinicians experienced in generalist medicine

More equitable health care

Service delivery targeted at disadvantaged populations

Host community

Education and training

Clinical and non-clinical education delivered by visiting doctors; knowledge exchange between trainees; resources for enhanced training and supervision provided by Australian partners; opportunities for local graduates to undertake short- and medium-term reciprocal placements in affiliated Australian institutions

Research capacity

Enhanced capabilities based on mutually beneficial partnerships

Systems enhancement

Systems improvement based on Australian experience; additional workforce in the form of visiting trainees; development of long-term, mutually beneficial relationships

2 Potential risks of global health training and international rotations

Stakeholder

Risk

Examples


Trainee

Suboptimal training

Inadequate supervision or educational support

Physical and mental health

Communicable diseases; volatile environments; limited support networks and pastoral care; insufficient reflection and evaluation on completion of placement

Financial stress

Loss of income and entitlements; travel expenses

Training institution and/or health service

Financial loss

Loss of setup costs if training partnership fails

Liability

Potential legal proceedings; damage to reputation

Host community

Deviation from local priorities

Attention placed on health priorities not endorsed by the local community; emphasis put on Western models of health care that may not be appropriate for developing settings; focus potentially shifted away from generalist medicine

Inequitable partnership

Lack of involvement in decision making; imbalance in cost; attention deviated from service delivery

Unacceptable and unethical practices

Unsafe practice as a result of inexperience, inadequate supervision and unfamiliarity; culturally inappropriate practices resulting in psychological harm to patients

Human capital displacement

Displacement of local trainees; trained local health workers emigrating to Australia; disincentive to invest in a local workforce

International medical electives undertaken by Australian medical students: current trends and future directions

In response to the increasing interest among medical students and junior doctors in studying and practising medicine abroad, the Medical Journal of Australia recently published A guide to working abroad for Australian medical students and junior doctors.1 It is in the context of increasing interest in global health2 and in the spirit of supporting young medical professionals that this study examines international medical electives (IMEs), specifically the number of Australian medical students undertaking them, and the support provided to those students by Australian medical schools.

Electives are a compulsory component of all medical curricula in . They are usually undertaken during senior clinical years over 2 to 8 weeks, either in or overseas, in both high- and low-resource settings. Consistent with increasing interest in global health, IME rates have been found to be high in the and increasing in the .2,3

Many benefits of IMEs have been described. Students report less dependence on technology; improved clinical, diagnostic and communication skills; better knowledge of tropical diseases and immigrant health; and better understanding of prevention, primary care and public health.2,4 Participation in IMEs influences students’ career choices towards primary care specialties, graduate education in public health, and working with underserved populations.5,6 In contrast, the potential benefits to communities hosting students on medical electives have received little attention and are poorly understood.4

IMEs also present potential risks and harms to both the student and the host community. Risks to the student include transmission of disease, needlestick injuries, traffic accidents, crime-related injuries, and mental health problems.7 Potential harms to host communities, particularly in developing countries, emerge from a power imbalance between visiting students and host communities, and the potential for students focused on learning objectives to compromise patient care and community wellbeing.8 As a result, IMEs may falsely raise expectations, impose burdens on local human resources, and impede continuity of and access to care, ultimately compromising equity and sustainability.9

Predeparture training and post-elective debriefing can provide students with guidance and support to reduce potential harms and maximise the benefits of IMEs.10 Predeparture training prepares students with the tools to manage the ethical, cultural and logistical challenges they may encounter. Postelective debriefing provides a forum for students to discuss and explore any issues that arose, consolidate learning, and encourage the development of students as responsible doctors.

At present no study has evaluated the proportion of Australian medical students undertaking IMEs and the support offered by Australian medical schools. This study set out to remedy this evidence gap.

Methods

The Medical Schools Outcomes Database (MSOD) is a national initiative for longitudinal tracking of medical students through medical school and into prevocational and vocational training;11 it began collecting data nationally in 2006. In May 2012, we obtained data from the MSOD covering the period 1 January 2006 to to establish the number of students who undertook IMEs. Students consent to participate in the MSOD project in their first year of medical school, and are subsequently included in annual follow-ups. Therefore, the 2006 data only include Year 1 students, the 2007 data include students in Years 1 and 2, the 2008 data include students in Years 1, 2 and 3, and so on. As a result, four cohorts of students within the dataset had graduated and were used to estimate the total proportion of medical students who undertake at least one IME during their degree. Students who took more than one IME were counted once, and we estimated cohort size using the total number of students who were registered in the final year of their medical course.

We also conducted structured interviews with academic staff from 16 of the 19 Australian medical schools (those at the University of Notre Dame in Sydney and Fremantle have different curriculums and are considered as separate schools in this study). Data were collected from Australian medical schools between May and July 2012 and reflect the program status at that time.

We divided medical education programs into high-school entry (HSE) programs (5- or 6-year programs that admit students after they complete high school, although some students may have a prior degree) and graduate-entry (GE) programs (4- or 5-year programs that require students to have a prior undergraduate degree). Programs with a mid-year intake (ie, 4.5-year programs) were treated as 5-year programs.

We collected data on predeparture training and postelective debriefing independently from each medical school in . Data were collected in cooperation with the Australian Medical Students’ Association (AMSA) and the AMSA Global Health (AGH) Committee, which comprises student representatives from every medical school in Australia. AGH Committee representatives were provided with letters of introduction, information sheets, consent forms, interview scripts, and response forms. Representatives were asked to gain consent and conduct an interview with the director of their medical program.

The income status of countries where students undertook electives was based on the World Bank Atlas Method. Lower- or middle-income countries included countries with a gross national income (GNI) per capita of less than US$12 275.12 For the purposes of this analysis, states that remain protectorates were placed in the same category as the protecting country.

Ethics approval for release of MSOD data was granted by the Medical Deans Australia and New Zealand Research and Scientific Advisory Committee (SA-2012-003). Ethics approval for data collection from medical schools was granted by the Social and Behavioural Research Ethics Committee at (Project N 5561).

Results
MSOD data

Participation in the MSOD over our study period averaged 88% of students enrolled at Australian medical schools.11 The four cohorts in our study included the 5-year HSE program cohort that commenced in 2006, and three GE cohorts (the 4- and 5-year program cohorts that commenced in 2006, and the 4-year program cohort that commenced in 2007). Our findings on students in these cohorts who undertook IMEs are summarised in the Box.

Medical school interviews

Currently, 12 of the 16 Australian medical schools interviewed offer some form of predeparture training. However, in only six of these schools is predeparture training mandatory. The average duration of predeparture training is 4.7 (SD, 4.22) hours. By comparison, eight schools offer some form of postelective debriefing. However, in only three schools is this mandatory. The average duration of postelective debriefing is 1.2 (SD, 0.91) hours.

Discussion

Our findings show that a significant proportion of Australian medical students undertake IMEs, and that more than half do so in developing countries.

Our estimates show that a greater proportion of Australian medical students undertake IMEs compared with US medical students. The estimated proportion of US medical students who undertook IMEs in 2007 was about 30%, and all of these were GE program students.13 By contrast, a study from the UK (where most medical schools offer HSE programs) estimates that 90% of medical students undertake IMEs, with 44% of them doing so in developing countries.3 While a much smaller proportion of Australian GE and HSE students undertake IMEs than UK students, a greater proportion of them do so in developing countries.

Considering that a significant proportion of Australian medical students undertook electives in developing countries, it is concerning that predeparture training and postelective debriefing are not offered to all students, and that what is offered is not always compulsory. However, improvement is achievable. In 2008, only 11 of the 17 Canadian medical schools offered predeparture training, and in only six of these was such training mandatory.14 By 2010, this had increased to 16 out of 17 schools offering predeparture training, with 11 making it mandatory.15 A similar transformation in is both necessary and possible.

Our study was limited by the lack of data for Year 6 HSE students, relatively small cohort sizes in senior years, and less than full participation in the MSOD program. Nonetheless, our data provide a foundation for further research into the content of predeparture training and postelective debriefing and financial support offered by Australian medical schools, as well as the benefits and acceptability of predeparture training and postelective debriefing programs to students. We encourage medical schools to scale up predeparture training and postelective debriefing that adequately prepare students to undertake safe and ethical electives. We also recommend that a similar study be repeated in 3 to 5 years to evaluate progress in predeparture training and postelective debriefing.

Students who both commenced and graduated from an Australian medical school during 2006–2010 and who undertook international medical electives (IMEs)

Variable

All students(n = 2101)

HSE program students(n = 383)

GE program students(n = 1718)

Students undertaking an IME

1044 (49.7%)

135 (35.3%)

909 (52.9%)

IME in a lower- or middle-income country

613 (58.7%)

75 (55.6%)

538 (59.2%)

IME in country of birth*

110 (10.5%)

21 (15.6%)

89 (9.8%)


GE = graduate-entry. HSE = high-school entry.* International students.

Gaining a patient’s perspective while becoming a doctor

A medical student learns by seeing the system from the other side

Two doctors, both aged over 70 years, teach our rotation of medical students. They stress “old-fashioned” values, including accurate history-taking, thorough physical examination, punctuality and courtesy. In an era of high-technology medicine and high patient throughput, how relevant are these dated principles?

Assigned to the best private hospital in the city, crammed with top specialists for my clinical placement year, it was downhill from there, I believed. I headed off to play squash after observing a protracted total hip replacement one night and felt on top of my game. A tinge of arrogant invincibility may have been the incentive to stretch just a bit further for an impossibly low wall shot. I reached it, won the point and tore my plantaris, soleus and gastrocnemius muscles at the same time.

Rest, ice, compress, elevate; just one of countless mnemonics to implement. I attended our surgery rotation on borrowed crutches the next morning and sought an informal opinion. With the coffee table between us, the consultant proclaimed: “gastroc’s largely intact and will heal with immobilisation — no need for surgery — you’ll be fine”. In naive faith, I hobbled between operating theatres in a loaned orthopaedic boot. Pain is for wimps, doctors don’t take time off and the course very effectively weeds out those who cannot cope. By the end of the week I realised I was a wimp. My leg started to swell and I could no longer sleep so I sheepishly took myself to the hospital’s accident and emergency centre.

I was grateful to be bulk-billed and seen after a long list of the more deserving, who had paid to be there. Had I not been the patient in this scenario, I might have breezed in to solicit a clinical history and been irritated by a patient’s rambling version of events when all I needed was a concise and structured account for my case presentation. I prepared for the interrogation, determined I would impress. Finally, the big moment arrived. There were no students, only the specialist and he was clearly rushed. I felt like a freeloader. He asked how I had injured my calf, cut me off to write a request for ultrasound and vanished. After being parked in the corridor for a couple of hours, I was wheeled to ultrasound with a referral letter that stated annoyingly, “the patient showed no obvious signs of discomfort”, and made a host of other statements, some accurate, that must have been transferred from me by telepathy. The ultrasound technician was equally terse. Seeing my trousers still on, she reiterated they were “very busy”. I was wheeled back to accident and emergency for another hour until the specialist popped his head around the corner and said, “deep vein thrombosis”, and, while reading the ultrasound report, asked the nurse to give me a shot of low molecular weight heparin (you don’t need consent from a medical student). Once done, he came back with a prescription and instructed me to self-inject twice daily, purchase graduated compression stockings and make an appointment with a vascular physician. As he attempted an exit I asked about pain control and was told to continue over-the-counter preparations. I hobbled off for 2 hours of painful waiting to get the prescription, and another half hour to work out that the stockings they measured me for (twice) were not in stock. My wife drove me around the city in search of another source; a faxed prescription then had to be sought while we waited out the remaining hours of the day. No time for ice, compression or elevation!

Three days later, still in agony, unable to sleep or study, I managed with difficulty to convince the vascular specialist’s receptionist to squeeze me in between appointments 5 days early. This time there was no reduction in fees and I began to worry whether I could afford it. No examination was performed and no history taken. My request for an opiate was granted and I learned that the deep vein thrombosis was over 70 cm long and would be imaged again in a couple of months. The big fee however came with new advice: “mobilise . . . and get back to hospital if you cough blood”. I hobbled down another long corridor to the pathology lab and waited another hour for a blood test. My calf throbbed and I received a stern look from the receptionist when I attempted to elevate it onto the chair opposite. I contemplated whether one specialist’s advice to immobilise had now been trumped by new advice to mobilise. At least the opiate allowed me to sleep. I tried to study but achieved little except worrying about my medical bill and inability to continue my part-time job, not to mention that our university is inflexible — miss 2 weeks and you fail the year. So, not daring to incur the wrath of surgeons by sitting down, I dutifully perched around the surgery table for the rest of the month.

After rounds, one of the elderly doctors nominated me to present a case. I had not had the energy to get around the wards and had contemplated abandoning the course when re-imaging showed a near total rupture of the Achilles tendon that had been missed. We “de-identify” patients, so I presented my own case to cover for my failure to find a suitable case to present. He took me aside and told me that, in his opinion, it was a priority that I miss his tutorials for the rest of the week and sit with my leg up. By the following Monday, the swelling that had refused to diminish over weeks had receded. I was able to stop taking opiates and start to study again. My iconic, high-pressure, state-of-the-art mentors, thriving on challenging cases and for whom every minute is valuable had failed, over many weeks, to notice a person behind the condition.

The most valuable lesson I learned at the best private hospital in town is what it is like to be a patient.

Closing the global gender gap

Education is the key to not only better health outcomes but also less global conflict

Today, sex-based inequalities and inequities shape how individuals are disproportionately exposed to adverse determinants of health. Our sex can determine how well or ill we become, and if or how our health care needs are acknowledged and met.1 The underlying reasons for this disparity are complex and diverse, shaped by how sex and sexual customs interact within varying political and social contexts. Discriminatory values, norms and behaviours, different exposures and disease vulnerability, and health system and health research biases all interact to result in sex-based inequities in health outcomes.1 Conversely, ill health, in and of itself, can also negatively influence social and economic outcomes.

The World Economic Forum has developed a framework, the Global Gender Gap Index, to measure sex-based disparities among countries and to track these disparities over time.2 The framework outlines and examines inequities between men and women in four broad categories: economic participation and opportunity; educational attainment; health and survival; and political empowerment. These four “pillars” are considered essential in recognising the importance of the role of women in society and in diminishing the gaps between the sexes. According to this framework, no country has, as yet, achieved sex equity in all of these four categories, although some countries (eg, Scandinavian countries) are getting close to achieving this goal.

The framework also highlights that high-income countries often have fewer sex-based inequities than low-income countries.2 It is well known that, generally speaking, women in low-income countries fare far worse in terms of health outcomes, and are more likely to experience death during youth and adolescence than those in high-income countries. Maternal mortality exemplifies this, with the vast majority of maternal mortality occurring in low-income countries with weak institutional (including health) structures.

Why has no country in the world achieved sex-based equity? Is inequity between the sexes not an abuse of human rights? It is imperative that action be taken, and I would argue that the most fundamental action required is to provide all women with the opportunity of education.

Educating women has been shown not only to improve health, but also to decrease population growth, decrease child mortality, decrease child marriages and increase the participation of women in the labour force — all of which lead to faster economic growth and decreased poverty. Education is the key to building community capacity, as it provides individuals with the knowledge to participate in society.3 Education is also the key to resolving conflict, locally, regionally and globally, as it has also been shown that less conflict occurs in societies where women have higher economic and social status.4

Globally, there have been strong efforts to ensure access to primary education for all children. World Bank Group data show that, in 1999, 105.6 million children were identified as out-of-school children (ie, not enrolled in primary school); 58% of these were girls and 42% were boys. By 2009, the number of out-of-school children had decreased to 67 million; 52% of these were girls.5 Education is lacking in many regions in the world,3 so this global gap is much larger in specific regions of conflict or low-income countries.

For example, in Afghanistan, 2009 data from the World Bank Group show that the expected years of schooling for a child vary greatly by sex. Boys are in school for an average of 11.2 years; girls, 6.8 years.5 From a global perspective, sub-Saharan Africa is home to half of the world’s out-of-school girls, and South Asia to a quarter.6 Nigeria, Pakistan and India, the three countries with the most out-of-school children, are recognised for their poor treatment of women.6

We need to ask why women are treated as second-class citizens in terms of access to health care and education in developing countries. A global effort is needed to change this pattern, to change the societal view of women, with the goal of promoting equal access to education for girls. Our path forward, as men and women, is to complement each other, not to compete; to create a balance and harmony in relations, not to strengthen one over the other; for all to be strong, and to eradicate domination. Collective efforts are needed from us all, because no one person or group can do everything. Men’s participation, awareness and engagement in this goal will be vital. A global society of freedom, justice and peace will not be achieved unless all human needs are met.7