The global COVID-19 pandemic has presented opportunities for internationalisation of medical education (IoME). IoME promotes international healthcare understanding and cooperation, minimises healthcare nationalism and equitably improves the health of all people worldwide.
In line with the broader definition of internationalisation of higher education, it can best be described as the process of purposefully integrating international, intercultural or global dimensions into medical education in order to enhance its quality and prepare all graduates for professional practice in a globalised world.
Thus, physicians regard themselves as part of a worldwide medical community and solve healthcare issues in a collaborative manner. Although IoME is a global phenomenon, the understandings and perspectives of the Global North have traditionally dominated and therefore addressed only a narrow spectrum of activities transpiring globally.
Motivations for internationalisation of medical education have focused on three major models. The first two, the market and social transformation models, have their limitations.
The market model: competition as a driver
With its focus on competition, the market model is often practised in low- and middle-income countries. Countries and institutions aim to improve their world ranking in science and clinical care through the lens of the Western world. Competition as motivation for internationalisation has immediate and measurable successes, but incurs the risk that, once certain achievement milestones are reached, interest in IoME is lost.
This model is characterised by inward thinking with respect to educational activities, which can foster, and result in, nationalism. This ultimately increases the risk of healthcare nationalism as countries try to compete for global leadership and disregard the common goal of improving the health of all people worldwide.
In addition, actors turn away when spotting a competitor in the market (as exemplified by the relationship between China and the United States in recent history). As such, the market model is rather unsustainable and its motivation is counterproductive to what IoME attempts to achieve.
The social transformation model: doing good
The social transformation model, dominant in the Global North and emphasising the humanitarian aspects of IoME, is rooted in altruistic and compassionate values. This model is predominantly realised via student outbound mobility, particularly to low- and middle-income countries (LMIC). However, this format does not fully realise the vision of social transformation of IoME in practice.
Research has shown that one-sided, short-term student mobility to LMIC, as currently practised in the Global North, is inherently unjust and not inclusive in many ways.
It tends to create a burden for the low-resource host countries and is ethically problematic when students are sent to a culturally diverse environment without proper preparation (for example, when medical students from the Global North volunteer to work in neonatal units in Sub-Saharan Africa).
There appears to be a lack of reporting on the voices of the Global South in the current body of literature.
Formats cater primarily to the needs of students from the Global North and mobility programmes are generally only accessible to a minority of privileged students at select institutions.
The above excludes the majority of students and thus is not in line with the vision of general accessibility in higher education. Furthermore, in times of pandemics and conflicts, these mobility programmes are not a safe way to educate students.