Academic Competencies in Academic Global Surgery: A Scoping Review

ABSTRACT

Background

Global Surgery addresses inequalities in surgical care. As the field grows, academic programs have developed to train professionals needed to tackle systemic challenges. However, little synthesis exists about the competencies taught. This scoping review aimed to synthesize competencies taught in academic global surgery programs and present educational frameworks used.

Methods

This scoping review followed the Arksey and O'Malley framework and PRISMA‐ScR guidelines to map competencies taught in academic global surgery programs between 2000 and 2024. Peer‐reviewed studies and multiple data sources in English were systematically searched, screened, and analyzed thematically and descriptively.

Results

Out of 6077 records screened, 77 data sources describing academic global surgery programs met inclusion criteria. The most common qualification offered was a fellowship, followed by Master's degrees, short courses, and undergraduate modules. Programs most frequently emphasized competencies in equity, research, systems strengthening, and leadership, with additional focus on interdisciplinary collaboration, ethics, and policy. The vast majority of programs were based in the Region of the Americas (North America), particularly in high‐income countries. Educational frameworks varied widely, including institution‐specific models, global health standards (e.g., Consortium of Universities for Global Health (CUGH), Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)), and competency‐based approaches. Most programs were delivered in‐person, though hybrid and online formats were also present.

Conclusions

Our review highlights the diversity and inadequate standardization of existing academic global surgery programs, with a strong emphasis on equity, systems, and leadership competencies. Standardizing core competencies and expanding programs beyond high‐income regions may strengthen academic global surgery.

1. Introduction

Global surgery emerged as a critical discipline in global health, aiming to address disparities in surgical care access, quality, and outcomes between high‐income countries (HICs) and low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs) [1, 2, 3]. Despite its central role in achieving universal health coverage (UHC), approximately 5 billion people globally remain without adequate surgical care, with the burden disproportionately affecting underserved populations in LMICs [2, 4]. This growing awareness has catalyzed global efforts to strengthen surgical systems.

As the field of global surgery grows, academic training programs have emerged worldwide [5] to equip healthcare professionals with the necessary knowledge and skills to address surgical disparities [6, 7]. These programs aim to prepare health professionals for the multifaceted nature of surgical care in diverse settings, often extending beyond traditional clinical training [8, 9, 10]. While technical surgical training is a core component, global surgery programs increasingly integrate a broader set of competencies to prepare trainees for the complex social, economic, and systemic challenges they will face [8, 11, 12, 13].

Competency‐based education has become a key pedagogical framework in academic global surgery, focusing on learners' ability to apply knowledge in practical settings [13, 14]. Academic programs often incorporate a combination of didactic learning, experiential placements, and mentorship to build practical and adaptable skill sets. Notably, these competencies are shaped by the intersection of surgery, global health, and public policy, reflecting the field's interdisciplinary nature [12].

However, the specific competencies taught vary widely across programs, and no comprehensive synthesis currently exists [7]. Mapping the competencies included in academic global surgery programs is essential to understand educational priorities, identify gaps, and inform the development of future academic global surgery programs. Documented competency domains include surgical training, health systems strengthening, research, advocacy, and global health diplomacy [15, 16].

This scoping review seeks to identify and map the academic competencies taught in global surgery programs worldwide from January 2000 to January 2024. The aim is to highlight current educational priorities and the diversity of training approaches across institutions.

2. Materials and Methods

This scoping review aimed to identify competencies taught in academic global surgery programs worldwide and to describe the educational frameworks and teaching methods used. It followed the Arksey and O'Malley framework [17] and was reported in accordance with PRISMA‐ScR guidelines (Appendix 1) [18].

2.1. Eligibility Criteria

We included peer‐reviewed studies (2000–2024) on academic global surgery training programs (e.g., degrees, certificates, workshops, fellowships) that outlined specific competencies, skills, or learning outcomes. Only English‐language publications were considered, including primary research, program evaluations, and reviews. We also included institutional sources (e.g., university websites, brochures, catalogs, training materials) if they detailed competencies or curriculum content and were accessible online in English.

We excluded studies focused only on clinical rotations, technical skills, short‐term events (e.g., conferences), or those lacking mention of competencies. Commentaries, opinion pieces, and editorials without original data were also excluded. Programs centered purely on surgical skill delivery without structured academic content were not eligible, as our focus was on intentionally taught curricula in academic settings.

2.1.1. For Other Data Sources

We excluded sources lacking curriculum or competency detail, those outdated, inaccessible, or not affiliated with recognized institutions. We also excluded service‐delivery–only programs without an academic training component, as the review focused on academic—not clinical—global surgery initiatives.

2.2. Search Strategy and Information Sources

A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, ERIC, Google Scholar and Google (first 200 results) using keywords and controlled vocabulary related to global surgery, competencies, and academic programs, with Boolean operators to refine results. Searches were limited to English and the specified time frame (January 2000 to December 2024).

Grey literature was identified through targeted searches of institutional websites, Google advanced searches, and snowballing from known programs. Sources were included if they described structured academic global surgery programs and outlined competencies or curricular elements (Appendix 2).

2.3. Study Selection and Data Extraction

Two reviewers (YZ and DUD) screened all records and extracted data using a standardized form, resolving any disagreements through discussion or a third reviewer when needed. Extracted data included institution, program name, qualification level, duration, country of origin and delivery, delivery mode, prerequisites, target audience, competencies taught, classification of competencies, educational frameworks, and teaching methods as well as additional notes when needed. Data were recorded in Excel and reviewed for accuracy.

2.4. Data Analysis

Quantitative data were summarized descriptively. Competency themes and frameworks were analyzed thematically to identify patterns, differences, and gaps. No meta‐analysis was conducted.

2.5. Ethical Considerations

As this review involved publicly available data, formal ethical approval was not required; however, the study was approved by the Department of Surgery Research Committee (Appendix 3).

3. Results

The data search yielded 6077 results, of which 4757 did not meet our inclusion criteria. The 1320 remaining data sources were screened for exclusion criteria. After the initial screening, 1018 data sources were excluded. A full‐text review of the remaining 302 data sources was done and 225 data sources were excluded. We identified 77 remaining data sources that met our inclusion criteria in the final stage of review (Figure 1).

FIGURE 1.

Data extraction flowchart.

3.1. Level or Type of Qualification Offered in Academic Global Surgery Programs

Of the 77 academic global surgery programs included, the most common qualification was a fellowship, reported in 36 programs. This included both standalone fellowships and those combined with an academic degree or certificate (n = 6). Master's degree programs were the second most common, identified in 13 programs, while postgraduate short courses were found in 10 programs. Undergraduate courses were identified in 9 cases, and doctoral degree programs in 3. Additionally, 6 programs offered Master's‐level rotations or components embedded within broader degree structures. Graduate certificate programs were reported in 2 cases, and executive education (non‐degree) in 1 (Appendix 4).

3.2. Competencies Identified Across Academic Global Surgery Programs

Several competencies were identified across the academic global surgery programs included in this review. These competencies clustered in patterns that reflect common priorities across institutions. We developed a competency framework by organizing suggested clusters from identified academic global surgery programs (see Table 1). It consists of 11 clusters: (1) Surgical Systems and Health Systems Science; (2) Leadership and Management; (3) Research and Scientific Inquiry; (4) Clinical and Technical Excellence; (5) Policy, Advocacy and Diplomacy; (6) Health Equity and Social Determinants; (7) Education and Mentorship; (8) Ethics, Cultural Competency and Professionalism; (9) Innovation and Implementation Science; (10) Communication and Interdisciplinary Collaboration; and (11) Emergency and Humanitarian Surgery. Each cluster includes related sub‐competencies and representative examples drawn from program content. The framework also indicates the current relative emphasis of each competency cluster across the identified programs, ranging from “Very Common” to “Less Common” (Table 1).

TABLE 1.

Suggested framework of competencies in global surgery education (qualitative quantification) generated based on frequency and attempted thematic clusters summarization.

Serial number	Suggested competency clusters inspired by competencies across identified programs	Description and sub‐competencies based on competencies across identified programs	Representative examples from competencies across identified programs	Frequency (percentage) of occurrence across identified programs	Current representativity across identified programs
1	Surgical Systems and Health Systems Science	Understanding the organization, function, and strengthening of surgical and broader health systems in various contexts.	Global surgery systems, NSOAP planning, health systems understanding, infrastructure assessment, health metrics	45 (58.4%)	Very Common
2	Leadership and Management	Developing capabilities to lead projects, programs, teams, and institutions across diverse contexts.	Change management, strategic planning, academic leadership, stakeholder engagement, capacity building	36 (46.8%)	Very Common
3	Research and Scientific Inquiry	Skills in designing, conducting, and analyzing research to inform practice, policy, and education.	Research design, statistical analysis, critical appraisal, grantsmanship, project implementation	34 (44.1%)	Very Common
4	Clinical and Technical Excellence	Competence in providing high‐quality surgical and perioperative care in both high‐resource and low‐resource environments.	Essential surgical skills, pediatric surgery, trauma care, outpatient care in LMICs	23 (29.9%)	Common
5	Policy, Advocacy and Diplomacy	Understanding and influencing health and surgical policy, engaging in advocacy and diplomacy to advance global surgery priorities.	Policy development, advocacy, legislative research, health diplomacy, GIS data mapping	16 (20.8%)	Common
6	Health Equity and Social Determinants	Addressing disparities and promoting equity in access, delivery, and outcomes of surgical care.	Health equity, social determinants of health, equity in surgical access, disparities in surgical care	15 (19.5%)	Common
7	Education and Mentorship	Skills in teaching, curriculum development, supervision, and mentorship at various levels.	Mentoring, clinical teaching, educational program design, faculty development, tele‐training	13 (16.9%)	Common
8	Ethics, Cultural Competency and Professionalism	Engaging ethically and respectfully across cultures and settings, with emphasis on justice, humility, and professionalism.	International ethics, cultural humility, cross‐cultural collaboration, professionalism	6 (7.8%)	Less Common
9	Innovation and Implementation Science	Applying innovative solutions and implementation strategies to improve care, programs, and policies in real‐world settings.	Biomedical innovation, digital health, QI, implementation science	6 (7.8%)	Less Common
10	Communication and Interdisciplinary Collaboration	Effective communication and collaboration across disciplines, sectors, and global–local boundaries.	Interprofessional teamwork, systems thinking, communication to policymakers, presentation skills	3 (3.9%)	Less Common
11	Emergency and Humanitarian Surgery	Readiness and ability to provide surgical care in humanitarian and emergency settings.	Disaster response, trauma systems, post‐disaster coordination, emergency preparedness	2 (2.6%)	Less Common

3.3. WHO Region of Country Running Academic Global Surgery Programs

Among the 77 academic global surgery programs reviewed, the Region of the Americas (AMRO/PAHO), specifically North America, accounted for the vast majority, with 51 programs based in this region. One program was identified as operating across three WHO regions—the Americas, Europe, and Africa—reflecting a truly inter‐regional collaborative model.

These findings illustrate a strong concentration of program coordination in high‐income countries in the Americas, alongside growing leadership from institutions within the African and European regions (Figure 2).

FIGURE 2.

Distribution of academic global surgery programs according to WHO regions of program's country of origin.

3.4. Institution Offering Academic Global Surgery Program

The most frequently represented institutions are the University of Cape Town and the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, each with 6 entries, followed by Stellenbosch University with 5 programs. The University of Toronto and the University of Oxford each appear 4 times. Other institutions with multiple programs include McGill University Health Centre (3), University of Washington (3), UMass Chan Medical School (3), University of Utah (3), and institutions with 2 entries such as the University of Alberta, University of British Columbia, Temple University Hospital, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Baylor College of Medicine, Duke University, Emory University, Medical College of Wisconsin, and the University of Global Health Equity (UGHE) (Appendix 4).

Among the 77 institutions identified, 68 are universities or academic centers, underscoring the primary role of academic institutions in global surgery education. A smaller number—3—are NGOs, and 6 represent collaborative partnerships between universities and organizations. This distribution reflects the academic nature of global surgery programs, with some integration of NGO and multi‐institutional efforts (Table 2).

TABLE 2.

Institution offering academic global surgery program.

Category	Number of mentions	Percentage
Universities	68	88.3%
NGOs	3	3.9%
Mixed/Collaborations	6	7.8%

3.5. Educational Frameworks Used

A diverse range of educational frameworks was identified. Several programs used institution‐specific models, such as Oxford University's MSc by Research, undergraduate research framework, and short courses developed by its Global Surgery Group. The University of Cape Town applied its educational framework model, McMaster used its Student‐Centered Learning approach, and the University of Washington followed its MPH structure with practicum and certificate options (Appendix 4).

Others employed recognized educational frameworks. The University of Toronto used Miller's Pyramid and the Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome (SOLO) taxonomy, while Duke and UNC applied the Consortium of Universities for Global Health (CUGH), Core Competencies. U.S.‐based fellowships often followed Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) or American Board of Surgery (ABS) standards (Appendix 4).

Programs also drew from partnership‐based and global initiatives. The Academic Model Providing Access to Healthcare (AMPATH) model supported integrated education and care in East Africa. Frameworks from the American College of Surgeons (ACS)–Operation Giving Back, the College of Surgeons of East, Central, and Southern Africa (COSECSA), and the Pan‐Academic Association of Christian Surgeons (PAACS) focused on ethics and capacity building. Trauma‐focused programs cited the World Health Organization (WHO) Safe Surgery, National Surgical, Obstetric, and Anesthesia Plans (NSOAPs), and trauma system guidelines. Others referenced Disease Control Priorities 3rd Edition (DCP3), implementation science, and the Hawassa Hub model (Appendix 4).

Many postgraduate programs followed a fellowship‐based model, combining clinical, academic, and research training—often tailored with structured placements and mentorship. Examples include fellowships at Vanderbilt, MGH, and Duke's Paul Farmer program (Appendix 4).

Experiential learning models were also common, including practicum‐based training, LMIC exchanges, and workplace immersion. Emory applied a student‐led, faculty‐supervised approach. Baylor and Rice integrated dual mentorship, telehealth, and sustainability‐focused rotations (Appendix 4).

Renowned resources such as the Global Surgery 2030 report by the Lancet Commission (a strategic roadmap), the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (a global policy framework), and the Global Burden of Disease Study (an epidemiological data source) have been used to inform and structure curricula, particularly around access, systems, and equity (Appendix 4).

Some programs did not cite a formal framework but described alignment with principles like competency‐based education, equity, systems thinking, and social justice, often emphasizing mentorship, research, and interdisciplinary collaboration (Appendix 4).

3.6. Mode of Delivery of Programs

Across the 77 academic global surgery programs included in this review, 57 were delivered entirely in person. Eight programs allowed participants to choose between in‐person and virtual attendance. Seven programs required a combination of both in‐person and virtual components as part of their structure. Three programs were delivered fully online. In two cases, the mode of delivery was not specified (Table 3).

TABLE 3.

Distribution of mode of delivery for academic global surgery programs.

Mode of delivery	Number of programs	Percentage
In‐person	57	74%
Hybrid: In‐person or Virtual	8	10.4%
Hybrid: In‐person and Virtual	7	9.1%
Virtual	3	3.9%
Not specified	2	2.6%

3.7. Qualification Levels of Participants in the Identified Academic Global Surgery Programs

Most programs targeted postgraduate participants, particularly residents, fellows, and junior faculty. A smaller number of programs specifically targeted practicing clinicians, surgeons, or graduate students from non‐surgical fields. In a limited number of cases, the target qualification level was not specified (Table 4).

TABLE 4.

Qualification levels of participants eligible for the identified academic global surgery programs.

Target qualification category	Count	Percentage	Notes
Postgraduate (Residents and Fellows)	31	40.3%	Includes residents, fellows, and junior faculty enrolled in structured clinical training.
Bachelor/Undergraduate Degree Holders	12	15.6%	Targets individuals who have completed a bachelor's or undergraduate degree.
Undergraduate Level	10	13%	Refers to students currently enrolled in undergraduate programs.
Postgraduate Degree Holders/Advanced Training	6	7.8%	Includes MDs, MScs, and individuals with advanced or equivalent postgraduate qualifications.
Mixed (Graduate, Postgraduate, and Undergraduate)	5	6.5%	Programs open to multiple levels, including both undergraduate and postgraduate learners.
All Levels	4	5.2%	Open to participants regardless of their academic or professional level.
Practicing Clinicians/Trainers/Professionals	4	5.2%	Designed for in‐service clinicians, trainers, or health professionals.
Not Specified	2	2.6%	Target qualification level not clearly defined in the program description.
Surgeons	2	2.6%	Specifically aimed at practicing surgeons.
Graduate Students (Any Field)	1	1.4%	Open to graduate students from any academic background, not limited to surgery.

4. Discussion

4.1. Key Findings

A total of 77 academic global surgery programs were identified. The most common qualification offered was a fellowship. Programs emphasized competencies that clustered into 11 key domains, with the most frequent being surgical systems and health systems science, leadership and management, and research and scientific inquiry. Most programs were based in high‐income countries, particularly within the Region of the Americas, and were primarily delivered by universities. Educational frameworks were often institution‐specific, though some programs drew on recognized global models. The majority of programs were delivered in person and primarily targeted postgraduate‐level participants such as residents and fellows, although offerings spanned all academic levels.

4.2. Comparison Between Identified Academic Global Surgery Competencies and Delphi Consensus on Academic Global Surgery Competencies

The findings of our review align closely with the Delphi consensus framework by Pawlak et al. [16], particularly in identifying competencies such as surgical systems strengthening, leadership, research, ethics, and health equity. Both studies highlight the need for and presence of culturally informed, ethical practice that addresses the global burden of surgical disease. However, our review also identified competencies that were less emphasized in the Delphi framework, namely education and mentorship, innovation and implementation science, communication, and humanitarian surgery, currently implemented in academic global surgery programs. Unlike the Delphi study, which excluded clinical competencies due to concerns about context specificity, our review found clinical and technical training to be commonly integrated, though varied. These differences reflect the Delphi framework's focus on defining universal academic standards, whereas our review captures the practical breadth and heterogeneity of existing academic global surgery educational offerings. A recommended next step would be a formal comparative mapping between this empirically derived framework and established global health education models, such as the CUGH competencies, to enhance its practical usability and integration into the broader field of global health education.

4.3. Geographic Concentration and Program Ownership

Many academic global surgery programs identified in this review are coordinated by institutions in high‐income countries, with a significant concentration in North America. This geographic concentration reflects historical access to academic infrastructure and funding but also reproduces long‐standing power and resource imbalances in who defines and delivers global health education [19, 20]. The relative scarcity of programs led by institutions in low‐ and middle‐income countries, particularly within Africa and South Asia despite their high surgical disease burden, highlights a critical gap in locally driven training and academic capacity. This imbalance risks perpetuating a paradigm where educational standards, research agendas, and leadership are predominantly defined by the Global North. While cross‐regional collaborations exist, they often remain situated within these inequitable structures [21, 22]. There is an urgent need to not only encourage but also financially and politically support the development of regionally led programs. This ensures LMIC institutions are not merely recipients of training initiatives but are the essential co‐creators of curriculum, educational standards, and research priorities, thereby decolonizing patterns in global surgery education.

4.4. Variability in Competencies

There is considerable variation in the competencies taught across academic global surgery programs. While commonly emphasized areas such as equitable access to care, research, leadership, and health systems strengthening serve as important pillars. There is no universally accepted core competency framework currently guiding these programs. This absence of standardization of academic global surgery competencies hampers potential efforts to ensure consistent training and makes it difficult to evaluate the scope, depth, and quality of different programs.

Such variability may stem from differing institutional missions, regional health priorities, or the specific needs of target learner populations. However, it also underscores the broader challenge of curricular fragmentation in global surgery education. Establishing a foundational set of core competencies—while allowing room for contextual adaptation—could foster greater alignment across programs and ensure that all graduates acquire a common baseline of essential skills and knowledge.

4.5. Pedagogical Models and Frameworks

Programs apply a wide range of educational frameworks, from formal models like the CUGH Core Competencies [23] or Miller's Pyramid [24] to more informal or institution‐specific structures. Experiential learning approaches—such as mentorship, LMIC‐based practicums, and interdisciplinary projects—are common, aligning with broader trends in global health education [12]. As academic global surgery continues to evolve, a clearer articulation of teaching methodologies will be essential for both accountability and continuous improvement. Without transparent documentation of how competencies are taught, whether through didactic instruction, experiential learning, mentorship, or interdisciplinary collaboration, it becomes difficult to assess the effectiveness of educational strategies or replicate successful models across institutions [25]. Linking pedagogical approaches to measurable learning outcomes enables programs to demonstrate their value, justify funding, and ensure they are meeting the needs of trainees and the health systems they serve [26, 27]. This level of clarity is not only vital for internal quality assurance but also for establishing shared standards that can elevate the field as a whole.

Furthermore, clinical and technical excellence is a component of many programs, with nearly 30% explicitly incorporating surgical skills development. It is critical to frame the purpose of this training within a decolonized model. In ethical programs, this training focuses on context‐appropriate competencies, bidirectional skills exchange, and—most importantly—on building the train‐the‐trainer capabilities of both HIC and LMIC participants to strengthen local surgical ecosystems. The goal is not to position HIC surgeons/global surgery experts as primary providers in LMICs but to equip all global surgery professionals with the practical skills to support capacity‐building, mentorship, and sustainable surgical system strengthening, always under local leadership and aligned with locally identified needs.

4.6. Access and Delivery Modalities

Most programs remain in‐person, with relatively few offering virtual or hybrid models. While face‐to‐face instruction offers benefits for mentorship and hands‐on learning, the reliance on in‐person delivery limits accessibility, especially for international learners from LMICs [12, 28]. Online and hybrid options seem to remain underutilized despite their potential to expand access and reduce participation barriers. Developing high‐quality remote or blended learning opportunities could support broader inclusion and align global surgery education with trends in digital and distributed learning, particularly in the post‐COVID landscape [29, 30, 31].

4.7. Implications for the Discipline of Global Surgery

The findings of this review point to a dynamic and evolving academic discipline, characterized by program‐level innovation but constrained by significant structural inequities and a lack of overarching coordination. The current concentration of programs in HICs poses a fundamental challenge to the field's legitimacy and effectiveness [32]. To decolonize global surgery education, future efforts must move beyond cataloging innovations in the Global North and actively prioritize the development of consensus‐driven global surgery education standards through equitable North–South and South–South partnerships. This requires a deliberate shift to center LMIC leadership in defining competencies, pedagogical methods, and research agendas.

Furthermore, strengthening the field requires systematic investment in program evaluation and the routine tracking of learner outcomes and program impacts, specifically evaluating their effect on LMIC surgical systems and leadership [33]. Developing accessible platforms for sharing best practices, curricular models, and outcome data will also be crucial to fostering mutual learning, reducing duplication of effort, and accelerating collective progress. Ultimately, a more connected, equitable, and accountable academic ecosystem will be better positioned to ethically train the next generation of global surgery leaders and meet the growing demand for surgical equity worldwide. Future work must develop robust, outcome‐based metrics to move beyond documenting structure and process and truly assess the effectiveness of these programs on learner development and, ultimately, on health system strengthening.

4.8. Limitations

This review has several limitations. First, restricting the search to English‐language sources likely excluded relevant programs published in other languages, limiting the representation of global diversity. Second, despite efforts to include grey literature, some programs, particularly unpublished or institution‐specific initiatives, may have been missed. The level of detail across included sources also varied, with some lacking explicit descriptions of competencies, requiring reviewer interpretation and introducing potential subjectivity. Competency categorization, while structured, may not fully reflect each program's internal operationalization. Moreover, the study did not incorporate primary data collection or stakeholder perspectives, which could have enriched contextual understanding. As no formal quality appraisal was conducted, the strength of individual sources could not be assessed. Furthermore, as a scoping review, this study lacked direct input from key stakeholders such as program directors, educators, and trainees. Future primary qualitative research is needed to incorporate these perspectives to enrich the interpretation of these findings and better understand the on‐the‐ground realities of global surgery education. Finally, given the dynamic nature of global surgery education, some newer programs or recent updates may not have been captured, making this a partial and time‐bound overview. These limitations should be considered when interpreting the findings.

5. Conclusion

This review provides a comprehensive synthesis of competencies taught in academic global surgery programs, revealing a diverse educational landscape shaped by institutional priorities and geographic context. As a young field, global surgery presents a significant opportunity to collaboratively build its educational foundation. Future work should focus on developing a unified, consensus‐driven core competency framework that is informed by existing programs and intentionally incorporates perspectives from low‐ and middle‐income countries. Priorities include fostering equitable partnerships, supporting LMIC‐led curriculum development for surgical systems strengthening, expanding accessible learning modalities, and implementing rigorous evaluation. By embracing this collaborative approach, the academic global surgery community can guide the harmonization of training to effectively develop surgical leaders and advance global health equity.

Author Contributions

Yvan Zolo: conceptualization, methodology, data curation, investigation, software, validation, formal analysis, supervision, visualization, project administration, resources, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing. Wakisa Mulwafu: conceptualization, project administration, methodology, investigation, supervision, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing. Dalle Ulrich David: data collection, data curation, investigation, software, validation. Salome Maswime: conceptualization, data curation, project administration, methodology, investigation, supervision, writing – original draft, writing – review and editing.

Disclosure

The lead author Yvan Zolo affirms that this manuscript is an honest, accurate, and transparent account of the study being reported; that no important aspects of the study have been omitted; and that any discrepancies from the study as planned (and, if relevant, registered) have been explained.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Supporting information

Appendix 1 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta‐Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA‐ScR) Checklist (Adapted from St Michel's Checklist).

Appendix 2: Search Strategy.

Appendix 3: Department of Surgery Research Committee Approval.

Appendix 4: Overview of Identified Academic Global Surgery Programs.

Zolo Y., Mulwafu W., David D. U., and Maswime S., “Academic Competencies in Academic Global Surgery: A Scoping Review,” ANZ Journal of Surgery 96, no. 1‐2 (2026): 58–67, 10.1111/ans.70384.

Data Availability Statement

The data that supports the findings of this study are available in the Supporting Information of this article.