MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey of the tutors who had used the instrument was conducted to determine whether the assessment instrument or form was user-friendly. The 4 competencies assessed, using a 5-point rating scale, were (1) participation and communication skills, (2) cooperation or team-building skills, (3) comprehension or reasoning skills and (4) knowledge or information-gathering skills. Tutors were given a set of criteria guidelines for scoring the students' performance in these 4 competencies. Tutors were not attached to a particular PBL group, but took turns to facilitate different groups on different case or problem discussions. Assessment scores for one cohort of undergraduate medical students in their respective PBL groups in Year I (2003/2004) and Year II (2004/2005) were analysed. The consistency of scores was analysed using intraclass correlation.

RESULTS: The majority of the tutors surveyed expressed no difficulty in using the instrument and agreed that it helped them assess the students fairly. Analysis of the scores obtained for the above cohort indicated that the different raters were relatively consistent in their assessment of student performance, despite a small number consistently showing either "strict" or "indiscriminate" rating practice.

METHODS: Urology residents and specialists were invited to test the training model. They were asked to complete a pre-task questionnaire, to perform piecemeal and en bloc resection of 'bladder tumours' within the training model, and to complete a post-task questionnaire afterwards. Their performances were assessed by faculty members of the AUSTEG. For the face validity, a pre-task questionnaire consisting of six statements on TURBT and the training model were set. For the content validity, a post-task questionnaire consisting of 14 items on the details of the training model were set. For the construct validity, a Global Rating Scale was used to assess the participants' performances. The participants were stratified into two groups (junior surgeons and senior surgeons groups) according to their duration of urology training.

RESULTS: For the pre-task questionnaire, a mean score of ≥ 4.0 out of 5.0 was achieved in 5 out of 6 statements. For the post-task questionnaire, a mean score of ≥ 4.5 out of 5.0 was achieved in every item. For the Global Rating Scale, the senior surgeons group had higher scores than the junior surgeons group in 8 out of 11 items as well as the total score.

METHODS: The authors obtained quantitative data as key indicators of the neurosurgical workforce from each country. Qualitative data analysis was also done to provide a description of the current state of neurosurgical training and education in the region. A strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis was also done to identify strategies for improvement.

RESULTS: The number of neurosurgeons in each country is as follows: 370 in Indonesia, 10,014 in Japan, 152 in Malaysia, 134 in the Philippines, and 639 in Taiwan. With a large neurosurgical workforce, the high-income countries Japan and Taiwan have relatively high neurosurgeon to population ratios of 1 per 13,000 and 1 per 37,000, respectively. In contrast, the low- to middle-income countries Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines have low neurosurgeon to population ratios of 1 per 731,000, 1 per 210,000, and 1 per 807,000, respectively. In terms of the number of training centers, Japan has 857, Taiwan 30, Indonesia 7, Malaysia 5, and the Philippines 10. In terms of the number of neurosurgical residents, Japan has 1000, Taiwan 170, Indonesia 199, Malaysia 53, and the Philippines 51. The average number of yearly additions to the neurosurgical workforce is as follows: Japan 180, Taiwan 27, Indonesia 10, Malaysia 4, and the Philippines 3. The different countries included in this report have many similarities and differences in their models and systems of neurosurgical education. Certain important strategies have been formulated in order for the system to be responsive to the needs of the catchment population: 1) establishment of a robust network of international collaboration for reciprocal certification, skills sharing, and subspecialty training; 2) incorporation of in-service residency and fellowship training within the framework of improving access to neurosurgical care; and 3) strengthening health systems, increasing funding, and developing related policies for infrastructure development.

METHODS: Evaluate stakeholder engagement and training programme for psychiatrists, family medicine specialists, public health specialists, physicians, clinical psychologists, counsellors, and representatives from a patient support group. Evaluate the programme for applicability, as well as participant's knowledge and confidence in using key components.

RESULTS: The training was very well received in terms of content, training materials and facilitation style. Development of culturally specific materials will be needed. Improvement in the self-rating measurement for knowledge and confidence in using key Optimal Health Program components was reported at the completion of the 2-day training.