| Course | DNP 830 Global Population Health |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 7 |
| Paper type | Global health ethics paper |
| Length | About 1,036 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | DNP |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for DNP 830 Module 7
Who Benefits From the Trip? Ethics, Evidence and Redesigning a Short-Term Global Health Partnership
Student Name
Doctor of Nursing Practice Program, Aspen University
DNP 830: Global Population Health
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Who Benefits From the Trip? Ethics, Evidence and Redesigning a Short-Term Global Health Partnership
Each year, thousands of clinicians and students from high-income countries travel on short trips to provide care in low- and middle-income countries. These trips can relieve suffering and inspire lifelong commitment to global health, but they can also burden host institutions, provide care that cannot be followed up, undermine local health workers and serve visitors more than hosts. This paper reviews a composite U.S. health system's annual trip to a partner hospital in Central America, examines the evidence and guidelines on short-term global health activities, considers ethical principles for partnership, and proposes a redesign centered on the host's priorities.
The Program
For ten years, a team of about 25 surgeons, anesthesia providers, nurses and students from the composite health system has spent two weeks each spring at a district hospital, performing hernia repairs, gallbladder surgeries and gynecologic procedures, and bringing donated supplies. The trip is popular with staff and donors, and its annual report lists the number of operations performed. A new nurse director of global health programs, a doctoral nurse, was asked to review the program before its next renewal. Interviews with host staff by video, a review of records and conversations with past participants raised several concerns: complications after the team left were managed by local surgeons without information about what had been done, donated supplies included expired items, the host hospital's nurses spent weeks preparing for the visit, and the team had never asked the hospital what it most needed.
What the Evidence Shows
The evidence base for short-term medical service trips is thin. A systematic review found only 67 studies with empirical results, about 6% of published articles on the topic over 20 years, nearly 80% of them about surgical trips, and concluded that the literature lagged behind the growth of the field, with nearly all publications lacking significant data collection. The author recommended that groups build data collection into trips to validate their practices (Sykes, 2014). Without outcome data, programs cannot know whether patients benefit after the visitors leave.
What the Guidelines Say
Many organizations have issued guidelines. An analysis of 27 guidelines found that they were almost entirely written by and for educators and practitioners in the Global North, but that they agreed on key principles: working with host partners, preparing and supervising visitors, conducting needs assessments and evaluation, planning for sustainability and following legal and ethical standards. Studies of host country staff agreed with these principles and added the importance of mutual learning and respect for hosts, and the authors called for guidelines informed by host country research and policy (Lasker et al., 2018).
Guidance for academic global health training raises parallel concerns. A working group on ethics in global health training recommended that programs benefit host institutions as well as trainees, that trainees work only within their competence and under appropriate supervision, that sending institutions consider the costs their visits impose on hosts, and that programs be evaluated for benefits and harms (Crump et al., 2010).
Ethical Analysis
Several ethical principles apply. Beneficence requires that the program actually benefit patients, which depends on follow-up care and outcomes the program has never measured. Nonmaleficence requires avoiding harm, including complications managed without information and expired supplies. Justice asks who benefits and who bears the costs: in this program, visitors gained experience and satisfaction, while host nurses absorbed preparation and aftercare work without compensation. Respect for persons and for partners requires that hosts set priorities, which the program never invited. Finally, the ethics of capacity suggests that lasting benefit comes from strengthening local systems rather than substituting for them.
A Redesigned Partnership
The nurse director proposes a redesign built on the guidelines' shared principles. First, the partnership begins with the host hospital's priorities, set through a joint planning meeting. The host's leaders asked for help with anesthesia safety, surgical site infection prevention and nursing education in postoperative care, rather than more operations. Second, the visiting team's work shifts toward teaching and joint practice, with host surgeons operating alongside visitors and host nurses leading postoperative care, so that skills remain after the visit. Third, all donated supplies are requested by the host and checked for expiry, and the program funds local purchase where possible. Fourth, patient information and follow-up plans are shared in writing with host clinicians, and a local nurse is paid to coordinate follow-up. Fifth, the partnership collects outcome data, including complications and patient-reported recovery at 30 days, and shares it with both institutions. Sixth, host staff are invited to spend time at the U.S. health system, making learning mutual.
Anticipated Objections
The redesign will meet resistance. Some surgeons value the trip for the number of operations they can perform and may see teaching as less rewarding. Donors are used to reports that count procedures. Students may expect hands-on experience that the new model limits to their level of training. The nurse director plans to address these concerns by sharing the host hospital's own requests, which carry more weight than the director's views, by reporting outcomes and capacity built rather than operations alone, and by preparing students with clear expectations about their role. Some participants may choose not to continue; the program's purpose is to serve the partner, and a smaller team aligned with that purpose is preferable to a larger one that is not.
The director also recognizes that the host hospital has less power in the relationship, since the visiting institution controls funding. A written memorandum of understanding, reviewed jointly each year, will set out each side's commitments and give the host a formal way to change priorities or end the partnership.
Conclusion
Short-term global health trips are popular and well intended, but the evidence of their benefit is limited, and without careful design they can burden hosts and harm patients. Guidelines agree on partnership, preparation, evaluation and sustainability, and host staff add mutual learning and respect. Redesigning the composite program around the host's priorities, shared practice, appropriate supplies, follow-up, outcome measurement and two-way exchange changes the answer to the question of who benefits. Doctoral nurses leading global programs can apply these principles so that partnerships strengthen, rather than substitute for, local health systems.
References
Crump, J. A., Sugarman, J., & Working Group on Ethics Guidelines for Global Health Training. (2010). Ethics and best practice guidelines for training experiences in global health. The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 83(6), 1178-1182. https://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.2010.10-0527
Lasker, J. N., Aldrink, M., Balasubramaniam, R., Caldron, P., Compton, B., Evert, J., Loh, L. C., Prasad, S., & Siegel, S. (2018). Guidelines for responsible short-term global health activities: Developing common principles. Globalization and Health, 14, Article 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-018-0330-4
Sykes, K. J. (2014). Short-term medical service trips: A systematic review of the evidence. American Journal of Public Health, 104(7), e38-e48. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2014.301983
DNP 830 Module 7 instructions, in plain terms
The DNP 830 Module 7 prompt is available only inside the Aspen course, so this example follows the catalog's description of global population health and the collaboration it requires. An ethics and collaboration paper usually asks you to evaluate a global health activity or partnership using ethical principles and evidence, and to propose improvements. Check whether your prompt focuses on short-term trips, research partnerships, workforce migration or another issue, and whether it requires a named ethical framework. Confirm the length and required sources, and include voices from host countries where possible, since graders increasingly look for them.
How this DNP 830 Module 7 example is built
Seven sections hold the paper's 1,035 or so words. The program section describes the composite trip, who travels, what they do and the concerns raised about it. What the evidence shows summarizes the review of short-term trips and the scarcity of outcome data. What the guidelines say covers the consensus principles and whose voices shaped them. Ethical analysis applies principles such as beneficence, justice and respect for autonomy to the program. A redesigned partnership proposes changes: host-led priorities, longer commitments, training rather than only service, and shared evaluation. Anticipated objections answer concerns from volunteers and donors. The conclusion restates the evidence, the principles and the redesign, ending with the nurse leader's role in making the partnership fair.
Where the marks sit in the DNP 830 Module 7 rubric
The rubric for this assignment will reward the depth of the ethical analysis and the quality of the proposed changes. This example earns analysis points by applying named principles to specific features of the program, and the margin notes point out that noticing whose voices shaped the guidelines is itself an ethical observation. The redesign addresses each concern raised, which meets the application criterion. Answering objections shows critical thinking. Organization moves from program to evidence to guidelines to analysis to redesign. Format credit depends on citing the review and the guideline synthesis correctly, and on respectful, precise language about host communities.
DNP 830 Module 7 help: mistakes that cost marks
Students often write ethics papers that condemn short-term trips outright or defend them uncritically. Both earn less than a balanced analysis. Another common mistake is applying ethical principles in the abstract without linking them to features of the program. Tie each principle to a decision the program actually makes, such as who chooses the cases or how long volunteers stay. Papers also ignore host country perspectives, even though guidelines now stress them. Include them, even through a single cited survey of host staff. Some students propose redesigns that the sending organization could never fund or staff; keep changes realistic. Finally, avoid language that portrays host communities as passive recipients. Write about partners, priorities and shared goals, since tone is part of how graders judge an ethics paper.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Aspen University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More DNP 830 and DNP sample papers
- DNP 830 Module 1: Measuring Global Burden
- DNP 830 Module 2: An Emerging Infection Expanding Its Range
- DNP 830 Module 3: Bioterrorism Preparedness
- DNP 830 Module 4: The Health Effects of a Disaster
- DNP 830 Module 5: Noncommunicable Disease and Task Sharing
- DNP 830 Module 6: Maternal Mortality Across Countries
- DNP 830 Module 8: An Innovative Solution to a Global Problem
- DNP850 Module 8: Professional Identity Statement
- DNP 810 Module 6: Reading a Control Chart
- DNP 852A Module 4: Implications for Practice, Policy and Education
- DNP 851B Module 7: Recommendations for Practice and Future Work
DNP 830 Module 7 questions, answered
What does DNP 830 Module 7 usually ask for?
Aspen's DNP 830 description emphasizes collaboration and the strengths and weaknesses of global health solutions, so a paper on ethics in global health partnerships is a typical assignment. Check your classroom for the prompt.
Are short-term medical mission trips effective?
The evidence is limited. A systematic review found few studies with empirical results and called for trips to build in data collection to show whether patients benefit.
What makes a global health partnership ethical?
Host-set priorities, appropriate preparation and supervision, attention to the costs imposed on hosts, sustainability, follow-up, evaluation and mutual learning and respect.
Where can I find a free DNP 830 Module 7 sample paper?
Here: the complete global health ethics paper on redesigning a short-term trip, with its title page, seven sections, reference list and margin annotations, is free to read on this page. For a paper on a different partnership or issue, use the request form.
Are short-term medical trips effective, as DNP 830 Module 7 asks?
The evidence is thin. A review found few empirical studies and little outcome data, and concerns include care without follow-up and burden on host staff. Partnerships led by host priorities, with longer commitments, are more defensible, as this example argues.