Page 387 - Read Online
P. 387

Sharratt et al. Plast Aesthet Res 2020;7:35  I  http://dx.doi.org/10.20517/2347-9264.2020.99                                     Page 7 of 10

               Short-term scientific missions
               One of the benefits of COST Actions is the availability of STSMs, described by COST as a networking tool
               that encompasses a cross-border visit or exchange from one member of an Action to another. Typically,
               the subject matter of an STSM is connected to the Action or to some facet of the Action and, in turn, this
               facilitates future collaboration and the mutual sharing of techniques or ideas that might not otherwise be
               available or apparent.

               The ECCE Action has the resources to offer approximately six STSMs per year of the Action, each of at
               least five working days duration. In tandem with the focus of this Action upon equality, the intention was
               that at least 75 per cent of these STSMs would be undertaken by ECIs or members of the Action based in
               ITCs and that there would be an equal gender split amongst the successful applicants.

               To undertake an STSM, applicants (the “visitor”) develop a proposal in collaboration with their proposed
               host and submit this to the Action’s core group, who have been delegated the responsibility of considering
               and approving applications. To date (April, 2020), despite having to postpone one STSM as a result of the
               COVID-19 pandemic, the Action has supported 12 STSMs. Of these, 10 have been undertaken by members
               who satisfy the criteria of being an ECI and/or who are based in an ITC. There has also been an equal
               gender split, reflecting the balanced composition of the membership of the ECCE Action.


               As a result of the applied nature and focus of the ECCE Action, a high proportion of its membership is
               clinically active. This has meant that the Action’s STSMs have been well placed to benefit both research into
               cleft and craniofacial conditions as well as clinical and practical implications and applications. Example
               STSMs are described within Supplementary Materials 3.

               It is also worth noting that the core group of the ECCE Action believed that any STSM that may have the
               potential to improve cleft care or our understanding of the condition was potentially within the remit of the
               Action. This is especially pertinent as cleft care is complex, can involve a large number of inter-connected
               disciplines, whether or not professionals are formally organised into multidisciplinary cleft teams, and can
               therefore be difficult for an individual to navigate, with their socioeconomic status and health literacy likely
               to be important factors in determining their ability to do so.

               As the examples provided in Supplementary Materials 3 illustrate, the STSMs supported by the ECCE
               Action have covered a diverse array of topics, all undertaken with the desire to improve our understanding
               of and care for cleft and craniofacial conditions; to allow applicants and hosts to learn from one another
               and take that learning back to their local environment, share it and apply it; to foster collaborations and
               relationships that will endure beyond the life of the specific Action; and, ultimately, to improve and equalise
               access to care for cleft and craniofacial conditions. The members of the Action remain excited to follow
               the ongoing outcomes from the STSMs that have been performed to date, to discover what proposals
               will be submitted in the future and to develop the relationships built as part of the Action, at least in part
               attributable to the availability of STSMs.


               CONCLUSION
               It is well established that disparities and inequalities exist within healthcare in the EU and subsist within
               cleft and craniofacial care. These extend to health expenditure, access to effective and multidisciplinary
               healthcare following a clear treatment pathway or protocol, the provision of long-term case management
               and the operation of national data registries. Such disparities exist between countries and within subsets of
               a national population. In turn, this may prejudice patients’ social and economic opportunities and, in cleft
               care, compound the impact of their condition on educational attainment and socioeconomic status.
   382   383   384   385   386   387   388   389   390   391   392