Impacts, Learner Diversity, and Curricular Framework of a Virtual Global Health Elective Catalyzed by the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background: Place-based international electives that build global health competencies have existed for decades. However, these electives require travel and are infeasible for many trainees around the world, particularly those with insufficient financial resources, logistical complexities, or visa limitations. The emergence of virtual approaches to global health electives, catalyzed by the travel pause related to the COVID-19 pandemic, necessitates the exploration of learner impacts, participant diversity, and curricular frameworks. Child Family Health International (CFHI), a non-profit global health education organization that partners with universities to expand immersive educational offerings, launched a virtual global health elective in 2021. The elective drew on faculty from Bolivia, Ecuador, Ghana, Mexico, the Philippines, Uganda, and the United States. Objective: This study aimed to describe a newly developed virtual global health elective curriculum and evaluate the demographics of and impacts on trainee participants. Methods: Eighty-two trainees who were enrolled in the virtual global health elective from January to May 2021 completed both 1) pre- and post-elective self-assessments of domains of competency mapped to the elective curriculum and 2) free text responses to standardized questions. Data were analyzed through descriptive statistical analysis, paired t-testing, and qualitative thematic analysis. Findings: The virtual global health elective had 40% of its participants hail from countries other than the United States. Self-reported competency in global health broadly, planetary health, low resource clinical reasoning, and overall composite competency significantly increased. Qualitative analysis revealed learner development in health systems, social determinants of health, critical thinking, planetary health, cultural humility, and professional practice. Conclusion: Virtual global health electives effectively develop key competencies in global health. This virtual elective had a 40-fold increase in the proportion of trainees from outside the United States, compared to pre-pandemic place-based electives. The virtual platform facilitates accessibility for learners from a variety of health professions and a wide range of geographic and socioeconomic environments. Further research is needed to confirm and expand on self-reported data, and to pursue approaches to greater diversity, equity, and inclusion in virtual frameworks.

Perceived roles, benefits and barriers of virtual global health partnership initiatives: a cross-sectional exploratory study.

BACKGROUND: Virtual global health partnership initiatives (VGHPIs) evolved rapidly during the COVID-19 pandemic to ensure partnership continuity. However the current landscape for VGHPI use and preference is unknown. This study aimed to increase understanding of GH partners' perspectives on VGHPIs. METHODS: From 15 October to 30 November 2020, An online, international survey was conducted using snowball sampling to document pandemic-related changes in partnership activities, preferences for VGHPIs, and perceived acceptability and barriers. The survey underwent iterative development within a diverse author group, representing academic and clinical institutions, and the non-profit sector. Participants from their professional global health networks were invited, including focal points for global health partnerships while excluding trainees and respondents from the European Economic Area. Analysis stratified responses by country income classification and partnership type. Authors used descriptive statistics to characterize responses, defining statistical significance as α = 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 128 respondents described 219 partnerships. 152/219 (69%) partnerships were transnational, 157/219 (72%) were of > 5 years duration, and 127/219 (60%) included bidirectional site visits. High-income country (HIC) partners sent significantly more learners to low- to middle-income country (LMIC) partner sites (p < 0.01). Participants commented on pandemic-related disruptions affecting 217/219 (99%) partnerships; 195/217 (90%) were disruption to activities; 122/217 (56%) to communication; 73/217 (34%) to access to professional support; and 72/217 (33%) to funding. Respondents indicated that VGHPIs would be important to 206/219 (94%) of their partnerships moving forward. There were overall differences in resource availability, technological capacity, and VGHPI preferences between LMIC and HIC respondents, with a statistically significant difference in VGHPI acceptability (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between groups regarding VGHPIs' perceived barriers. CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic disrupted essential partnership elements, compounding differences between LMIC and HIC partners in their resources and preferences for partnership activities. VGHPIs have the potential to bridge new and existing gaps and maximize gains, bi-directionality, and equity in partnerships during and after COVID-19.

Visiting Trainees in Global Settings: Host and Partner Perspectives on Desirable Competencies.

BACKGROUND: Current competencies in global health education largely reflect perspectives from high-income countries (HICs). Consequently, there has been underrepresentation of the voices and perspectives of partners in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) who supervise and mentor trainees engaged in short-term experiences in global health (STEGH). OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to better understand the competencies and learning objectives that are considered a priority from the perspective of partners in LMICs. METHODS: A review of current interprofessional global health competencies was performed to design a web-based survey instrument in English and Spanish. Survey data were collected from a global convenience sample. Data underwent descriptive statistical analysis and logistic regression. FINDINGS: The survey was completed by 170 individuals; 132 in English and 38 in Spanish. More than 85% of respondents rated cultural awareness and respectful conduct while on a STEGH as important. None of the respondents said trainees arrive as independent practitioners to fill health care gaps. Of 109 respondents, 65 (60%) reported that trainees gaining fluency in the local language was not important. CONCLUSIONS: This study found different levels of agreement between partners across economic regions of the world when compared with existing global health competencies. By gaining insight into host partners' perceptions of desired competencies, global health education programs in LMICs can be more collaboratively and ethically designed to meet the priorities, needs, and expectations of those stakeholders. This study begins to shift the paradigm of global health education program design by encouraging North-South/East-West shared agenda setting, mutual respect, empowerment, and true collaboration.