Access, interest and equity considerations for virtual global health activities during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Global health activities (GHAs) reduce health disparities by promoting medical education, professional development, and resource sharing between high- and low- to middle-income countries (HICs and LMICs). Virtual global health activities facilitated continuity and bidirectionality in global health during the COVID-19 pandemic. While virtual engagement holds potential for promoting equity within partnerships, research on equitable access to and interest in virtual global health activities is limited. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional, online, mixed-methods survey from January to February 2022 examining access to virtual activities before and during the pandemic across resource settings. Eligible participants were participants or facilitators of global health activities. Closed- and open-ended questions elicited participants' access to and interest in virtual global health engagement. RESULTS: We analyzed 265 surveys from respondents in 45 countries (43.0% LMIC vs. HIC 57.0%). HIC respondents tended to report greater loss of in-person access due to the pandemic at their own institutions (16 of 17 queried GHAs), while LMIC respondents tended to report greater loss of in-person activities at another institution (9 of 17 queried GHAs). Respondents from LMICs were more likely to gain virtual access through another organization for all 17 queried VGHAs. HIC respondents had significantly more access to global health funding through their own organization (p < 0.01) and more flexibility for using funds. There were significant differences and trends between respondent groups in different resource environments in terms of accessibility to and interest in different virtual global health activities, both during and after the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight the need to examine accessibility to virtual global health activities within partnerships between high- and low- to middle-income countries. While virtual activities may bridge existing gaps in global health education and partnerships, further study on priorities and agenda setting for such initiatives, with special attention to power dynamics and structural barriers, are necessary to ensure meaningful virtual global health engagement moving forward.

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.

COVID-19 Pandemic Impact on Academic Global Health Programs: Results of a Large International Survey.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic caused significant disruptions in international communications and travel for academic global health programs (AGHPs) in both high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Given the importance of international travel and communication to AGHPs, the pandemic has likely had considerable impact on the education, research, and administrative components of these programs. To date, no substantive study has determined the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on AGHPs in HICs and LMICs. This study assessed the impacts and resultant adaptations of AGHPs to pandemic realities with the goal of sharing strategies and approaches. Methods: This study applied a mixed methods sequential explanatory design to survey AGHPs in HICs and LMICs about the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on three program domains: education, research, and administration. First, we surveyed a range of AGHP stakeholders to capture quantitative data on the pandemic's impact. Subsequently we conducted semi-structured interviews with select survey participants to gather qualitative data expanding on specific survey responses. Data from both phases were then compared and interpreted together to develop conclusions and suggest adaptive/innovative approaches for AGHPs. Results: AGHPs in both HICs and LMICs were significantly impacted by the pandemic in all three domains, though in different ways. While education initiatives managed to adapt by pivoting towards virtual learning, research programs were impacted more negatively by the disruptions in communication and international travel. The impact of the pandemic on scholarly output as well as on funding for education and research was quite variable, although LMIC programs were more negatively impacted. Administratively, AGHPs implemented a range of safety and risk mitigation strategies and showed a low risk tolerance for international travel. The pandemic posed many challenges but also revealed opportunities for AGHPs. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted AGHPs in HICs and LMICs in expected and unexpected ways. Programs noted some unanticipated reductions in education program funding, negative impacts on research programs, and reduced scholarly output. Many programs reported well-coordinated adaptive responses to the pandemic including, for instance, virtual (in place of in-person) collaboration in research. The pandemic will likely have lasting impacts with regard to education, research collaborations, and administration of programs.

Virtual global health in graduate medical education: a systematic review.

Objectives: To synthesize recent virtual global health education activities for graduate medical trainees, document gaps in the literature, suggest future study, and inform best practice recommendations for global health educators. Methods: We systematically reviewed articles published on virtual global health education activities from 2012-2021 by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, ERIC, Scopus, Web of Science, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I. We performed bibliography review and search of conference and organization websites. We included articles about primarily virtual activities targeting for health professional trainees. We collected and qualitatively analyzed descriptive data about activity type, evaluation, audience, and drivers or barriers. Heterogeneity of included articles did not lend to formal quality evaluation. Results: Forty articles describing 69 virtual activities met inclusion criteria. 55% of countries hosting activities were high-income countries. Most activities targeted students (57%), with the majority (53%) targeting trainees in both low- to middle- and high-income settings. Common activity drivers were course content, organization, peer interactions, and online flexibility. Common challenges included student engagement, technology, the internet, time zones, and scheduling. Articles reported unanticipated benefits of activities, including wide reach; real-world impact; improved partnerships; and identification of global health practice gaps. Conclusions: This is the first review to synthesize virtual global health education activities for graduate medical trainees. Our review identified important drivers and challenges to these activities, the need for future study on activity preferences, and considerations for learners and educators in low- to middle-income countries. These findings may guide global health educators in their planning and implementation of virtual activities.

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.

Decolonizing Global Health Education: Rethinking Institutional Partnerships and Approaches.

Global health often entails partnerships between institutions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) that were previously colonized and high-income countries (HICs) that were colonizers. Little attention has been paid to the legacy of former colonial relationships and the influence they have on global health initiatives. There have been recent calls for the decolonization of global health education and the reexamination of assumptions and practices under pinning global health partnerships. Medicine's role in colonialism cannot be ignored and requires critical review. There is a growing awareness of how knowledge generated in HICs defines practices and informs thinking to the detriment of knowledge systems in LMICs. Additionally, research partnerships often benefit the better-resourced partner. In this article, the authors offer a brief analysis of the intersections between colonialism, medicine, and global health education and explore the lingering impact of colonialist legacies on current global health programs and partnerships. They describe how "decolonized" perspectives have not gained sufficient traction and how inequitable power dynamics and neocolonialist assumptions continue to dominate. They discuss 5 approaches, and highlight resources, that challenge colonial paradigms in the global health arena. Furthermore, they argue for the inclusion of more transfor mative learning approaches to promote change in attitudes and practice. They call for critical reflection and concomitant action to shift colonial paradigms toward more equitable partnerships in global education.

Extent, nature and consequences of performing outside scope of training in global health.

BACKGROUND: Globalization has made it possible for global health professionals and trainees to participate in short-term training and professional experiences in a variety of clinical- and non-clinical activities across borders. Consequently, greater numbers of healthcare professionals and trainees from high-income countries (HICs) are working or volunteering abroad and participating in short-term experiences in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). How effective these activities are in advancing global health and in addressing the crisis of human resources for health remains controversial. What is known, however, is that during these short-term experiences in global health (STEGH), health professionals and those in training often face substantive ethical challenges. A common dilemma described is that of acting outside of one's scope of training. However, the frequency, nature, circumstances, and consequences of performing outside scope of training (POST) have not been well-explored or quantified. METHODS: The authors conducted an online survey of HIC health professionals and trainees working or volunteering in LMICs about their experiences with POST, within the last 5 years. RESULTS: A total of 223 survey responses were included in the final analysis. Half (49%) of respondents reported having been asked to perform outside their scope of training; of these, 61% reported POST. Trainees were nearly twice as likely as licensed professionals to report POST. Common reasons cited for POST were a mismatch of skills with host expectations, suboptimal supervision at host sites, inadequate preparation to decline POST, a perceived lack of alternative options and emergency situations. Many of the respondents who reported POST expressed moral distress that persisted over time. CONCLUSIONS: Given that POST is ethically problematic and legally impermissible, the high rates of being asked, and deciding to do so, were notable. Based on these findings, the authors suggest that additional efforts are needed to reduce the incidence of POST during STEGH, including pre-departure training to navigate dilemmas concerning POST, clear communication regarding expectations, and greater attention to the moral distress experienced by those contending with POST.

How the Social Contract Can Frame International Electives.

Short-term experiences in global health (STEGHs) are common ways trainees engage in global health activities, which can be viewed by students as either altruistic or opportunistic. This article explores how STEGHs express the social contract medicine has with society, emphasizes areas of breakdown in this social contract, and calls for medical schools, licensure boards, STEGH-sponsoring organizations, and professional societies to take active roles in addressing these ethical challenges.

Not Above the Law: A Legal and Ethical Analysis of Short-Term Experiences in Global Health.

BACKGROUND: Persons from high-income countries have multiple opportunities today to participate in "short-term experiences in global health" (STEGHs) in low-resourced countries. STEGHs are organized through religious missions, service learning, medical internships, global health education, and international electives. An issue of increasing concern in STEGHs is "hands-on" participation in clinical procedures by volunteers and students with limited or no medical training. To address these concerns, best practices and ethical standards have been developed. However, not all STEGH organizations adhere to these guidelines, and some actively or tacitly allow unethical and potentially illegal practices. OBJECTIVES: This paper considers the legal framework within which STEGHs operate. It assesses whether certain STEGH practices break laws in the US and/or host countries or violate international "soft" legal norms. Two activities of particular concern are: practicing medicine without a license and drug importation and distribution. CONCLUSIONS: Many activities undertaken in STEGHs would be illegal if they took place on US soil. In addition, these same activities are often illegal in the host countries where STEGHs operate, although compliance is unevenly enforced. Many STEGH activities violate World Health Organization guidelines for ethical conduct in humanitarian activities. RECOMMENDATIONS: This paper encourages STEGH organizations to end unethical and potentially illegal activities; urges regulatory and non-regulatory stakeholders to alter policies that motivate participation in illegal or unethical STEGH activities; and encourages host countries to enforce their local and national health laws.

Employment Opportunities and Experiences among Recent Master's-Level Global Health Graduates.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the job search, employment experiences, and job availability of recent global health-focused master's level graduates. METHODS: An online survey was conducted from October to December 2016 based out of Washington, DC. The study sample includes students graduating with master's degrees in global health, public health with a global health concentration or global medicine from eight U.S. universities. RESULTS: Out of 256 potential respondents, 152 (59%) completed the survey, with 102/152 (67%) employed. Of unemployed graduates, 38% were currently in another educational training program. Out of 91 employed respondents, 62 (68%) reported they had limitations or gaps in their academic training. The average salary of those employed was between $40,000 and $59,000 annually. The majority of respondents reported they currently work in North America (83.5%.); however, only 31% reported the desire to work in North America following graduation. CONCLUSIONS: Discrepancies exist between graduates' expectations of employment in global public health and the eventual job market. Communication between universities, students and employers may assist in curriculum development and job satisfaction for the global public health workforce.

Guidelines for responsible short-term global health activities: developing common principles.

BACKGROUND: Growing concerns about the value and effectiveness of short-term volunteer trips intending to improve health in underserved Global South communities has driven the development of guidelines by multiple organizations and individuals. These are intended to mitigate potential harms and maximize benefits associated with such efforts. METHOD: This paper analyzes 27 guidelines derived from a scoping review of the literature available in early 2017, describing their authorship, intended audiences, the aspects of short term medical missions (STMMs) they address, and their attention to guideline implementation. It further considers how these guidelines relate to the desires of host communities, as seen in studies of host country staff who work with volunteers. RESULTS: Existing guidelines are almost entirely written by and addressed to educators and practitioners in the Global North. There is broad consensus on key principles for responsible, effective, and ethical programs--need for host partners, proper preparation and supervision of visitors, needs assessment and evaluation, sustainability, and adherence to pertinent legal and ethical standards. Host country staff studies suggest agreement with the main elements of this guideline consensus, but they add the importance of mutual learning and respect for hosts. CONCLUSIONS: Guidelines must be informed by research and policy directives from host countries that is now mostly absent. Also, a comprehensive strategy to support adherence to best practice guidelines is needed, given limited regulation and enforcement capacity in host country contexts and strong incentives for involved stakeholders to undertake or host STMMs that do not respect key principles.

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.

Taking it Global: Structuring Global Health Education in Residency Training.

To meet the demand by residents and to provide knowledge and skills important to the developing physician, global health (GH) training opportunities are increasingly being developed by United States (U.S.) residency training programs. However, many residency programs face common challenges of developing GH curricula, offering safe and mentored international rotations, and creating GH experiences that are of service to resource-limiting settings. Academic GH partnerships allow for the opportunity to collaborate on education and research and improve health care and health systems, but must ensure mutual benefit to U.S. and international partners. This article provides guidance for incorporating GH education into U.S. residency programs in an ethically sound and sustainable manner, and gives examples and solutions for common challenges encountered when developing GH education programs.

Host community perspectives on trainees participating in short-term experiences in global health.

CONTEXT: High-income country (HIC) trainees are undertaking global health experiences in low- and middle-income country (LMIC) host communities in increasing numbers. Although the benefits for HIC trainees are well described, the benefits and drawbacks for LMIC host communities are not well captured. OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the perspectives of supervising physicians and local programme coordinators from LMIC host communities who engaged with HIC trainees in the context of the latter's short-term experiences in global health. METHODS: Thirty-five semi-structured interviews were conducted with LMIC host community collaborators with a US-based, non-profit global health education organisation. Interviews took place in La Paz, Bolivia and New Delhi, India. Interview transcripts were assessed for recurrent themes using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Benefits for hosts included improvements in job satisfaction, local prestige, global connectedness, local networks, leadership skills, resources and sense of efficacy within their communities. Host collaborators called for improvements in HIC trainee attitudes and behaviours, and asked that trainees not make promises they would not fulfil. Findings also provided evidence of a desire for parity between the opportunities afforded to US-based staff and those available to LMIC-based partners. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides important insights into the perspectives of LMIC host community members in the context of short-term experiences in global health for HIC trainees. We hope to inform the behaviour of HIC trainees and institutions with regard to international partnerships and global health activities.

Beyond Medical "Missions" to Impact-Driven Short-Term Experiences in Global Health (STEGHs): Ethical Principles to Optimize Community Benefit and Learner Experience.

Increasing demand for global health education in medical training has driven the growth of educational programs predicated on a model of short-term medical service abroad. Almost two-thirds of matriculating medical students expect to participate in a global health experience during medical school, continuing into residency and early careers. Despite positive intent, such short-term experiences in global health (STEGHs) may exacerbate global health inequities and even cause harm. Growing out of the "medical missions" tradition, contemporary participation continues to evolve. Ethical concerns and other disciplinary approaches, such as public health and anthropology, can be incorpo rated to increase effectiveness and sustainability, and to shift the culture of STEGHs from focusing on trainees and their home institutions to also considering benefits in host communities and nurtur ing partnerships. The authors propose four core principles to guide ethical development of educational STEGHs: (1) skills building in cross-cultural effective ness and cultural humility, (2) bidirectional participatory relationships, (3) local capacity building, and (4) long-term sustainability. Application of these principles highlights the need for assessment of STEGHs: data collection that allows transparent compar isons, standards of quality, bidirectionality of agreements, defined curricula, and ethics that meet both host and sending countries' standards and needs. To capture the enormous potential of STEGHs, a paradigm shift in the culture of STEGHs is needed to ensure that these experiences balance training level, personal competencies, medical and cross-cultural ethics, and educational objectives to minimize harm and maximize benefits for all involved.