Table 1
List of countries by region with the number of countries responding from each global region (left column) and the number of respondents responding from each country (right columns).
| REGION (N OF COUNTRIES) | COUNTRY (INCOME DESIGNATION) | RESPONDENTS (N) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| SURVEY | INTERVIEW | ||
| North America (2) | United States of America (HIC) | 161 | 10 |
| Canada (HIC) | 7 | ||
| Asia (8) | India (LMIC) | 3 | |
| Indonesia (LMIC) | 1 | ||
| Japan (HIC) | 15 | 1 | |
| Malaysia (LMIC) | 2 | ||
| Mongolia (LMIC) | 1 | ||
| Nepal (LMIC) | 1 | ||
| Pakistan (LMIC) | 1 | ||
| Vietnam (LMIC) | 1 | ||
| Latin America and the Caribbean (7) | Antigua West Indies (HIC) | 1 | |
| Brazil (LMIC) | 11 | ||
| Chile (HIC) | 1 | ||
| Costa Rica (LMIC) | 1 | ||
| Ecuador (LMIC) | 1 | ||
| Grenada (LMIC) | 2 | ||
| Guatemala (LMIC) | 1 | ||
| Europe (6) | Germany (HIC) | 3 | |
| Netherlands (HIC) | 2 | ||
| Romania (HIC) | 1 | ||
| Spain (HIC) | 1 | ||
| Sweden (HIC) | 1 | ||
| United Kingdom (HIC) | 1 | ||
| Middle East & North Africa (5) | Egypt (LMIC) | 1 | |
| Israel (HIC) | 1 | ||
| Oman (HIC) | 1 | ||
| Qatar (HIC) | 1 | ||
| Syria (LMIC) | 1 | ||
| Sub-Saharan Africa (7) | Democratic Republic of the Congo (LMIC) | 1 | |
| Ethiopia (LMIC) | 1 | ||
| Kenya (LMIC) | 2 | ||
| Malawi (LMIC) | 2 | ||
| Mauritius (LMIC) | 1 | ||
| Nigeria (LMIC) | 1 | ||
| South Africa (LMIC) | 1 | ||
| Oceania (1) | Australia (HIC) | 1 | |
| Total (36) | 230 | 17 | |
[i] HIC = high-income country.
LMIC = low- or middle-income country.
Country’s income designations were defined by the World Bank (https://data.worldbank.org/country).
Table 2
Demographics and Program Structures.
| DEMOGRAPHIC CATEGORY | HIC N (%) | LMIC N (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Institution location (percent of total respondents) | 196 (85%) | 34 (15%) |
| Features of global health education programs | ||
| Graduate | 109 (56%) | 24 (71%) |
| Undergraduate | 61 (31%) | 18 (53%) |
| Credit-bearing | 147 (75%) | 14 (41%) |
| Non-credit-bearing | 123 (63%) | 13 (38%) |
| International learning or research opportunities | 150 (77%) | 20 (59%) |
| Domestic learning or research opportunities (pre-pandemic) | 169 (86%) | 28 (82%) |
| New domestic learning or research opportunities established during pandemic | 76 (39%) | 7 (21%) |
[i] Demographic data obtained from the survey presenting features of global health education programs in high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).
HIC = high-income country.
LMIC = low- and middle-income countries.
Table 3
EDUCATORS: Key findings disaggregated by country income group.
| EDUCATORS | HIC N (%) | LMIC N (%) |
|---|---|---|
| 138 (70%) | 14 (41%) | |
| Responses of global health education programs were | ||
| Coordinated well or moderately well | 107 (77%) | 8 (57%) |
| Inadequately coordinated or uncoordinated | 31 (23%) | 5 (36%) |
| Changes in global health education programs as a result of the pandemic | ||
| Changed delivery methods for education | 109 (79%) | 10 (71%) |
| Implemented different ways of engaging with partners | 95 (69%) | 2 (14%) |
| Changed some educational content | 78 (57%) | 8 (57%) |
| Modified requirements for program completion | 41 (30%) | 5 (36%) |
| Suspended outgoing travel | 127 (92%) | 3 (21%) |
| Suspended incoming visitors | 91 (66%) | 3 (21%) |
| Prior to the pandemic, programs used distance learning for curricular delivery | ||
| Almost always | 3 (2%) | 2 (14%) |
| Often | 23 (17%) | 0 (0%) |
| Sometimes | 59 (43%) | 2 (14%) |
| Rarely or never | 52 (38%) | 7 (50%) |
| Don’t know | 1 (1%) | 1 (7%) |
| Impact of pandemic on global health education funding (internal/institutional) | ||
| Moderately increased | 3 (2%) | 0 (0%) |
| No change | 41 (30%) | 4 (29%) |
| Moderately reduced | 20 (14%) | 0 (0%) |
| Significantly reduced | 35 (25%) | 2 (14%) |
| Don’t know/Other | 37 (27%) | 6 (43%) |
| Impact of pandemic on global health research funding (external) | ||
| Significantly increased | ||
| Moderately increased | 4 (3%) | 0 (0%) |
| No change | 22 (16%) | 0 (0%) |
| Moderately reduced | 11 (8%) | 0 (0%) |
| Significantly reduced | 13 (9%) | 1 (7%) |
| Other | 5 (4%) | 0 (0%) |
| Don’t know | 30 (22%) | 4 (29%) |
| Don’t have external funding for education | 51 (37%) | 7 (50%) |
| Impact on one’s scholarly output | ||
| Considerably increased | 5 (4%) | 0 (0%) |
| Moderately increased | 24 (17%) | 1 (7%) |
| No change | 39 (28%) | 1 (7%) |
| Moderately decreased | 40 (29%) | 3 (21%) |
| Considerably decreased | 27 (20%) | 6 (43%) |
| Don’t know | 1 (1%) | 1 (7%) |
[i] HIC = high-income country.
LMIC = low- and middle-income countries.
Table 4
RESEARCHERS: Key findings disaggregated by country income group.
| RESEARCHERS | HIC N (%) | LMIC N (%) |
|---|---|---|
| 70 (36%) | 8 (24%) | |
| Impact of pandemic on global health research programs | ||
| Very significant | 24 (34%) | 6 (75%) |
| Moderately significant | 29 (41%) | 1 (13%) |
| Small impact | 9 (13%) | 0 (0%) |
| No impact/Don’t know | 6 (8%) | 1 (13%) |
| Impact of pandemic on global health research funding (internal/institutional) | ||
| Significantly increased | 1 (1%) | 0 (0%) |
| Moderately increased | 1 (1%) | 0 (0%) |
| No change | 25 (36%) | 0 (0%) |
| Moderately reduced | 8 (11%) | 1 (13%) |
| Significantly reduced | 11 (16%) | 5 (63%) |
| Don’t know/Other | 22 (31%) | 2 (25%) |
| Impact of pandemic on global health research funding (external) | ||
| Significantly increased | 1 (1%) | 1 (13%) |
| Moderately increased | 3 (4%) | 0 (0%) |
| No change | 20 (29%) | 0 (0%) |
| Moderately reduced | 7 (10%) | 1 (13%) |
| Significantly reduced | 9 (13%) | 1 (13%) |
| The focus has shifted | 6 (9%) | 1 (13%) |
| Don’t know/Other | 22 (32%) | 2 (25%) |
| Impact on one’s scholarly output | ||
| Considerably increased | 3 (4%) | 1 (13%) |
| Moderately increased | 17 (24%) | 1 (13%) |
| No change | 14 (20%) | 1 (13%) |
| Moderately decreased | 18 (26%) | 0 (0%) |
| Considerably decreased | 13 (19%) | 4 (50%) |
| Don’t know | 3 (4%) | 1 (13%) |
| Virtual collaboration could replace in-person aspects of global health research | ||
| Entirely | 4 (6%) | 2 (25%) |
| Somewhat | 49 (70%) | 3 (38%) |
| Rarely or never | 12 (17%) | 3 (38%) |
| Don’t know | 3 (4%) | 0 (0%) |
[i] HIC = high-income country.
LMIC = low- and middle-income countries.
Table 5
ADMINISTRATORS. Key findings disaggregated by country income group.
| ADMINISTRATORS | HIC N (%) | LMIC N (%) |
|---|---|---|
| 89 (45%) | 9 (26%) | |
| Program’s risk tolerance for re-initiating clinical/non-clinical global health experiences | ||
| Low risk tolerance | 58 (65%)/54 (61%) | 7 (78%)/7 (78%) |
| Medium risk tolerance | 26 (29%)/30 (34%) | 0 (0%)/1 (11%) |
| High risk tolerance | 5 (6%)/5 (6%) | 1 (11%)/0 (0%) |
| Program’s decision structure to resume travel | ||
| Centralized process | 67 (75%) | 7 (78%) |
| Decentralized process | 7 (8%) | 0 (0%) |
| No process | 4 (4%) | 1 (11%) |
| Unsure of process | 14 (16%) | 1 (11%) |
| Program’s decision criteria for resuming international exchanges | ||
| Official international or national authority travel notices and advisories acceptable within institutional travel policies (e.g., WHO, CDC, etc.) | 76 (85%) | 8 (89%) |
| An approved vaccine is available to trainees/faculty | 57 (64%) | 6 (67%) |
| Destination country has acceptably low COVID-19 incidence rate | 61 (69%) | 6 (67%) |
| Destination country has adequate public health resources to manage cases and care for individuals who may contract COVID-19 (including personal protective equipment for clinical providers) | 54 (61%) | 5 (56%) |
| Assurance that travel routes and layovers meet adequate safety criteria | 47 (53%) | 5 (56%) |
| Partner institution official policies are in place and foreign visiting trainees are welcomed | 58 (65%) | 5 (56%) |
| Emergency medical, security, and travel insurance services are in place to provide evacuation support in the event of a COVID-19 outbreak | 52 (58%) | 6 (67%) |
| Assurance that laws are in place to protect stakeholders from litigation if COVID-19 transmission happens while students/faculty are participating in global health activities | 32 (36%) | 5 (56%) |
| Not yet determined | 12 (15%) | 0 (0%) |
| Other | 2 (2%) | 0 (0%) |
| Program’s decision criteria for allowing visiting faculty and trainees | ||
| Official international or national authority travel notices and advisories acceptable within institutional travel policies (e.g., WHO, CDC, etc.) | 61 (69%) | 8 (89%) |
| Visiting trainees/faculty have proof of vaccination | 39 (44%) | 7 (78%) |
| Visiting trainees/faculty have a negative test at the time of arrival | 56 (63%) | 7 (78%) |
| Assurance that travel routes and layovers meet adequate safety criteria | 29 (33%) | 6 (67%) |
| Confidence that the countries or regions students/faculties come from have adequate testing and have emerged from the pandemic | 31 (35%) | 6 (67%) |
| Our institution has adequate medical resources to manage cases of COVID-19, if identified on campus | 37 (38%) | 5 (56%) |
| Hosted international visitors have evidence of adequate insurance to cover illness or evacuation in the event of becoming infected | 45 (46%) | 7 (78%) |
| Host community has a low COVID-19 incidence rate | 26 (27%) | 5 (56%) |
| Not yet determined | 24 (27%) | 0 (0%) |
| Other | 3 (3%) | 0 (0%) |
[i] HIC = high-income country
LMIC = low- and middle-income countries.