Browsing by Author "Paasi, George"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Perceived roles, benefits and barriers of virtual global health partnership initiatives: a cross-sectional exploratory study
    (BMC, 2022-04-28) Umphrey, Lisa; Paasi, George; Windsor, William; Abongo, Grace; Evert, Jessica; Haq, Heather; Keating, Elizabeth M.; Lam, Suet Kam; McHenry, Megan S.; Ndila, Carolyne; Nwobu, Charles; Rule, Amy; Tam, Reena P.; Olson, Daniel; Olupot‑Olupot, Peter; Pediatrics, School of Medicine
    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.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Virtual global health in graduate medical education: a systematic review
    (Advanced Research Publications, 2022-08-31) Umphrey, Lisa; Lenhard, Nora; Lam, Suet Kam; Hayward, Nathaniel E.; Hecht, Shaina; Agrawal, Priya; Chambliss, Amy; Evert, Jessica; Haq, Heather; Lauden, Stephanie M.; Paasi, George; Schleicher, Mary; McHenry, Megan S.; Pediatrics, School of Medicine
    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.