ArticleAnnals of global health2022
Going Remote: Evaluating a Global Health Practicum Program During COVID-19 Travel Restrictions.
Article in Annals of global health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Short-term experiences in global health (STEGHs) are an important part of global health degree programs. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, travel was not possible for students planning to participate in the Johns Hopkins Center for Global Health's Global Health Established Field Placement (GHEFP) program in 2020. Working with willing faculty mentors, in-country collaborators, and students, the Center allowed students to complete their practicums remotely so that students could gain practicum experience despite not being able to travel, and faculty and collaborators could receive the planned support on their projects. Objectives: This evaluation aims to describe the experience of pivoting the GHEFP program from an in-person, in-country program to a remote practicum. Methods: We analyzed program evaluation data from 30 students, 20 faculty members, and 10 in-country collaborators. Surveys for each group consisted of multiple choice, scale rating, and open-ended questions. The quantitative data was analyzed using Microsoft Excel to calculate survey response frequencies. The open-ended responses were analyzed for emergent themes. Findings: The remote GHEFP experience enabled students to gain practice working on global health projects from a distance, but it came with challenges related to preparation, communication, shifting scopes of work, and contextualization. All participants would have preferred an in-person experience if given a choice, but most agreed that a remote practicum was better than not participating at all. Conclusions: The remote program served its purpose during the height of the pandemic. Given the hybrid nature of global health today, many aspects of the remote practicum experience are helpful for global health training. Future iterations of remote STEGHs should initially be designed for remote work to ensure meaningful scopes for students that are helpful to faculty mentors and collaborators. Hybrid models may also be useful. Mutually beneficial twinning relationships should also be incorporated into remote and in-person STEGHs to foster a more equitable global health training environment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.