Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40334270›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025

Income-Based Disparities in Perceived Benefits and Challenges of Virtual Global Health Activities During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Mixed Methods Analysis.

Shuo Zhou, Enid Kawala Kagoya, Alexandra Coria, Alyssa Beck, Jessica Evert, Marina Haque, Molly M Lamb, Amy Rl Rule, Lisa Umphrey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Shuo ZhouDepartment of Communication Studies, School of Communication, AI & Media Psychology Lab, System Health Lab, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong, China (Hong Kong).ORCID 0000-0001-7514-3522
Enid Kawala KagoyaDepartment of Community Health, Institute of Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Busitema University, Mbale, Uganda.ORCID 0000-0002-2841-3523
Alexandra CoriaDepartment of Pediatrics, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-8725-8535
Alyssa BeckDepartment of Epidemiology, Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora, CO, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-4942-2285
Jessica EvertDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-3669-7693
Marina HaqueDepartment of Anesthesiology, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-5358-2241
Molly M LambDepartment of Epidemiology, Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora, CO, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-2331-2555
Amy Rl RuleDepartment of Pediatrics, Emory School of Medicine and Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, Atlanta, GA, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-5858-7447
Lisa UmphreyCenter for Global Health, Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora, CO, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-9502-1087

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGlobal health activities (GHAs) can potentially reduce health disparities by facilitating resource sharing, promoting medical education and professional development worldwide, and enhancing collaboration among high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). However, the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted in-person GHAs due to strict infection control and travel restrictions. To ensure the continuity of GHAs and further address health inequity, virtual GHAs (VGHAs) are gaining traction.

objectiveOur research aimed to understand how people perceive the benefits and challenges of VGHAs, analyze and compare whether HIC and LMIC respondents have different perceptions of virtual and in-person GHAs, and summarize suggestions for improvement to inform the future development of VGHAs.

methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional web-based survey during the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2022. Eligible participants were adult students, trainees, or professionals who participated in, created, taught, or facilitated GHAs. We thematically analyzed participants' free-text responses regarding their perceptions of the benefits and challenges of virtual and in-person GHAs. The patterns differed depending on whether respondents were from HICs or LMICs; thus, we compared frequencies of each theme between the 2 groups.

resultsA total of 154 respondents from 34 countries were included in the analysis. Key benefits of VGHAs were improved access to global health resources or content, reduced cost, easier scheduling and planning, expanded remote participation, and wider participation and reach. The themes that emerged as challenges of VGHAs included a lack of infrastructure to engage virtually, being less motivated and engaged, a lack of in-person and hands-on experience, and challenges with virtual communication and collaboration. LMIC respondents, compared to HIC counterparts, were more likely to identify reduced cost (26/67, 39% LMIC compared to 20/87, 23% HIC; χ

conclusionsOur findings add to the existing literature by understanding how GHA participants from HICs and LMICs perceive the benefits and challenges of VGHAs differently. These data help elucidate what makes VGHAs acceptable to global health partners and suggest improvements to ensure partner needs are served equitably within the partnership.

Indexed as

COVID-19Global HealthIncomeAdultCross-Sectional StudiesDeveloping CountriesFemaleHumansMalePandemicsSARS-CoV-2Surveys and QuestionnairesTelemedicineCOVID-19 pandemicglobal healthin-personmedical educationperceived benefits and challengesvirtual

Identifiers

PMID40334270
PMCPMC12096022

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.