ReviewFrontiers in public health2025
Global health education programs: Are we embedding contemporary global health needs into the curriculum of master's programs?
Review in Frontiers in public health, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Global health education (GHE) is expected to prepare professionals to address complex, interlinked global challenges. However, current GHE structures often reflect persistent power asymmetries between the Global North and South, limiting the development of a truly global and equitable health workforce. This review examines how global health master's programs are distributed geographically and to what extent their thematic focus and core curricular content reflect current global health priorities, particularly those related to equity and social justice. Methods: A mapping review of 86 graduate-level GHE programs worldwide was conducted to examine their geographic distribution, thematic focus, and curricular content. Programs were categorized by region and analyzed for thematic emphasis and pedagogical approaches, based on publicly available information on modules and learning activities. Results: The review found that 84% of GHE programs are offered by institutions in the Global North. Programs in the Global South are fewer but tend to emphasize environmental health, governance, and community engagement, often incorporating experiential learning. Across all regions, key topics such as health systems, global health challenges, sustainability, law, ethics, and human rights are unevenly integrated. This variability risks producing graduates with inconsistent competencies to address global health priorities. The dominance of Global North institutions in GHE reflects broader structural inequities in global health. While emerging North-South and South-South collaborations and field-based learning suggest a shift toward more reciprocal models, many programs lack clearly defined aims and accountability frameworks. Discussion: To advance GHE, curricula must embed equity, interdisciplinarity, and regional relevance. Explicit learning outcomes should include power analysis and partnership-building, co-designed and co-delivered with institutions and communities from both the Global North and South. Such reforms are essential to cultivate a workforce capable of addressing global health challenges with contextual sensitivity and systemic insight.
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.