Access, interest and equity considerations for virtual global health activities during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study.

IF 4 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Lisa Umphrey, Alyssa Beck, Shuo Zhou, Enid Kawala Kagoya, George Paasi, Alexandra Coria, Jessica Evert, Marina Haque, Amy Rule, Molly M Lamb
{"title":"Access, interest and equity considerations for virtual global health activities during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study.","authors":"Lisa Umphrey, Alyssa Beck, Shuo Zhou, Enid Kawala Kagoya, George Paasi, Alexandra Coria, Jessica Evert, Marina Haque, Amy Rule, Molly M Lamb","doi":"10.1186/s41256-023-00333-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Global health activities (GHAs) reduce health disparities by promoting medical education, professional development, and resource sharing between high- and low- to middle-income countries (HICs and LMICs). Virtual global health activities facilitated continuity and bidirectionality in global health during the COVID-19 pandemic. While virtual engagement holds potential for promoting equity within partnerships, research on equitable access to and interest in virtual global health activities is limited.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a cross-sectional, online, mixed-methods survey from January to February 2022 examining access to virtual activities before and during the pandemic across resource settings. Eligible participants were participants or facilitators of global health activities. Closed- and open-ended questions elicited participants' access to and interest in virtual global health engagement.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We analyzed 265 surveys from respondents in 45 countries (43.0% LMIC vs. HIC 57.0%). HIC respondents tended to report greater loss of in-person access due to the pandemic at their own institutions (16 of 17 queried GHAs), while LMIC respondents tended to report greater loss of in-person activities at another institution (9 of 17 queried GHAs). Respondents from LMICs were more likely to gain virtual access through another organization for all 17 queried VGHAs. HIC respondents had significantly more access to global health funding through their own organization (p < 0.01) and more flexibility for using funds. There were significant differences and trends between respondent groups in different resource environments in terms of accessibility to and interest in different virtual global health activities, both during and after the pandemic.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our results highlight the need to examine accessibility to virtual global health activities within partnerships between high- and low- to middle-income countries. While virtual activities may bridge existing gaps in global health education and partnerships, further study on priorities and agenda setting for such initiatives, with special attention to power dynamics and structural barriers, are necessary to ensure meaningful virtual global health engagement moving forward.</p>","PeriodicalId":52405,"journal":{"name":"Global Health Research and Policy","volume":"9 1","pages":"8"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10845763/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Health Research and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41256-023-00333-y","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Global health activities (GHAs) reduce health disparities by promoting medical education, professional development, and resource sharing between high- and low- to middle-income countries (HICs and LMICs). Virtual global health activities facilitated continuity and bidirectionality in global health during the COVID-19 pandemic. While virtual engagement holds potential for promoting equity within partnerships, research on equitable access to and interest in virtual global health activities is limited.

Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional, online, mixed-methods survey from January to February 2022 examining access to virtual activities before and during the pandemic across resource settings. Eligible participants were participants or facilitators of global health activities. Closed- and open-ended questions elicited participants' access to and interest in virtual global health engagement.

Results: We analyzed 265 surveys from respondents in 45 countries (43.0% LMIC vs. HIC 57.0%). HIC respondents tended to report greater loss of in-person access due to the pandemic at their own institutions (16 of 17 queried GHAs), while LMIC respondents tended to report greater loss of in-person activities at another institution (9 of 17 queried GHAs). Respondents from LMICs were more likely to gain virtual access through another organization for all 17 queried VGHAs. HIC respondents had significantly more access to global health funding through their own organization (p < 0.01) and more flexibility for using funds. There were significant differences and trends between respondent groups in different resource environments in terms of accessibility to and interest in different virtual global health activities, both during and after the pandemic.

Conclusions: Our results highlight the need to examine accessibility to virtual global health activities within partnerships between high- and low- to middle-income countries. While virtual activities may bridge existing gaps in global health education and partnerships, further study on priorities and agenda setting for such initiatives, with special attention to power dynamics and structural barriers, are necessary to ensure meaningful virtual global health engagement moving forward.

Abstract Image

COVID-19 大流行期间虚拟全球健康活动的获取、兴趣和公平性考虑因素:横断面研究。
背景:全球卫生活动(GHAs)通过促进医学教育、专业发展以及高收入国家和中低收入国家(HICs 和 LMICs)之间的资源共享来缩小卫生差距。在 COVID-19 大流行期间,虚拟全球卫生活动促进了全球卫生的连续性和双向性。虽然虚拟参与具有促进伙伴关系公平的潜力,但有关公平参与虚拟全球健康活动及其兴趣的研究却很有限:我们在 2022 年 1 月至 2 月期间开展了一项横向、在线、混合方法调查,研究了在大流行之前和期间不同资源环境下参与虚拟活动的情况。调查对象为全球健康活动的参与者或促进者。通过封闭式和开放式问题了解参与者参与虚拟全球健康活动的情况和兴趣:我们分析了来自 45 个国家受访者的 265 份调查问卷(43.0% 的受访者来自低收入和中等收入国家,57.0% 的受访者来自高收入国家)。高收入国家和地区的受访者倾向于报告其所在机构因大流行病而失去更多亲身参与的机会(17 个受访的全球保健协会中的 16 个),而低收入国家和地区的受访者倾向于报告其所在机构失去更多亲身参与的机会(17 个受访的全球保健协会中的 9 个)。来自低收入与中等收入国家的受访者更有可能通过另一个机构获得所有 17 个被问及的虚拟医疗保健机构的虚拟访问权。低收入和中等收入国家的受访者更有可能通过自己的组织获得全球健康资助(p 结论:低收入和中等收入国家的受访者更有可能通过自己的组织获得全球健康资助:我们的研究结果突出表明,有必要在高收入国家和中低收入国家之间的伙伴关系中审查虚拟全球健康活动的可及性。虽然虚拟活动可以弥补全球卫生教育和伙伴关系中的现有差距,但仍有必要进一步研究此类活动的优先事项和议程设置,并特别关注权力动态和结构性障碍,以确保虚拟全球卫生活动的有效参与。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Global Health Research and Policy
Global Health Research and Policy Social Sciences-Health (social science)
CiteScore
12.00
自引率
1.10%
发文量
43
审稿时长
5 weeks
期刊介绍: Global Health Research and Policy, an open-access, multidisciplinary journal, publishes research on various aspects of global health, addressing topics like health equity, health systems and policy, social determinants of health, disease burden, population health, and other urgent global health issues. It serves as a forum for high-quality research focused on regional and global health improvement, emphasizing solutions for health equity.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信