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.
Published in the BMC Global Health Research and Policy Journal,
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.
