Global health education programs: Are we embedding contemporary global health needs into the curriculum of master’s programs?
Journal
Frontiers in Public Health
ISSN
2296-2565
Date Issued
2026-01-09
Author(s)
Samraj Singh Bhullar
Antonia Roberts
Edward Mezones-Holguín
Ali Al-kassab-Cordova
Manuel Espinoza
Type
journal-article
Abstract
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Introduction</jats:title>
<jats:p>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.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Methods</jats:title>
<jats:p>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.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Results</jats:title>
<jats:p>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.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Discussion</jats:title>
<jats:p>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.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:title>Introduction</jats:title>
<jats:p>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.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Methods</jats:title>
<jats:p>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.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Results</jats:title>
<jats:p>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.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Discussion</jats:title>
<jats:p>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.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>