Table 1
Student demographic and placement information (n = 30).
| VARIABLES | n (%) |
|---|---|
| Student status | |
| Graduate | 28 (93.3) |
| Undergraduate | 2 (6.7) |
| Degree pursuing | |
| MSPH | 17 (56.7) |
| PhD | 5 (16.7) |
| MHS | 3 (10.00) |
| Bachelor’s | 2 (6.7) |
| MS | 2 (6.7) |
| MSN | 1 (3.3) |
| School/Department affiliation | |
| School of Public Health | 14 (46.7) |
| International Health | 6 (20.0) |
| Population, Family and Reproductive Health | 3 (10.0) |
| Epidemiology | 3 (10.0) |
| School of Nursing | 2 (6.7) |
| School of Arts and Sciences (Public Health Studies) | 2 (6.7) |
| School of Engineering (Biomedical Engineering) | |
| Reasons for participating in GHEFP* | |
| To gain helpful skills | 19 (63.3) |
| As part of capstone or dissertation work | 12 (40.0) |
| To go into a career in global health | 12 (40.0) |
| To explore if a career in global health is a good fit | 10 (33.3) |
| To complete a practicum for a degree requirement | 10 (33.3) |
[i] * Students could select more than one option.
Figure 1
Duration of student practicums and in-country collaborator practicum length preferences.
Table 2
Usefulness of remote experience to students for understanding key topics (n = 30).
| EXCELLENT n (%) | GOOD n (%) | FAIR n (%) | POOR n (%) | N/A n (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public health issues affecting the people in the country with which you worked | 13 (43.3) | 11 (36.7) | 3 (10) | 2 (6.7) | 1 (3.3) |
| Health systems of the country | 10 (33.3) | 9 (30) | 7 (23.3) | 2 (6.7) | 2 (6.7) |
| Differences in clinical care experienced in developing countries | 11 (36.7) | 9 (30) | 3 (10) | 3 (10) | 4 (13.3) |
| Stakeholders and their interests in your project | 9 (30) | 10 (33.3) | 4 (13.3) | 5 (16.7) | 2 (6.7) |
| How to conduct research | 16 (53.3) | 5 (16.7) | 6 (20) | 2 (6.7) | 1 (3.3) |
| Nuances of conducting research/practice work in resource-poor settings | 12 (40) | 9 (30) | 4 (13.3) | 3 (10) | 2 (6.67) |
| Daily life of people in the country | 3 (10) | 9 (30) | 7 (23.3) | 6 (20) | 5 (16.7) |
Table 3
Student perceptions of skills and abilities after the remote international experience (n = 30).
| MORE ABLE THAN BEFORE THE PLACEMENT N (%) | THE SAME ABILITY AS BEFORE THE PLACEMENT N (%) | LESS ABLE THAN BEFORE THE PLACEMENT N (%) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ability to apply relevant scientific research method(s) in different contexts? | 18 (60.0) | 11 (36.7) | 1 (3.3) |
| Ability to analyze complex global health challenges? | 18 (60.0) | 11 (36.7) | 1 (3.3) |
| Ability to develop solutions in response to complex global health challenges? | 17 (56.7) | 12 (40.0) | 1 (3.3) |
Table 4
Faculty and collaborator perspectives on remote vs. in-person experience.
| BETTER REMOTE, n (%) | BETTER IN-PERSON, n (%) | NO DIFFERENCE, n (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FACULTY (n = 19) | COLLABORATOR (n = 10) | FACULTY (n = 19) | COLLABORATOR (n = 10) | FACULTY (N = 19) | COLLABORATOR (n = 10) | |
| Overall benefit to project of engaging a student | 0 (0) | 1 (10) | 13 (68.4) | 8 (80) | 6 (31.2) | 1 (10) |
| Communication with student | 2 (10.5) | 2 (20) | 8 (42.1) | 6 (60) | 9 (47.4) | 2 (20) |
| Experience of in-country team working with student | 0 (0) | – | 17 (89.5) | – | 2 (10.5) | – |
| Which do you prefer? Hosting a remote student or hosting an in-person student? | 0 (0) | 2 (20) | 14 (73.7) | 7 (70) | 5 (26.3) | 1 (10) |