Global Health Education Programmes: Are we Embedding Contemporary Global Health Needs into the Curriculum of master's programmes?

Samraj Singh Bhullar¹Antonia Roberts Pozo²Baltica Cabieses^2,3*Edward Mezones-Holguin^4,5Ali Al-kassab-Córdova⁴Manuel Espinoza⁶

• ¹Hull York Medical School, Hull, United Kingdom
• ²Centro de Salud Global Intercultural (CeSGI), Facultad de Medicina Clínica Alemana, Facultad de Psicología, Universidad del Desarrollo, Santiago, Chile
• ³Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, United Kingdom
• ⁴Centre of Excellence for Social and Economic Research on Health, Universidad San Ignacio de Loyola, Lima, Peru
• ⁵Epi-gnosis Solutions, Piura, Peru
• ⁶School of Public Health, LKS Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China

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 programmes 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 programmes worldwide was conducted to examine their geographic distribution, thematic focus, and curricular content. Programmes were categorized by region and analysed for thematic emphasis and pedagogical approaches, based on publicly available information on modules and learning activities. Results: The review found that 84% of GHE programmes are offered by institutions in the Global North. Programmes 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 programmes 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. Keywords: global health, global health education, global north, global south, equity.