Global health education programs should strive continually to improve the quality of education, increase access, create communities that foster excellence in global health practices, and ensure sustainability. The COVID-19 pandemic forced the University of Minnesota’s extensive global health education programs, which includes a decade of hybrid online and in-person programing, to move completely online. We share our experience, a working framework for evaluating global health educational programming, and lessons learned. Over the decades we have moved from a predominantly passive, lecture-based, in-person course to a hybrid online (passive) course with an intensive hands-on 2-week requirement. The pandemic forced us to explore new active online learning models. We retained our on-demand, online passive didactics, which used experts’ time efficiently and was widely accessible and well received. In addition, we developed a highly effective synchronous online component that we felt replaced some of the hands-on activities effectively and led us to develop new and innovative “hands-on” experiences. This new, fully online model combining quality asynchronous and synchronous learning provided many unanticipated advantages, such as increasing access while decreasing our carbon footprint dramatically. By sharing our experience, lessons learned, and resources, we hope to inspire other programs likewise to innovate to improve quality, access, community, and sustainability in global health, especially if these innovations can help decrease negative aspects of global health education such as its environmental impact.

In July 2022, the American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene Green Task Force advocated to acknowledge the health impacts of climate change, particularly on those in low- and middle-income countries, and called on global health organizations to act. Simultaneously, academic medical centers are resuming Short-Term Electives in Global Health (STEGH) as travel restrictions imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic ease in most countries. International flights by trainees from academic medical centers in high-income countries (HIC) on these electives encapsulate the climate injustice of who generates carbon emissions and who bears the impacts of climate change. Using “decolonization” and “decarbonization” as guiding principles, we suggest several strategies that global medical education programs in HIC could implement. First, restructure rotations to halt STEGH with minimal benefit to host institutions, optimize trainee activities while abroad, and lengthen rotation duration. Second, programs can calculate the carbon impact of their STEGH and implement concrete measures to cut emissions. Finally, we urge academic medical centers to promote climate-resilient healthcare infrastructure in host countries and advocate for climate solutions on the global stage.