Engaging with complexity in global health education: a qualitative exploratory study of an interdisciplinary challenge-based, design- thinking-inspired workshop in primary health care
This qualitative study of an interdisciplinary design-thinking workshop in global health education reveals that while challenge-based learning effectively helps students engage with complex, systemic health issues, its educational value depends on navigating key pedagogical tensions related to scaffolding, depth, and the balance between fictionalized problem-solving and real-world contextualization.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
Health is rarely a simple matter of a single cause and a single cure. In the real world, a person's well-being is shaped by a tangled web of factors: the money in their pocket, the quality of the roads they travel, the food available in their community, and the organization of the clinics they visit. These elements do not just sit side by side; they interact in unpredictable ways, meaning that fixing one part of the problem often changes another in unexpected directions. This is what experts call complexity. When students train to become doctors, nurses, or public health workers, they are often taught to look for clear answers and specific treatments. However, the challenges they will face in the future—especially in global health—rarely offer such neat solutions. They require the ability to navigate uncertainty, to understand how different systems connect, and to work with people from many different backgrounds to find paths forward that are not perfect, but are workable.
To see how future health professionals learn to handle this kind of messy reality, researchers in Germany organized a special workshop for thirty-one students. These students were not all studying medicine; they came from fields as varied as environmental science, psychology, political science, and engineering. The goal was to see if a specific teaching method, known as challenge-based learning, could help them make sense of a difficult global health problem. In this session, the students were given a fictional but realistic scenario: a primary health care situation in a resource-limited setting where a community health worker faces a complex case involving a child. The students were not told what the answer was. Instead, they were guided through a structured process to explore the problem, brainstorm ideas, and develop a potential solution. This approach, inspired by design thinking, asks learners to move from understanding the problem to creating a response, rather than just memorizing facts. The researchers wanted to know how the students felt about this experience and what they learned about the nature of complex problems.
The workshop took place over three hours, a short burst of intense activity where the students were divided into small, mixed groups. Each group had a facilitator whose job was to keep the conversation moving, not to provide the correct medical or political answer. The students first mapped out the problem, looking at everything from transportation routes and costs to technology and the availability of staff. They then moved into a phase of rapid idea generation, trying to come up with as many responses as possible before narrowing them down to a single concept. At the end, they presented their work. Afterward, twelve of the participants filled out an anonymous survey with open-ended questions, sharing their honest thoughts on what worked, what felt difficult, and what they took away from the experience. The researchers analyzed these written responses to find common themes in how the students experienced the process.
The students generally found the workshop to be a powerful shift in how they viewed health. Before the session, many of them, particularly those from medical backgrounds, tended to see global health primarily as a matter of controlling diseases. The workshop forced them to look much wider. They began to see that a health problem is also a problem of transport, communication, and economics. One student noted that the exercise helped them realize that a health issue cannot be fixed by looking at it from just one angle. They appreciated that the structure of the workshop helped them break a huge, scary problem into smaller, manageable pieces. However, this new way of thinking came with a sense of frustration. Because the problem was so complex, the students realized there was no single "right" answer. They felt a bit lost when they could not produce a perfect solution, but they also came to understand that this lack of a clear answer is actually a normal part of real-world health challenges.
Another major theme was the experience of working with people from different fields. The students found that having engineers, political scientists, and biologists in the same room made the discussion much richer. They realized that their own discipline had blind spots and that a medical solution might fail if it did not consider the political or economic context. Yet, this diversity also created friction. Sometimes, the different priorities of the group members made it hard to agree on a path forward. Some students admitted they stayed quiet or agreed with a solution they did not fully support just to keep the group moving. They suggested that for this kind of teamwork to work well, there needs to be a shared method for talking and a skilled guide to help everyone find a common language.
The students also raised a critical point about the realism of the exercise. While they appreciated the systems-level thinking, some felt that the focus on big-picture solutions moved the attention away from the individual patient at the center of the story. They worried that the fictional nature of the case, set in a poor country but discussed by students in Germany, felt artificial. Several participants questioned whether they had the right to design solutions for a context they did not truly understand, noting that the scenario felt distant from the lived reality of the people it was meant to help. This highlighted a tension in global health education: how to teach students to solve problems in places they have never been without imposing their own views or ignoring local expertise.
The study suggests that while challenge-based learning is a valuable tool for teaching students to engage with complexity, it is not a magic bullet that solves all educational challenges. The researchers found that the value of the experience depends on how well educators navigate several recurring tensions. One tension is between providing a structure to help students and giving them enough depth to truly analyze the problem. Another is balancing the need for different viewpoints with the need to actually reach a decision. There is also the challenge of helping students accept that some problems do not have a final, perfect solution, and that learning to work with uncertainty is a skill in itself. Finally, the researchers noted that to make this learning truly effective, it cannot be a one-off event. It needs to be part of a longer course of study, connected to real-world contexts and local communities, so that students can move beyond theory and engage with the actual people and places they hope to serve. The findings indicate that the goal is not to eliminate these difficulties, but to guide students through them, helping them become adaptable thinkers ready for the complex realities of global health.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.