Previous Article in Journal
Psycho-Emotional and Well-Being Aspects in Caregivers of Transgender and Gender-Diverse Individuals: A Narrative Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JMMS
Volume 13
Issue 1
10.3390/jmms13010004
jmms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Public Health Education in Mexico in 2024: National Distribution, Accreditation, and Modalities of Training

by
Janet Real-Ramírez
1,2,* and
Oscar Arias-Carrión
3,4,*
1
Departamento de Innovación Educativa en Salud, Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Respiratorias Ismael Cosío Villegas, Mexico City 14080, Mexico
2
Escuela de Salud Pública de México, Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública, Mexico City 14080, Mexico
3
División de Neurociencias, Clínica, Instituto Nacional de Rehabilitación Luis Guillermo Ibarra Ibarra, Mexico City 14389, Mexico
4
Escuela de Medicina y Ciencias de la Salud, Tecnologico de Monterrey, Mexico City 14380, Mexico
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Mind Med. Sci. 2026, 13(1), 4; https://doi.org/10.3390/jmms13010004
Submission received: 26 December 2025 / Revised: 29 January 2026 / Accepted: 31 January 2026 / Published: 3 February 2026
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Training the public health workforce is a critical component of health system strengthening. In Mexico, postgraduate education operates under a national accreditation framework intended to ensure academic quality and social relevance, yet comprehensive information about the scope and distribution of training programs is limited. This study characterizes public health and related academic programs available in 2024, examining the institutional sector, delivery modality, geographic distribution, and accreditation status. A systematic institutional mapping was conducted through structured searches of the official websites of public and private higher education institutions. Eligible programs included bachelor’s degrees, specializations, master’s degrees, and PhDs that were active between March and November 2024. Searches used predefined keyword combinations, repeated at multiple timepoints, and were restricted to official institutional domains. Data were extracted on academic level, institutional sector, delivery format, duration, geographic region, and inclusion in the National Postgraduate System. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression were used to analyze accreditation patterns; geospatial analysis assessed regional distribution. A total of 175 programs were identified across 30 of Mexico’s 32 states. Professional master’s degrees represented the largest category, followed by research-oriented master’s and PhD programs. Public institutions offered nearly two-thirds of all programs. Among postgraduate programs, fewer than half were accredited, with accreditation concentrated in master’s degrees in science (84.6%) and PhDs (55.6%). Only 23.0% of professional master’s degree were accredited. Most programs were delivered fully in person; online offerings were limited and more common in private institutions. Research-oriented programs were geographically concentrated in a small number of states, whereas professional programs exhibited broader but uneven national distribution. Public health education in Mexico shows growth in professionally oriented training but also reveals persistent gaps in accreditation, geographic equity, and flexible delivery modalities. The disproportionate expansion of professional programs without corresponding integration into accreditation frameworks raises concerns for workforce planning and educational equity. Strengthening national information systems, improving institutional reporting standards, and aligning accreditation criteria with workforce needs are essential to ensure that public health training supports progress towards universal health coverage and the Sustainable Development Goals.

1. Introduction

In Mexico and internationally, several historical milestones have shaped the development of social security systems, health care delivery, and the training of human resources in public health. The consolidation of social security as a contributory right and the recognition of health as a social good contributed to a broader conception of health as a collective responsibility and a state obligation [1]. These foundations supported the consolidation of national health systems and framed public health as an interdisciplinary field with both scientific and social dimensions.
Parallel developments in the Americas played a decisive role in structuring public health education. The establishment of early public health institutions and schools during the twentieth century marked the institutionalization of public health training in the region, laying the groundwork for professional education models integrating biomedical sciences, population health, and social medicine [2].
Subsequently, the Essential Functions of Public Health were articulated and later updated within the Sustainable Development Goals framework, emphasizing equity, access, efficiency, and universal coverage [3]. This framework reinforced the central role of workforce training in achieving population health goals. Influential milestones in health professions education, including the Flexner Report and subsequent educational reforms in Latin America, contributed to modern understandings of the health–disease process, social determinants of health, and community-oriented care models [4,5].
In this context, higher education institutions have been encouraged to innovate pedagogical approaches and align curricula with societal needs and workforce demands [6]. Educational theory and faculty development frameworks emphasize scientific rigor, contextual relevance, and social accountability as core components of professional training [7].
Training in human resources for health may be classified as formal or non-formal. Formal education is delivered by higher education institutions that confer academic degrees and professional credentials, whereas non-formal training occurs in institutional or community settings without formal accreditation [8]. In low- and middle-income countries, geographic and socioeconomic constraints limit access to traditional in-person education, fostering the expansion of online, hybrid, and self-directed learning modalities supported by information and communication technologies [9].
Since the early 2000s, special emphasis has been placed on the accreditation and certification of public health training programs, which were highly heterogeneous in terms of their specificity and scope [10]. At the global level, professional associations and international organizations have defined core competencies for public health professionals, including data analysis, policy development, program planning and evaluation, communication, leadership, teamwork, and systems thinking [11,12,13]. However, in Latin America, the lack of a unified framework for skills certification has led to heterogeneous training and professional recognition standards among different countries. This also reflects the lack of clarity regarding the labor-market integration of the specialist public health workforce within health systems [2,14,15,16].
In Mexico, postgraduate education evaluation and accreditation are institutionalized through the National Postgraduate System, implemented by the former National Council for Science and Technology and currently overseen by the Secretariat of Science, Humanities, Technology, and Innovation [16]. This system certifies academic quality and social relevance and provides enrolled students with benefits such as scholarships and health insurance, functioning as a key mechanism for quality assurance and equity in advanced education.
Despite its centrality, the national landscape of public health academic programs has not been comprehensively documented. Existing analyses are regional, fragmented, or outdated and do not reflect recent structural reforms in postgraduate accreditation or the expansion of new delivery modalities. In particular, no study has systematically mapped active programs using a structured search of official institutional websites, a necessary approach given the absence of a unified national registry of public health education offerings. This information gap limits strategic planning for the public health workforce and obscures regional disparities in access to accredited postgraduate education.
Given ongoing epidemiological transitions and health system challenges, systematic institutional mapping of public health education is essential. Although regional analyses have been published previously, updated and comprehensive evidence for Mexico remains limited [2]. Examining current academic offerings, institutional characteristics, geographic distribution, delivery modalities, and accreditation status provides critical input for educational planning and for strengthening the public health workforce in alignment with national priorities and the Sustainable Development Goals [3,16].

2. Materials and Methods

A systematic institutional mapping of educational offerings was conducted using the official websites of public and private higher education institutions in Mexico that provide academic programs in public health and related disciplines. The mapping included bachelor’s degrees, specializations, master’s degrees, and PhD programs—both professional and research-oriented—that were active between March and November 2024. Programs were eligible regardless of delivery modality, including in-person, semi-in-person, online, or hybrid formats.
Full-time programs were defined as those delivered through structured, campus-based curricula requiring regular in-person attendance and adherence to a fixed schedule. Part-time programs were defined as those offering formal curricula with greater flexibility in time commitments and reduced requirements for physical presence.
Searches were conducted in Spanish using the Google® search engine. A predefined and replicable protocol was applied, using specific keyword combinations—both individually and in Boolean-enhanced formats—to identify eligible programs across institutional domains. Keyword clusters included public health, preventive medicine, quality of care, social medicine, health promotion, community health, health services administration, hospital administration, health institution administration, and service management. Spanish-language variants (e.g., “programa”, “posgrado”, “modalidad en línea”, “doctorado”, “maestría”) were incorporated to capture institutional heterogeneity.
To ensure completeness and temporal consistency, all keyword clusters were searched repeatedly across four cycles (March, June, September, and November 2024). This iterative strategy allowed verification of persistent listings and detection of program additions or removals over time. Searches were restricted to official institutional domains (edu.mx and gob.mx) and accredited institutional commercial domains. Both desktop and mobile interfaces were reviewed to minimize interface-dependent variability. Programs from private institutions were included only when accompanied by a valid Official Study Validity Registry issued by the Ministry of Public Education. Programs lacking documentation on official institutional websites were excluded.
A total of 312 structured searches were performed. For each institution, program characteristics were extracted independently by two reviewers. Discrepancies—such as conflicting information on modality, duration, or accreditation—were resolved through secondary verification of institutional pages and, when applicable, consultation of publicly available regulatory registries. This process enhanced accuracy and reduced the risk of misclassification due to inconsistent or incomplete reporting practices.
The variables extracted included institution name, state, academic level, program title, delivery modality (school-based, semi-school-based, or online), institutional sector (public or private), duration in months, inclusion in the National Postgraduate System, and geographic region. Regional classification followed the framework of the National Survey of Financial Inclusion of the National Institute of Statistics and Geography, which organizes states into six socioeconomic regions.
All records were compiled and systematized in Microsoft Excel® (see Supplementary Material File S1). Descriptive statistical analyses were performed using SPSS® version 25. A logistic regression model was constructed to identify factors associated with inclusion in the National Postgraduate System, adjusting for geographic region, academic level, institutional sector, and program duration. Geospatial analysis was conducted using official digital cartography from the National Institute of Statistics and Geography. Thematic maps were generated to visualize inequities in the distribution of programs nationwide. Mapping was performed using Mapa Digital version 6.3.018, and final visualizations were produced in QGIS version 3.14.16 Pi.
Because all data were obtained from publicly accessible institutional websites and did not involve human participants, animals, or identifiable personal information, the study was classified as minimal risk and did not require ethical approval under national regulations. Using only publicly available data also highlights the systemic limitations of institutional reporting practices in their academic offerings, which can affect the completeness and accuracy of national education inventories and the decision-making of graduate school applicants.

3. Results

A total of 175 academic programs in public health and related disciplines were identified across 30 of the 32 states of the Mexican Republic (Table 1). No eligible programs were identified in Aguascalientes or Baja California Sur. Of these programs, 27 (15.4%) were bachelor’s degrees, 18 (10.3%) non-medical specializations, three (1.7%) medical specializations, 26 (14.9%) master’s degrees in science, 74 (42.3%) professional master’s degrees, and 27 (15.4%) PhD programs. (Table 1). A total of 57 higher education institutions offered these programs, of which 39 (64.7%) were public and 18 (35.3%) were private. Marked heterogeneity was observed in the completeness and clarity of institutional reporting, reflecting substantial variation in the availability of program-level information across institutions.

3.1. Institutional Sector and Accreditation Status

Public institutions accounted for 113 programs (64.6%), while private institutions accounted for 62 programs (35.4%). Professional master’s degrees were the largest program category nationally, reflecting the expansion of practice-oriented postgraduate training. However, many professional programs lacked publicly reported information on accreditation status, delivery modality, or duration, underscoring persistent deficits in institutional transparency (Table 1).
Of the 148 postgraduate programs with available accreditation data, only 59 (39.9%) were included in the National Postgraduate System. Accreditation patterns varied substantially by academic level: two of three medical specializations (66.7%) were integrated into the national residency system; 22 of 26 master’s degrees in science (84.6%) were accredited; and 15 of 27 PhD programs (55.6%) were recognized. In contrast, 17 of the 74 professional master’s degrees were accredited. (Figure 1). This distribution demonstrates a structural imbalance between the dominance of professionally oriented programs and their minimal integration into national quality assurance mechanisms.
Among accredited postgraduate programs, 17 were in the field of science, 3 in public health, 1 in quality management, and 1 in senior management. These findings highlight the close alignment between accreditation criteria and traditional research-oriented training models.

3.2. Delivery Modality and Institutional Sector

Delivery modality varied widely. School-based programs predominated, with 102 offerings (58.3%) delivered fully in person. Nineteen programs (10.9%) were delivered in semi-school-based formats, and 32 programs (18.3%) were offered fully online. Online programs were disproportionately concentrated in private institutions. Delivery modality was not reported for 22 programs (12.6%), reflecting inconsistent institutional disclosure and limiting accurate assessment of national capacity for flexible or remote learning. (Table 2).
Public institutions relied heavily on fully in-person formats, whereas private institutions demonstrated a greater proportion of online and hybrid offerings. Professional master’s programs showed the highest variability in modality, consistent with their target population of working professionals.

3.3. Geographic Distribution of Programs

Research-oriented programs—including master’s degrees in science and PhD programs—were concentrated in a limited number of states with established research infrastructure. (Figure 2). In contrast, professional master’s programs and bachelor’s degrees showed broader but uneven geographic distribution across the country. Only 7 states had online programs, indicating limited national adoption of digital modalities for public health training. These spatial patterns mirrored longstanding regional disparities in educational capacity, infrastructure investment, and research activity.

3.4. Factors Associated with Accreditation

A multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to assess factors associated with inclusion in the National Postgraduate System. Master’s degrees in science had significantly higher odds of accreditation compared with PhD programs (OR = 7.35; 95% CI 1.72–31.34; p = 0.007) (Table 3). Professional master’s degrees were less likely to be accredited (OR = 0.36; 95% CI 0.13–1.01; p = 0.051). Geographic region did not reach statistical significance, although programs in the South Central and East regions showed higher—but non-significant—odds relative to the South (OR = 2.42; 95% CI 0.79–7.48; p = 0.123). These results indicate that accreditation is more strongly associated with academic orientation than with geographic location, reinforcing concerns about unequal recognition of professionally oriented postgraduate programs.

4. Discussion

This national mapping analysis reveals a rapidly evolving landscape of public health education in Mexico, marked by changes in program volume, academic orientation, accreditation profiles, and delivery modalities. The identification of 175 active programs in 2024 suggests potential contraction or restructuring compared with earlier regional assessments, highlighting persistent fragmentation in institutional reporting. Similar fluctuations have been documented in other middle-income settings, where educational capacity is influenced by evolving governance frameworks, shifting funding priorities, and the demands of digital transformation [17].
A defining characteristic of the Mexican educational ecosystem is the predominance of professionally oriented master’s degrees, which outnumber research-oriented postgraduate programs. This imbalance reflects global trends in which health systems increasingly depend on practitioners trained in applied competencies while accreditation systems continue to privilege research output [17,18]. Data from China, Brazil, India, Colombia, Cuba, Guatemala, and South Asia reveal a common structural imbalance, in which the rapid expansion of master’s programs in public health (MPH) tailored to professional practice and problem-solving within communities has outpaced the development of research-focused pathways and their formal integration into national accreditation systems [19,20,21].
Accreditation disparities identified in this study—where research-oriented programs achieve recognition far more often than professionally oriented degrees—carry implications for equity, workforce development, and academic mobility. Given that accreditation in Mexico is associated with maintenance grants, institutional prestige, and professional advancement oriented more toward program development, the limited recognition of programs geared toward professional training continues to favor inequalities that encourage retention among students in part-time professional programs who cannot access grants, compared to those in full-time science programs. This is in contrast to other programs in Colombia and Nicaragua, where students receive more financial support. However, because professional training programs use a problem-solving approach, students enter the labor market more quickly [16]. Similar dynamics have been described internationally, where training systems have struggled to match competent graduates to essential public health functions [17,22].
The geographic distribution of programs exposes persistent structural inequities. Research programs are concentrated in regions with mature academic infrastructure, while professionally oriented programs, although more widely distributed, show marked spatial unevenness. Comparable patterns are evident in India and China, where research capacity remains highly centralized in a limited number of metropolitan hubs [19,21,23]. Correcting this imbalance will require targeted public investment to decentralize educational capacity and better match training provision to population health needs.
Delivery modalities reflect another axis of inequity. Despite the global expansion of digital health education accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic, Mexico continues to rely predominantly on in-person instruction. Online and hybrid programs are concentrated in private institutions, limiting students in public institutions’ access to flexible learning options. Countries such as Rwanda and India have successfully expanded digital public health education through national strategies that integrate infrastructure investment, digital competency frameworks, and quality assurance mechanisms [23,24,25]. Without similar coordinated investments, Mexico risks widening educational disparities in digital participation.
Another limitation is the difficulty of triangulating methods to incorporate institutional reports with expected results according to the operation and results of the assessment of competencies with certification mechanisms, regulation, and implementation of educational policies with the reporting of their results in scientific production, as evidenced by Gershuni et al., where only 2% of the scientific literature met these characteristics and was concentrated in developed countries such as the UK, Australia, and the US [26]. Inconsistent disclosure of program modality, accreditation status, and curricular structure reflects limitations in governance, transparency, and data integration. Comparable challenges have been noted across diverse global health systems, where fragmented information systems hinder workforce planning and impede evidence-based decision-making [20,24,27]. Therefore, it is essential to create interoperable national data systems that connect the health, education, and labor sectors to ensure reliable monitoring and strategic planning and to establish regulatory definitions that clearly specify the expected outcomes in training and workforce integration [26]. This limitation warrants consideration, as variability and incompleteness in institutional reporting may have contributed to the under-identification or misclassification of academic programs and accreditation status. Consequently, apparent regional or institutional differences may be partly attributable to information asymmetries rather than true disparities in educational provision.
Taken together, these findings illustrate an educational sector undergoing significant transformation. While professionally oriented public health programs are expanding, accreditation systems have not adjusted accordingly. Digital transformation remains uneven, and geographic inequities persist. These challenges closely reflect broader international concerns regarding the responsiveness of health professional education systems to contemporary and future workforce needs [26]. Coordinated reforms are required to modernize accreditation frameworks, expand equitable digital training, and align educational strategies with national health system priorities.

5. Conclusions

Public health education in Mexico demonstrates broad territorial coverage but limited alignment between program orientation, accreditation mechanisms, and workforce needs. Professionally oriented master’s degrees comprise the largest proportion of offerings but remain largely unaccredited, restricting access to scholarships and professional recognition. This misalignment parallels challenges in other middle-income countries, where accreditation frameworks have been slow to adapt to evolving labor-market requirements [16,26,28].
Digital and hybrid modalities remain underdeveloped and concentrated in private institutions, in contrast to countries that have strategically expanded digital learning through coordinated national investments [20,21,22,29]. Strengthening digital infrastructure and ensuring the quality of online delivery will be essential to expanding equitable access to postgraduate training [24,30].
The absence of integrated information systems capable of accurately tracking program availability, accreditation status, and workforce alignment impedes strategic planning. As noted internationally, robust data governance is a critical foundation for health workforce management and educational reform [20,23,27].
Modernizing accreditation criteria, expanding flexible delivery models, and integrating educational planning with regional and national health priorities will be essential for strengthening the Mexican public health workforce. Comprehensive, interconnected reforms will enable public health education to contribute effectively to improved population health outcomes and progress toward universal health coverage [26].

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/jmms13010004/s1. File S1: Retrieve data.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.R.-R.; methodology, J.R.-R. and O.A.-C.; software, J.R.-R.; validation, J.R.-R. and O.A.-C.; formal analysis, J.R.-R. and O.A.-C.; investigation, J.R.-R. and O.A.-C.; resources, J.R.-R. and O.A.-C.; data curation, J.R.-R.; writing—original draft preparation, J.R.-R.; writing—review and editing, J.R.-R. and O.A.-C.; visualization, J.R.-R.; supervision, J.R.-R. and O.A.-C.; project administration, J.R.-R.; funding acquisition, O.A.-C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding. The authors funded the APC.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable. The study was based exclusively on publicly available information from institutional websites and did not involve human participants, animals, or identifiable personal data.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable. The study did not involve human participants.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available within the article and its Supplementary Materials. All data were obtained from publicly accessible official websites of higher education institutions and regulatory bodies. No new datasets were generated.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the higher education institutions whose publicly available information enabled this analysis.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
CONACYTNational Council for Science and Technology
ENIFNational Survey on Financial Inclusion
ICTInformation and Communication Technologies
INEGINational Institute of Statistics and Geography
NPSNational Postgraduate System
PAHOPan American Health Organization
WHOWorld Health Organization

References

  1. Arrieta, A. Health Insurance and the Contributory Principle of Social Security in the United States of America. Rev. Latinoam. De Derecho Soc. 2016, 23, 3–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Peres, F.; Centurión, M.P.B.; da Silva, J.M.B.; Brandão, A.L. Mapping Public Health Education in Latin America: Perspectives for Training Institutions. Pan Am. J. Public Health 2023, 47, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Pan American Health Organization. The Essential Public Health Functions in the Americas: A Renewal for the 21st Century. Conceptual Framework and Description; Pan American Health Organization: Washington, DC, USA, 2020; pp. 13–22. [Google Scholar]
  4. Narro-Robles, J. Flexner’s Legacy: The Basic Sciences, The Hospital, The Laboratory, The Community. Gac. Med. Mex. 2004, 140, 52–55. [Google Scholar]
  5. Pinzón, C.E. The Major Paradigms of Medical Education in Latin America. Acta Medica Colomb. 2008, 33, 33–41. [Google Scholar]
  6. Delors, J. The Four Pillars of Education. In Learning: The Treasure Within; Report to UNESCO of the International Commission on Education for the Twenty-First Century (Highlights); UNESCO: Paris, France, 1996; pp. 91–103. [Google Scholar]
  7. Galbusera Testa, C.I. The Evolution of Teaching-Learning Models Design in the New Generational Scenario. In Cuadernos del Centro de Estudios en Diseño y Comunicación; Ensayos, DC Publications: Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2020; pp. 103–114. [Google Scholar]
  8. Sandmann, L.R. Adult Learning: A Key for the 21st Century. Adult Learn. 1998, 10, 2–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kirsti, A.-M.; Margherita, B.; Anusca, F.; Yves, P.; Christine, R. Learning 2.0 the Impact of Web 2.0 Innovations on Education and Training in Europe; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  10. Gebbie, K.M. Public Health Certification. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2009, 30, 203–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Gebbie, K.; Goldstein, B.D.; Gregorio, D.I.; Tsou, W.; Buffler, P.; Petersen, D.; Mahan, C.; Silver, G.B. The National Board of Public Health Examiners: Credentialing Public Health Graduates. Public Health Rep. 2007, 122, 435–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Listovsky, G.; Duré, M.I.; Reboiras, F.; Roni, C.; Rosli, N.; Mur, J.A.; Deza, R.; Rosli, J.; Cedro, M.I.F.; Faingold, D.; et al. Strengthening Leadership for Educational Management in the Americas: An Action Research Strategy.Fortalecimento Da Liderança Para a Gestão Educacional Na Região Das Américas: Uma Estratégia de Pesquisa-Ação. Pan Am. J. Public Health 2024, 48, e27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Suárez Conejero, J.E.; Listovsky, G.; Magaña Valladares, L.; Isabel Duré, M.; García Gutiérrez, J.F.; van Olphen, M. Core Competencies for Public Health Teaching: Regional Framework for the Americas. Competências Essenciais Para a Docência Em Saúde Pública: Um Marco Regional Para as Américas. Pan Am. J. Public Health 2023, 47, e137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Fragelli, T.B.; Shimizu, H.E. Competências Profissionais Em Saúde Pública: Conceitos, Origens, Abordagens e Aplicações. Rev. Bras. Enferm. 2012, 65, 667–674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Lozano, R.; Lozano, R. Public Health Teaching in Mexico. Salud Ment. 2018, 41, 203–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Magaña-Valladares, L.; Nigenda-López, G.; Sosa-Delgado, N.; Ruiz-Larios, J.A. Public Health Workforce in Latin America and the Caribbean: Assessment of Education and Labor in 17 Countries. Salud Pública De México 2009, 51, 62–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Frenk, J.; Chen, L.; Bhutta, Z.A.; Cohen, J.; Crisp, N.; Evans, T.; Fineberg, H.; Garcia, P.; Ke, Y.; Kelley, P.; et al. Health Professionals for a New Century: Transforming Education to Strengthen Health Systems in an Interdependent World. Lancet 2010, 376, 1923–1958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Declercq, E.; Caldwell, K.; Hobbs, S.H.; Guyer, B. The Changing Pattern of Doctoral Education in Public Health from 1985 to 2006 and the Challenge of Doctoral Training for Practice and Leadership. Am. J. Public Health 2008, 98, 1565–1569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Bangdiwala, S.I.; Tucker, J.D.; Zodpey, S.; Griffiths, S.M.; BChir, M.; Li, L.-M.; Srinath Reddy, K.; Cohen, M.S.; Gross, M.; Sharma, K.; et al. Public Health Education in India and China:History, Opportunities, and Challenges. Public Health Rev. 2011, 33, 204–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Tiwari, R.; Negandhi, H.; Zodpey, S. Current Status of Master of Public Health Programmes in India: A Scoping Review. WHO South-East Asia J. Public Health 2018, 7, 29–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Anitha, C.T.; Akter, K.; Mahadev, K. An Overview of Public Health Education in South Asia: Challenges and Opportunities. Front. Public Health 2022, 10, 909474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Bass, S.B.; Guttmacher, S.; Nezami, E. Who Will Keep the Public Healthy? The Case for Undergraduate Public Health Education: A Review of Three Programs. J. Public Health Manag. Pract. 2008, 14, 6–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Dhagavkar, P.S.; Angolkar, M.; Nagmoti, J.; Zodpey, S. Mapping of MPH Programs in Terms of Geographic Distribution across Various Universities and Institutes of India—A Desk Research. Front. Public Health 2024, 12, 1443844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Car, L.T.; Poon, S.; Kyaw, B.M.; Cook, D.A.; Ward, V.; Atun, R.; Majeed, A.; Johnston, J.; Van der Kleij, R.M.J.J.; Molokhia, M.; et al. Digital Education for Health Professionals: An Evidence Map, Conceptual Framework, and Research Agenda. J. Med. Internet Res. 2022, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Binagwaho, A.; Kyamanywa, P.; Farmer, P.E.; Nuthulaganti, T.; Umubyeyi, B.; Nyemazi, J.P.; Mugeni, S.D.; Asiimwe, A.; Ndagijimana, U.; Lamphere McPherson, H.; et al. The Human Resources for Health Program in Rwanda—A New Partnership. N. Engl. J. Med. 2013, 369, 2054–2059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Gershuni, O.; Orr, J.M.; Vogel, A.; Park, K.; Leider, J.P.; Resnick, B.A.; Czabanowska, K. A Systematic Review on Professional Regulation and Credentialing of Public Health Workforce. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 4101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Espejo, R.; José, L.; González-Suárez, M. Transformative Learning and Research Programmes in University Teacher Development. REDU Rev. Docencia Univ. 2015, 13, 309–330. [Google Scholar]
  28. Russo, E.; Figueira, A.R.; Torres, A.R.F. Evaluation of the Implementation of Public Policies in Education: The Case of Capes PrInt at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. Ens. Avaliação Políticas Públicas Educ. 2025, 33, e0255068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Mezirow, J. Transformative Dimensions of Adult Learning; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  30. World Health Organization. Draft Global Strategy on Digital Health 2020–2025; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar]
Jmms 13 00004 g001
Figure 1. Accreditation status of postgraduate programs in public health and related disciplines in Mexico, 2024. Horizontal stacked bars show the number and proportion of postgraduate programs included in the National Postgraduate System (blue) and those not accredited (orange), stratified by academic level. Totals are indicated at the end of each bar. Accreditation is concentrated among master’s degrees in science and PhD programs, whereas professional master’s degrees and non-medical specializations are predominantly outside the National Postgraduate System. This distribution highlights a structural imbalance between the volume of professionally oriented training programs and their integration into national quality assurance mechanisms, with implications for equity in access to accredited postgraduate education and for strategic planning of the public health workforce.
Figure 1. Accreditation status of postgraduate programs in public health and related disciplines in Mexico, 2024. Horizontal stacked bars show the number and proportion of postgraduate programs included in the National Postgraduate System (blue) and those not accredited (orange), stratified by academic level. Totals are indicated at the end of each bar. Accreditation is concentrated among master’s degrees in science and PhD programs, whereas professional master’s degrees and non-medical specializations are predominantly outside the National Postgraduate System. This distribution highlights a structural imbalance between the volume of professionally oriented training programs and their integration into national quality assurance mechanisms, with implications for equity in access to accredited postgraduate education and for strategic planning of the public health workforce.
Jmms 13 00004 g001
Jmms 13 00004 g002
Figure 2. Geographic distribution of public health and related academic programs in Mexico by academic level, 2024. Thematic maps display the state-level distribution of academic programs by type: non-medical specializations, medical specializations, professional master’s degrees, master’s degrees in science, and PhD programs. Color intensity reflects the number of programs per state, with darker shades indicating higher concentrations. Research-oriented programs, particularly master’s degrees in science and PhD programs, are geographically concentrated in a limited number of states, notably in the central and southeastern regions of the country. In contrast, professional master’s degrees show a broader territorial distribution, although with marked heterogeneity. Medical and non-medical specializations remain sparse and unevenly distributed nationwide. This spatial pattern highlights persistent regional disparities in access to advanced public health training and underscores the need for coordinated, regionally informed planning of human resource development to support equitable health system strengthening.
Figure 2. Geographic distribution of public health and related academic programs in Mexico by academic level, 2024. Thematic maps display the state-level distribution of academic programs by type: non-medical specializations, medical specializations, professional master’s degrees, master’s degrees in science, and PhD programs. Color intensity reflects the number of programs per state, with darker shades indicating higher concentrations. Research-oriented programs, particularly master’s degrees in science and PhD programs, are geographically concentrated in a limited number of states, notably in the central and southeastern regions of the country. In contrast, professional master’s degrees show a broader territorial distribution, although with marked heterogeneity. Medical and non-medical specializations remain sparse and unevenly distributed nationwide. This spatial pattern highlights persistent regional disparities in access to advanced public health training and underscores the need for coordinated, regionally informed planning of human resource development to support equitable health system strengthening.
Jmms 13 00004 g002
Table 1. Public Health and Related Academic Programs in Mexico: Structure, Duration, and Accreditation Status, 2024.
Table 1. Public Health and Related Academic Programs in Mexico: Structure, Duration, and Accreditation Status, 2024.
Academic LevelTotal Programs n (%)Public
Institutions n (%)		Private
Institutions n (%)		Mean
Duration (months)		Duration Range (months)Included in
National
Postgraduate System n (%) *
Bachelor’s degrees27 (15.4)12 (44.4)15 (55.6)57.630–66
Non-medical
specializations		18 (10.3)12 (72.2)5 (27.8)17.412–365 (27.8)
Medical
specializations		3 (1.7)2 (66.7)1 (33.3)36.0——
Master’s degrees in science26 (14.9)25 (96.2)1 (3.8)23.818–2422 (84.6)
Professional
master’s degrees		74 (42.3)39 (52.7)35 (47.3)22.610–3017 (23.0)
PhD programs27 (15.4)22 (81.5)5 (18.5)39.112–4815 (55.6)
Total175 (100.0)113 (64.6)62 (35.4)——148 (39.9)
* Accreditation applies only to postgraduate programs (n = 148). Note: This integrated table highlights three structural features of public health education in Mexico. First, professional master’s degrees dominate the academic landscape but show weaker integration into national accreditation mechanisms. Second, research-oriented programs are concentrated in public institutions and are far more likely to be accredited within the National Postgraduate System.
Table 2. Delivery Modality of Public Health and Related Academic Programs in Mexico by Academic Level and Institutional Sector, 2024.
Table 2. Delivery Modality of Public Health and Related Academic Programs in Mexico by Academic Level and Institutional Sector, 2024.
Academic LevelTotal
Programs n (%)		Public
Institutions n (%)		Private
Institutions n (%)		School-Based
n (%)		Semi-School-Based n (%)Online
n (%)		Modality Not
Reported
n (%)
Bachelor’s degrees27 (15.4)12 (44.4)15 (55.6)24 (88.9)—3 (11.1)—
Non-medical specializations18 (10.3)12 (72.2)5 (27.8)13 (72.2)2 (11.1)—3 (16.7)
Medical specializations3 (1.7)2 (66.7)1 (33.3)3 (100.0)———
Master’s degrees in science26 (14.9)25 (96.2)1 (3.8)25 (96.2)——1 (3.8)
Professional master’s degrees74 (42.3)39 (52.7)35 (47.3)27 (36.5)12 (16.2)26 (35.1)8 (36.4)
PhD programs27 (15.4)22 (81.5)5 (18.5)17 (63.0)5 (18.5)3 (11.1)2 (7.4)
Total175 (100.0)113 (64.6)62 (35.4)102 (58.3)19 (10.9)32 (18.3)22 (12.6)
Note: This table shows a strong reliance on in-person education across all academic levels, particularly for bachelor’s degrees, medical specializations, and research-oriented postgraduate programs. Online and semi-school-based modalities are most prevalent among professional master’s degrees, reflecting their applied orientation and responsiveness to working professionals. Public institutions continue to emphasize traditional delivery formats, whereas private institutions contribute disproportionately to online offerings. However, incomplete reporting of program modality—particularly among professional master’s degrees—limits transparency and complicates national planning for equitable access to public health training.
Table 3. Factors Associated with Inclusion in the National Postgraduate System. Logistic regression analysis of postgraduate programs (n = 148).
Table 3. Factors Associated with Inclusion in the National Postgraduate System. Logistic regression analysis of postgraduate programs (n = 148).
PredictorOdds Ratio95% Confidence Intervalp-Value
Geographic region (reference: South)
Northwest0.560.09–3.610.538
Northeast0.620.13–3.060.560
West and Bajío0.900.23–3.570.877
Mexico City0.490.12–2.040.324
South Central and East2.420.79–7.480.123
Postgraduate level (reference: Doctorate)
Non-medical specialization0.590.13–2.700.495
Master’s degree in science7.351.72–31.340.007
Professional master’s degree0.360.13–1.010.051
Note: Accreditation within the National Postgraduate System is strongly associated with academic orientation rather than geographic location. Master’s degrees in science confer significantly higher odds of inclusion than PhD programs, while professional master’s degrees remain systematically underrepresented, reinforcing concerns about uneven quality assurance across postgraduate training pathways.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Real-Ramírez, J.; Arias-Carrión, O. Public Health Education in Mexico in 2024: National Distribution, Accreditation, and Modalities of Training. J. Mind Med. Sci. 2026, 13, 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmms13010004

AMA Style

Real-Ramírez J, Arias-Carrión O. Public Health Education in Mexico in 2024: National Distribution, Accreditation, and Modalities of Training. Journal of Mind and Medical Sciences. 2026; 13(1):4. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmms13010004

Chicago/Turabian Style

Real-Ramírez, Janet, and Oscar Arias-Carrión. 2026. "Public Health Education in Mexico in 2024: National Distribution, Accreditation, and Modalities of Training" Journal of Mind and Medical Sciences 13, no. 1: 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmms13010004

APA Style

Real-Ramírez, J., & Arias-Carrión, O. (2026). Public Health Education in Mexico in 2024: National Distribution, Accreditation, and Modalities of Training. Journal of Mind and Medical Sciences, 13(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/jmms13010004

Article Metrics

Article metric data becomes available approximately 24 hours after publication online.
Back to TopTop