In the context of globalization, national capacities for responding to public health emergencies are evaluated using various global assessment tools, most notably the externally derived Global Health Security Index (GHSI), the peer-reviewed Joint External Evaluation (JEE), and the self-reported States Parties Self-Assessment Annual Report (SPAR). These instruments are designed to strengthen emergency response systems worldwide. However, the dynamic transmission characteristics of the COVID-19 pandemic exposed significant discrepancies, as assessment scores from these tools did not consistently align with countries’ actual pandemic response performance. This review examines the performance of these assessment tools throughout the pandemic and identifies three fundamental issues that undermined the effectiveness of GHSI, JEE, and SPAR evaluations. Although indicators across eight technical areas were revised following the pandemic, substantial modifications remain necessary to address the identified limitations. To enhance the utility of these assessment frameworks, systematic revisions are required in multiple domains: restructuring the indicator system architecture, diversifying data sources while expanding indicator dimensions, strengthening data verification protocols, refining weight allocation methodologies, incorporating real-time data streams, and ultimately establishing a dynamic monitoring and assessment system.

In response to growing uncertainty in global health driven by geopolitical tensions, pandemics, and climate-related challenges, global health education must evolve to equip students with theoretical knowledge and core competencies, such as leadership, cross-cultural communication, and strategic thinking. This study reviews the updates to the International Health Project Management (IHPM) course and examines its three key changes: introducing a student-oriented teaching module, incorporating teamwork and role-play to promote autonomy and accountability; expanding geographic flexibility to encourage broader strategic thinking; and strengthening team dynamics through clearer role definitions and targeted support mechanisms. Students formed project teams, established internal regulations, and selected global health scenarios for project design. This revised approach fostered in-depth discussions that encouraged open-minded thinking, enabling students to move beyond disease-focused content to strategic systemic considerations. Greater group ownership also improved collaboration and accountability, addressing common teamwork challenges such as role confusion and uneven participation. However, the analytical depth varied depending on students’ disciplinary backgrounds. Finally, we argue that a tiered curriculum that moves from theory to competency building can better support student growth. Overall, these findings highlight the potential of student-oriented approaches to strengthen leadership, cross-cultural communication, and strategic thinking, competencies essential for contributing to a shared future for global health.