Priority indicators for evaluating the impact of field epidemiology training programs - results of a global modified Delphi study.

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH BMC Public Health Pub Date : 2025-02-17 DOI:10.1186/s12889-025-21816-2
James A Flint, Tambri Housen, Martyn D Kirk, David N Durrheim
{"title":"Priority indicators for evaluating the impact of field epidemiology training programs - results of a global modified Delphi study.","authors":"James A Flint, Tambri Housen, Martyn D Kirk, David N Durrheim","doi":"10.1186/s12889-025-21816-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Field Epidemiology Training Programs (FETPs) aim to develop a skilled public health workforce through applied competency-based learning. With 98 programs globally and over 20,000 graduates, these programs play a crucial role in disease preparedness and response activities around the world. Despite their importance, there have been few published evaluations. This paper presents the results of a consensus-building process to develop a preferred array of indicators for evaluating the outputs, outcomes, and impacts of FETPs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a modified Delphi study to reach consensus on preferred evaluation indicators for FETPs. An initial list of evaluation indicators were identified from literature reviews and consultations with impact evaluation experts and FETP professionals. A modified Delphi process was subsequently employed, involving two rounds of surveys and a final expert review meeting, to reach consensus on indicators. The Delphi panel included 23 experts representing diverse global regions and FETP roles.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Consensus was reached to include 134 evaluation indicators in the final impact evaluation framework. These indicators were grouped as output, outcome, and impact indicators.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study presents the first FETP impact evaluation framework with a comprehensive list of evaluation indicators for FETPs. This list of indicators is intended as a resource to promote and enhance the evaluation of FETPs and thus improve these important training programs which aim to strengthen national, regional and global health security.</p>","PeriodicalId":9039,"journal":{"name":"BMC Public Health","volume":"25 1","pages":"635"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-025-21816-2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Field Epidemiology Training Programs (FETPs) aim to develop a skilled public health workforce through applied competency-based learning. With 98 programs globally and over 20,000 graduates, these programs play a crucial role in disease preparedness and response activities around the world. Despite their importance, there have been few published evaluations. This paper presents the results of a consensus-building process to develop a preferred array of indicators for evaluating the outputs, outcomes, and impacts of FETPs.

Methods: We conducted a modified Delphi study to reach consensus on preferred evaluation indicators for FETPs. An initial list of evaluation indicators were identified from literature reviews and consultations with impact evaluation experts and FETP professionals. A modified Delphi process was subsequently employed, involving two rounds of surveys and a final expert review meeting, to reach consensus on indicators. The Delphi panel included 23 experts representing diverse global regions and FETP roles.

Results: Consensus was reached to include 134 evaluation indicators in the final impact evaluation framework. These indicators were grouped as output, outcome, and impact indicators.

Conclusions: This study presents the first FETP impact evaluation framework with a comprehensive list of evaluation indicators for FETPs. This list of indicators is intended as a resource to promote and enhance the evaluation of FETPs and thus improve these important training programs which aim to strengthen national, regional and global health security.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Public Health
BMC Public Health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
4.40%
发文量
2108
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: BMC Public Health is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on the epidemiology of disease and the understanding of all aspects of public health. The journal has a special focus on the social determinants of health, the environmental, behavioral, and occupational correlates of health and disease, and the impact of health policies, practices and interventions on the community.
期刊最新文献
Unveiling the dynamics of HIV transmission among young homosexual and bisexual men in Korea. Effectiveness of referral to a population-level telephone coaching service for improving health risk behaviours in people with a mental health condition: a randomised controlled trial. Socioeconomic disparities in the prevalence of depression and anxiety, and their associations with diabetes in rural southwest China. The impact of air pollutants on emergency ambulance dispatches due to mental and behavioral disorders in Shenzhen, China. The prevalence and factors associated with food neophobia in preschool children: a cross-sectional study in Jiangsu Province, China.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1