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

IF 3.6 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":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11831827/pdf/","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.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

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
评估现场流行病学培训计划影响的优先指标——一项全球修正德尔菲研究的结果。
背景:现场流行病学培训计划(FETPs)旨在通过基于应用能力的学习培养熟练的公共卫生劳动力。这些项目在全球拥有98个项目和2万多名毕业生,在世界各地的疾病防范和应对活动中发挥着至关重要的作用。尽管它们很重要,但发表的评价却很少。本文介绍了建立共识过程的结果,该过程旨在制定一系列优选指标,以评估feps的产出、成果和影响。方法:采用修正德尔菲法,对feps的优选评价指标达成共识。评估指标的初步清单是通过文献综述和咨询影响评估专家和FETP专业人员确定的。随后采用了一种改进的德尔菲程序,包括两轮调查和最后一次专家审查会议,以便就指标达成协商一致意见。德尔菲专家组包括23名代表全球不同地区和FETP角色的专家。结果:在最终影响评价框架中纳入134个评价指标达成共识。这些指标分为产出、结果和影响指标。结论:本研究提出了首个校外教育项目影响评价框架,并给出了校外教育项目的综合评价指标。该指标清单旨在作为一种资源,促进和加强对FETPs的评价,从而改进这些旨在加强国家、区域和全球卫生安全的重要培训方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Physical fitness and health-related quality of life in nursing students: a cross-sectional study with a gender perspective. Physical activity modalities and dosing for postpartum depression, anxiety and quality of life: a network meta-analysis and dose response of randomized trials. Modelling enablers and barriers to improve uptake of a fruit and vegetable voucher scheme (the fresh street community) in England: a TISM-MICMAC approach. Qualitative evidence for the determinants of deaths of despair: a scoping review. Silicosis and silica dust sampling in mineral mining across 30 countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
×
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:604180095
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