ArticleJournal of multidisciplinary evaluation2014
Evaluating Application of Knowledge and Skills: The Use of Consensus Expert Review to Assess Conference Abstracts of Field Epidemiology Training Participants.
Article in Journal of multidisciplinary evaluation, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating the impact of field epidemiology training programs: a descriptive review of the published literature.Human resources for health · 2025Review
- Needs assessment of the advanced Ghana field epidemiology and laboratory training program, April 2024: lessons learned and best practices.Frontiers in epidemiology · 2025Article
- The United Kingdom Field Epidemiology Training Programme: meeting programme objectives.Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOften evaluations of training programs are limited - with many focusing on the aspects that are easy to measure (e.g., reaction of trainees) without addressing the important outcomes of training, such as how trainees applied their new knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Numerous evaluations fail to measure training's effect on job performance because few effective methods are available to do so. Particularly difficult is the problem of evaluating multisite training programs that vary considerably in structure and implementation from one site to another. PURPOSE: NA.
settingNA.
interventionNA. RESEARCH
designWe devised a method of a consensus expert review to evaluate the quality of conference abstracts submitted by participants in Field Epidemiology Training Programs - an approach that can provide useful information on how well trainees apply knowledge and skills gained in training, complementing data obtained from other sources and methods. This method is practical, minimally intrusive, and resource-efficient, and it may prove useful for evaluation practice in diverse fields that require training. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: NA.
findingsNA.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28659726PMC5484422W1815232506What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.