Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32883307›Full record

ReviewGlobalization and health2020

Educating, training, and exercising for infectious disease control with emphasis on cross-border settings: an integrative review.

Doret de Rooij, Evelien Belfroid, Christos Hadjichristodoulou, Varvara A Mouchtouri, Jörg Raab, Aura Timen, EU HEALTHY GATEWAYS Joint Action consortium

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Globalization and health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Doret de RooijCentre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands. doret.de.rooij@rivm.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-1922-6021
Evelien BelfroidCentre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Christos HadjichristodoulouDepartment of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Thessaly, Thessaly, Greece.
Varvara A MouchtouriDepartment of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Thessaly, Thessaly, Greece.
Jörg RaabDepartment of Organization Studies, School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Aura TimenCentre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
EU HEALTHY GATEWAYS Joint Action consortium
National Institute for Public Health and the Environment · NLUniversity of Thessaly · GRTilburg University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPoints of entry and other border regions educate, train, and exercise (ETEs) their staff to improve preparedness and response to cross-border health threats. However, no conclusive knowledge of these ETEs' effectiveness exists. This study aimed to review the literature on ETEs in infectious disease control concerning their methods and effect, with an emphasis on cross-border settings and methods that enlarge ETEs' reach. METHODOLOGY: We systematically searched for studies in the databases Embase, Medline, Web of Science, PsycInfo, ERIC, and Cinahl. After successively screening titles and abstracts, full-texts, and citations, 62 studies were included using in- and exclusion criteria. Data were extracted using a data-extraction form. Quality assessment was performed. We developed a theoretical framework based on which we analyzed the ETE context (target group, recruitment, autonomy, training needs), input (topic, trainers, development and quality of materials), process (design, duration, interval, goals), evaluation (pre-, post- follow-up tests), and outcome (reaction, learning, behavior, and system).

resultsWe found a limited number of published evaluations of ETEs in general (n = 62) and of cross-border settings (n = 5) in particular. The quality assessment resulted in seven ETE methodologies and 23 evaluations with a 'good' score. Both general studies and those in a cross-border setting contain a low-moderate detail level on context, input, and process. The evaluations were performed on reaction (n = 45), learning (n = 45), behavior (n = 9) and system (n = 4), mainly using pre- and post-tests (n = 22). Online learning methods have a high potential in enlarging the reach and are effective, particularly in combination with offline training. Training-of-trainer approaches are effective for learning; new ETEs were developed by 20-44% of participants until six months after the initial training.

conclusionOur study reveals a limited number of publications on ETEs in infectious disease control. Studies provide few details on methodology, and use mainly short-term evaluations and low level outcomes. We call for more extensive, higher-level evaluation standards of ETEs, and an easy and sustainable way to exchange evaluations within the workforce of infectious disease control in cross-border settings. The theoretical framework developed in this study could guide future development and evaluation of ETEs in infectious disease control.

Indexed as

Communicable Disease ControlHealth EducationClinical CompetenceCommunicable DiseasesEmigration and ImmigrationExerciseHealth PersonnelHumansLearningCross-borderEducationExerciseInfectious diseasesPublic healthTrainingTraining-of-trainers

Identifiers

PMID32883307
PMCPMC7468091
OpenAlexW3081926277

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.