Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33002086›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Implementation of global health competencies: A scoping review on target audiences, levels, and pedagogy and assessment strategies.

Meike Schleiff, Bhakti Hansoti, Anike Akridge, Caroline Dolive, David Hausner, Anna Kalbarczyk, George Pariyo, Thomas C Quinn, Sharon Rudy, Sara Bennett

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. 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

10 authors.

Meike SchleiffJohns Hopkins School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, United States of America.
Bhakti HansotiJohns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States of America.
Anike AkridgePublic Health Institute, Washington, DC, United States of America.
Caroline DolivePublic Health Institute, Washington, DC, United States of America.
David HausnerPublic Health Institute, Washington, DC, United States of America.
Anna KalbarczykJohns Hopkins School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, United States of America.
George PariyoJohns Hopkins School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, United States of America.
Thomas C QuinnJohns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States of America.
Sharon RudyPublic Health Institute, Washington, DC, United States of America.
Sara BennettJohns Hopkins School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs the field of global health expands, the recognition of structured training for field-based public health professionals has grown. Substantial effort has gone towards defining competency domains for public health professionals working globally. However, there is limited literature on how to implement competency-based training into learning curricula and evaluation strategies.

objectivesThis scoping review seeks to collate the current status, degree of consensus, and best practices, as well as gaps and areas of divergence, related to the implementation of competencies in global health curricula. Specifically, we sought to examine (i) the target audience, (ii) the levels or milestones, and (iii) the pedagogy and assessment approaches. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: A review of the published and grey literature was completed to identify published and grey literature sources that presented information on how to implement or support global health and public health competency-based education programs. In particular, we sought to capture any attempts to assign levels or milestones, any evaluation strategies, and the different pedagogical approaches.

resultsOut of 68 documents reviewed, 21 documents were included which contained data related to the implementation of competency-based training programs; of these, 18 were peer-reviewed and three were from the grey literature. Most of the sources focused on post-graduate public health students, professional trainees pursuing continuing education training, and clinical and allied health professionals working in global health. Two approaches were identified to defining skill level or milestones, namely: (i) defining levels of increasing ability or (ii) changing roles across career stages. Pedagogical approaches featured field experience, direct engagement, group work, and self-reflection. Assessment approaches included self-assessment surveys, evaluations by peers and supervisors, and mixed methods assessments.

conclusionsThe implementation of global health competencies needs to respond to the needs of specific agencies or particular groups of learners. A milestones approach may aide these efforts while also support monitoring and evaluation. Further development is needed to understand how to assess competencies in a consistent and relevant manner.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicEducation, MedicalGlobal HealthHealth PersonnelHumans

Identifiers

PMID33002086
PMCPMC7529249

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.