ReviewAnnals of global health2021
Measuring for Success: Evaluating Leadership Training Programs for Sustainable Impact.
Review in Annals of global health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Training Global Leaders in Perioperative Equity: An Evaluation of the CHESA Fellowship.World journal of surgery · 2026Article
- Navigating a learning journey in person-centered leadership: a grounded theory study.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Academic Competencies in Academic Global Surgery: A Scoping Review.ANZ journal of surgery · 2026Article
- Article
- Evaluation of Global Surgery Perspectives and Knowledge Amongst Past Surgical Trainees in East, Central, and Southern Africa: A Cross-Sectional Study.Health science reports · 2025Article
- Core capabilities of Chinese centers for disease control and prevention public health personnel: a network analysis from Northeast China.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Women's Leadership Development at the Yale School of Medicine: Preliminary Evaluation of an Innovative Program.Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.) · 2025Article
- Unleashing leadership potential in unprecedented times: Lessons learned from an evaluation of a virtual cohort-based adaptive leadership program for public health executives.Public health in practice (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- Leaders development program by 360 degree feedback: reflection on head nurses' leadership practices.BMC nursing · 2024Article
- An Exploration of the Pillars of Leadership in Cancer Education.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2024Review
- Application of the Stanford Biodesign Framework in Healthcare Innovation Training and Commercialization of Market Appropriate Products: A Scoping Review.Journal of medical systems · 2024Article
- Prescribing sustainability: should UN sustainable development goals be part of the medical, pharmacy, and biomedical education?Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Implementing Clinical Guidelines for the Treatment of Psychosis: The Frontline Leaders' Point of View. A Qualitative Study.Journal of healthcare leadership · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 8 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In an era of global health security challenges such as the COVID-19 pandemic, there is greater need for strong leadership. Over the past decades, significant investments have been made in global health leadership development programs by governments and philanthropic organizations to address this need. Evaluating the societal impact of these programs remains challenging, despite consensus on the importance of public health leadership. Objective: This article identifies the gaps and highlights the critical role of monitoring and evaluation approaches in assessing the impact of global health leadership programs. Importantly, we also propose the theory of change (TOC) as a common framework and identify a set of tools and indicators that leadership programs can adapt and use. Methods: We carried out an informal review of major global health leadership programs, including a literature review on leadership program evaluation approaches. Current practices in assessing the short- to long-term outcomes of leadership training programs were explored and synthesized. We also examined use of program theory frameworks, such as theory of change to guide the evaluation strategy. We find the TOC approach can be enhanced by integrating evaluation-specific frameworks and establishing broad stakeholder buy-in. We highlight measurement challenges, proposed outcome indicators and evaluation methodologies, and outline the future direction for such efforts. Findings: Most evaluation of current leadership programs is focused on short-term individual-level outcomes, while reports on long-term societal impact were limited. Reciprocal impacts on and benefits for the "host" organizations were not included in evaluation metrics. Most programs had program logic or result chains, but with no well-articulated program theories. Conclusion: Key stakeholders involved in leadership training programs benefit from the evidence of rigorous program evaluations to inform decisions that address barriers in fostering global health leadership and improving population health outcomes. Insight into reciprocal change in host organizations is important. Evaluation of global health leadership training must go beyond the individual trainee and encompass organizational and community-level impacts. Documentation of long-lasting organizational and societal impacts is essential for donors to appreciate the return on their investment. Key Takeaways: Evaluation plays an important role in understanding how leadership development takes place and how it contributes to improving public health outcomes.Making the case for investments in leadership development programs requires robust evidence from monitoring and evaluation strategies that link investments beyond the individual-level to longer-term societal impacts.The first critical step towards a strategy for success is for leadership programs to clearly build, articulate, share, and use their program theories or theories of change.Theories of change help identify the pathways (and potential tensions) through which leadership development programs effect change at the individual, organizational and community levels.Evaluation methods that examine outcomes of leadership programs should be multi-method, multi-level, and where possible include counterfactual outcomes.Allocation of funds to evaluate on-going and long-lasting societal impact of leadership programs should be a routine practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.