Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34307066›Full record

ReviewAnnals of global health2021

Measuring for Success: Evaluating Leadership Training Programs for Sustainable Impact.

Joel Njah, Bhakti Hansoti, Adebusuyi Adeyami, Kerry Bruce, Gabrielle O'Malley, Mary Kay Gugerty, Benjamin H Chi, Nanyombi Lubimbi, Elizabeth Steen, Sonora Stampfly and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. An Exploration of the Pillars of Leadership in Cancer Education.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2024
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

12 authors at 8 institutions in 3 countries.

Joel NjahICAP, Columbia University, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1333-0493
Bhakti HansotiJohns Hopkins School of Medicine, STAR Program, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0188-9764
Adebusuyi AdeyamiKing's College London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1459-0761
Kerry BruceClear Outcomes/WomenLift Health, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1300-8250
Gabrielle O'MalleyDepartment of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7514-8240
Mary Kay GugertyDaniel J. Evans School of Public Policy & Governance, University of Washington, International Program in Public Health Leadership, Seattle, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6875-3656
Benjamin H ChiUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1435-8455
Nanyombi LubimbiCollege of Nursing, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7594-3618
Elizabeth SteenDaniel J. Evans School of Public Policy & Governance, University of Washington, International Program in Public Health Leadership, Seattle, USA.
Sonora StampflyDepartment of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9376-3554
Eva BermanDepartment of Global Health, University of Washington, Seattle, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6497-1824
Ann Marie KimballEmerita, University of Washington.
University of Washington · USChatham House · GBColumbia University · USJohns Hopkins University · USKing's College London · GBSeattle University · USUniversity of Illinois Chicago · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

LeadershipOrganizational InnovationGlobal HealthHumansProgram Evaluation

Identifiers

PMID34307066
PMCPMC8284530
OpenAlexW3182893208

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.