ArticleGlobal health research and policy2022
The construction of Chinese indicator system on public health field investigation and short-term study hub: experience and implications.
Article in Global health research and policy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The development and application of a two-step surveillance process for Healthy China Initiative based on wide coverage interagency data.Global health research and policy · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe increasing of exchange activities among public health institutes and experts globally calls for a standardized operation to construct public health field investigation and short-term study hub (Field Study Hub). This can funcion as a platform to share experience in public health development in an accurate and comprehensive manner that would benefit global practices. This research aims to establish a supportive indicator system to guide the construction work.
methodsDelphi method including two rounds of surveys were conducted among 82 senior public health experts. A structured questionnaire was designed to collect the opinions of the experts on the necessity of setting and feasibility of measurement for proposed 5 dimensions of 49 indicators and 7 additionally proposed ones. Percentage and score were used to describe the assessments, χ
resultsThe percentages of experts choosing "Very good" or "Good" for necessity and feasibility in rounds 1 and 2 were 73.1-97.6% (85.8% ± 7.5%), 64.6-93.9% (82.8% ± 6.7%), 73.8-100% (91.0% ± 6.2%) and 72.5-100% (89.2% ± 7.3%) respectively. The scores of necessity were higher than those of feasibility, and the differences in the dimensions of "Key experience", "Capacity for logistic support" and the total were statistically significant (t
conclusionsA set of 5 dimensions of 56 indicators with good necessity and feasibility were developed to technically support and well evaluate the construction of field study hub in public health institutions. This was of high significance because it tended to provide a preliminary baseline for the standardized practice in global health. Also, the present research might serve as a methodological reference for the development of other indicator sets.
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.