ArticleAdvances in health sciences education : theory and practice2024
Validity evidence and psychometric evaluation of a socially accountable health index for health professions schools.
Article in Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice, 2024. 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.
- Fulfilling a social mission: examining practice locations of residency graduates over two decades.Canadian medical education journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
There is an expectation that health professions schools respond to priority societal health needs. This expectation is largely based on the underlying assumption that schools are aware of the priority needs in their communities. This paper demonstrates how open-access, pan-national health data can be used to create a reliable health index to assist schools in identifying societal needs and advance social accountability in health professions education. Using open-access data, a psychometric evaluation was conducted to examine the reliability and validity of the Canadian Health Indicators Framework (CHIF) conceptual model. A non-linear confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on 67 health indicators, at the health-region level (n = 97) was used to assess the model fit of the hypothesized 10-factor model. Reliability analysis using McDonald's Omega were conducted, followed by Pearson's correlation coefficients. Findings from the non-linear CFA rejected the original conceptual model structure of the CHIF. Exploratory post hoc analyses were conducted using modification indices and parameter constraints to improve model fit. A final 5-factor multidimensional model demonstrated superior fit, reducing the number of indicators from 67 to 32. The 5-factors included: Health Conditions (8-indicators); Health Functions (6-indicators); Deaths (5-indicators); Non-Medical Health Determinants (7-indicators); and Community & Health System Characteristics (6-indicators). All factor loadings were statistically significant (p < 0.001) and demonstrated excellent internal consistency (
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.