ArticleBMJ global health2024
A Delphi study to assess the effect of changes in language between the first and second editions of the WHO's Joint External Evaluation.
Article in BMJ global health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Key features of sustainable capacities for risk communication in health emergencies: analysis of Joint External Evaluation.Journal of global health · 2025Observational
- Socioeconomic inequality and decomposition of core capacity in global health security: the role of health system.Journal of global health · 2025Article
- Responsible artificial intelligence in public health: a Delphi study on risk communication, community engagement and infodemic management.BMJ global health · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCountries use the WHO Joint External Evaluation (JEE) tool-part of the WHO International Health Regulations (2005) Monitoring and Evaluation Framework-for voluntary evaluation of global health security (GHS) capacities. After releasing the JEE first edition (E1) in 2016, WHO released the JEE second edition (E2) in 2018 with language changes to multiple indicators and associated capacity levels. To understand the effect of language changes on countries' ability to meet requirements in each edition, we conducted a Delphi study-a method where a panel of experts reach consensus on a topic through iterative, anonymous surveys-to solicit feedback from 40+ GHS experts with expertise in one or more of the 19 JEE technical areas.
methodsWe asked experts first to compare the language changes for each capacity level within each indicator and identify how these changes affected the indicator overall; then to assess the ability of a country to achieve the same capacity level using E2 as compared with E1 using a Likert-style score (1-5), where '1' was 'significantly easier' and '5' was 'significantly harder'; and last to provide a qualitative justification for score selections. We analysed the medians and IQR of responses to determine where experts reached consensus.
resultsResults demonstrate that 14 indicators and 49 capacity levels would be harder to achieve in E2.
conclusionFindings underscore the importance of considering how language alterations impact how the JEE measures GHS capacity and the feasibility of using the JEE to monitor changes in capacity over time.
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.