ArticlePloS one2025
Performance measurement and evaluation of health practitioner regulation: A scoping review protocol.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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.
- Article
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
Health practitioner regulation plays a fundamental role in public protection by overseeing and governing healthcare professionals to ensure they deliver safe health services. It also serves as a strategic lever to strengthen broader health system goals such as improving the accessibility of services, the sustainability of health workforces, and health system resilience. Although the goals of health practitioner regulation are easily articulated, achieving and evaluating these goals are far more challenging. Performance measurement and evaluation of professional regulators and regulatory systems are critical to improving regulatory processes and functions. This is especially important where there is rising government, public, and professional skepticism and mistrust of the effectiveness and efficiency of regulators across global jurisdictions. Although there is evidence that some health practitioner regulators and regulatory systems engage in performance measurement and evaluation, the similarities and differences remain unclear. The objective of this scoping review is to explore the nature, extent, and range of scholarship related to health practitioner regulatory performance measurement and evaluation. It will explore existing performance measurement and evaluation frameworks; the key principles and areas of focus of these frameworks; and the indicators, metrics and outcomes used to evaluate performance. The review will be conducted in accordance with the JBI guidelines for scoping reviews and will be reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. Database searches will include Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection. Gray literature will be identified through leading regulatory organizations, consortiums, and think tanks. Two independent reviewers will screen titles and abstracts followed by full-text and disagreements will be resolved by a third reviewer. Data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics and conventional content analysis. Results will be presented using evidence tables and a narrative summary. Open Science Framework Registration: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/WABTF.
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.