ArticleHuman resources for health2025
Development of an impact evaluation framework and planning tool for field epidemiology training programs.
Article in Human resources for health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Field epidemiology training in Tunisia: achievements and gaps.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Building epidemiological capacity to strengthen health systems: evaluating the advanced (extended) field epidemiology training program of Papua New Guinea.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Strengthening field epidemiology capacity in Canada: a mixed-methods evaluation of the Canadian field epidemiology program.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- FETP-to-system integration model: a health system resilience model in the Middle East and North Africa.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- Priority indicators for evaluating the impact of field epidemiology training programs - results of a global modified Delphi study.BMC public 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDespite the growth and diversification of Field Epidemiology Training Programs (FETPs) globally, there are few published evaluations. Those that have been published largely focus on program processes and outputs, with some including short-medium-term outcomes and very few focusing on sustained impact. This paper describes the process of developing an FETP impact evaluation framework and FETP impact evaluation planning tool to facilitate FETP impact evaluations. The impact framework was developed to be simple, flexible and efficient.
methodsA theory of change process for an FETP in Papua New Guinea formed the basis of the impact evaluation framework. With support from independent impact evaluation experts, the framework was developed using an iterative approach. A review of the literature and technical input from FETP representatives underpinned its development. A simple planning tool was developed to help operationalise the impact framework.
resultsThe final FETP impact evaluation framework consists of a high-level summary framework and a detailed operational framework. The high-level framework follows the flow of outputs, outcomes and impacts for trainees, graduates, the public health systems, and communities. The detailed FETP Impact Evaluation Framework includes activities, enablers and barriers, and output, outcome and impact indicators. The FETP Impact Evaluation Planning Tool consists of five steps using a theory-based approach.
conclusionsThe long history and global growth of the FETP model suggest success and imply impact, yet few published papers provide necessary backing evidence. There is growing interest across the FETP community and funders to understand the longer-term changes that FETPs contribute to. We developed an impact framework and planning tool specifically designed to support FETP impact evaluation. The framework and tool are intended to be used by FETP staff with no prior evaluation experience. The evaluation approach is intentionally flexible, allowing contextual application and integration with established quantitative and qualitative evaluation methods.
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.