ArticleJournal of public health management and practice : JPHMP
The Public Health Workforce Calculator in a Post-COVID Era.
Article in Journal of public health management and practice : JPHMP. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextA new tool, the Public Health Workforce Calculator ("Workforce Calculator"), was developed near the onset of the COVID pandemic to help agencies estimate the staffing they would need to fully implement the Foundational Public Health Services (FPHS). The data underlying the Workforce Calculator algorithm was from pre-pandemic time periods.
objectiveTo assess whether the Workforce Calculator continues to reliably estimate staffing need in a peri-COVID context.
designLocal health departments participated in the National Association of County and City Health Officials Profile survey, which for a random half of agencies, stratified by jurisdiction size, contained a module that asked them to estimate the FTE they would need to fully implement FPHS. For each of the 108 valid responding agencies, these data were compared with the Workforce Calculator output that the agency would have received to assess whether the Workforce Calculator was concordantly estimating staffing needs.
main outcome measureWe assessed concordance between the reported staffing needs and the Workforce Calculator's estimates, both graphically and quantitatively, using Lin's concordance correlation coefficient.
resultsFor most FPHS categories, the Workforce Calculator systematically underestimated the amount of staffing needed for full implementation relative to agencies' reported needs.
conclusionsPost-COVID staffing needs systematically appear more substantial than the pre-COVID data on which the Workforce Calculator was based. An update to the Workforce Calculator using post-COVID data would benefit end users.
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.