ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
Chinese version and application of the global health competencies survey for healthcare professionals.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. 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
Objective: This study aimed to introduce and validate the global health competencies survey (GHCS) in the Chinese healthcare context, addressing the need for a comprehensive tool to assess global health competencies among diverse healthcare professionals. Methods: The GHCS underwent meticulous translation and cultural adaptation, engaging 150 healthcare professionals from various disciplines between 1 Results: The translated GHCS demonstrated robust reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.841) and validity. The survey identified competencies, showcased temporal trends, and informed targeted interventions. No floor or ceiling effects were observed, except for one variable (racial/ethnic disparities). Conclusion: The adapted and validated GHCS emerges as a valuable tool for assessing global health competencies among Chinese healthcare professionals. Implications for research use include identifying knowledge gaps, facilitating program improvements, and contributing to reduced health inequities. Despite limitations, such as the absence of criterion validation and Mandarin administration, the GHCS offers a foundation for further research and program enhancements in China.
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.