ArticlePloS one2026
Global learning opportunities within social innovation in health (GLOWS): A modified Delphi process to identify and pilot core competencies for learning.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
30 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSocial innovation in health refers to the community-engaged process that connects health improvement and social change. The aim of this study was to develop a consensus statement on core learning competencies in social innovation in health and pilot them as part of a participatory training workshop. METHODS AND
findingsA modified Delphi Process aggregating data from a scoping review, global open call, and participatory process was organized. Participants were recruited from low, middle, and high-income countries with a range of social innovation experiences. Statements focused on social innovation in health core competencies for learning. Consensus was determined using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness method. After expressing interest in the project, 68 individuals received the survey. 46 participants completed the first survey, and 35 completed the second. All 28 statements reached consensus, and based on the results of this first survey, some statements were added, amended, and merged to reach 30 consensus statements in the second survey. Competencies were categorized into skills, mindsets, and knowledge. Twenty-five statements had a median Likert rating score of >8 indicating strong agreement. Some competencies reached higher levels of agreement. This included community engagement, which can leverage the collective knowledge and problem-solving abilities of a diverse group of individuals to tackle complex challenges; social entrepreneurship skills including business model knowledge, securing funding, team building, and knowledge of intersectional issues and health inequities. Twelve competencies were then piloted as eight one-hour online workshops, which assessed the feasibility of developing them through online open-access social innovation training sessions. Afterwards,137 participants completed a survey rating their competency on a scale from 1 (not competent) to 5 (very competent),most reported a significant 1-point improvement including in entrepreneurship and understanding intersectionality.
conclusionThe results from this study will inform the development of a WHO/TDR conceptual framework which will have implications for training program design and policy.
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.