ArticlePloS one2026
Assessing the content validity of the migrant health country profile tools in Tunisia: A mixed methods study protocol.
Article in PloS one, 2026. 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHuman migration is a historical constant, yet integrating migrant populations into health policy and systems remains a challenge. As highlighted by UN agencies and The Lancet Migration Commission, a key issue exacerbating inequities is the lack of data on disease indicators and healthcare access for migrants, with existing datasets often fragmented. Our transdisciplinary consortium co-developed the Migrant Health Country Profile tools (MHCP-t) - an innovative package of three survey tools that nationally map migrant health data sources (MHCP-t: Data tool), document migrant health policies and the integration of migrants in policies (MHCP-t: Policy tool), and the integration of migrants into healthcare provision (MHCP-t: Provision tool) for key diseases. This protocol describes a mixed-methods validation study investigating the content validity, feasibility, and acceptability of the MHCP-t in Tunisia.
methodsWe will recruit a purposive sample of 40-50 national experts in migration health to complete one of the three MHCP-t according to their expertise. Two subsequent surveys will evaluate: 1) item-level content validity (relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility for individual items) for the MHCP-t: Policy and MHCP-t: Provision, where items function as indicators of the extent to which migrants are integrated into health policies and service provision and therefore require direct assessment at the item level, and 2) tool-level validity, feasibility, and acceptability for all three tools, including the MHCP-t: Data tool, where the primary objective is to assess the comprehensiveness and relevance of the inventory as a whole rather than the validity of individual items as indicators. This will be followed by focus group discussions with a nested sub-sample of approximately 10-15 participants from the initial survey to provide qualitative depth of participants' perspectives. Item-level content validity will be analysed using the Item/Scale Content Validity Indices and Krippendorff's Alpha (α). To assess the level of agreement, the interquartile range will be calculated for each item based on Likert scale ratings (1-5). The second survey will be analysed using descriptive statistics while qualitative data will undergo thematic analysis. DISCUSSION: Findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, conferences, and other formats relevant to different stakeholders. By integrating these findings, the study will determine the tools' appropriateness for mapping migrant health data sources, policies, and service provision, informing their potential for wider national rollout across the MENA region and other contexts.
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.