ArticlePublic health weekly report2026
Field Epidemiological Investigation Training Demand Survey for Central and Local Epidemiological Investigation and Response Teams.
Article in Public health weekly report, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency conducts simulation training to enhance the response capabilities of Epidemiological Investigation and Response Teams (ERTs). We analyzed training demands among Central and Local ERTs following nine scenario-based training sessions in 2025. Methods: A survey was administered to 269 participants: 97 training debriefing attendees on-site (November 28, 2025) and 172 Central ERTs online (December 1-5, 2025) using a self-developed questionnaire that covered respondent characteristics, training topics, and methods. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and group differences via chi-square or Fisher's exact tests. Results: The preferred topics among the 133 respondents (response rate 49.4%; 95 Central, 38 Local ERTs; 74.4% female; median age 43.0; 5.0 years' experience) were respiratory (41.4%) diseases and water- and food-borne diseases (33.8%), and responses to mass gathering events (48.9%) and disaster events (46.6%). There was a significantly higher demand for diseases of unknown origin, non-communicable diseases, and mass gathering responses among Central ERTs. Conversely, Local ERTs prioritized training for water- and food-borne diseases and educational/healthcare facility outbreaks. Risk communication (46.6%) and risk assessment (45.9%) were equally prioritized by both groups, and problem-based learning (PBL, 57.1%) and field-linked practical training (51.9%) were the preferred methodologies. Conclusions: Given the differing preferences reported, future training should be tailored to reflect each team's mission. Tailored scenarios should be developed that would enable Local ERTs to focus on community-level educational/healthcare facility outbreaks, while Central ERTs would concentrate on complex cases requiring coordination with the competent ministries or precise etiological investigations. Finally, it is necessary to maintain PBL methods and strengthen capabilities in areas like risk communication and assessment.
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.