ReviewJournal of public health (Oxford, England)2024
A competency framework on simulation modelling-supported decision-making for Master of Public Health graduates.
Review in Journal of public health (Oxford, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Global landscape and professionalization of infection preventionist education: comparative insights and future directions.Frontiers in public health · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSimulation models are increasingly important for supporting decision-making in public health. However, due to lack of training, many public health professionals remain unfamiliar with constructing simulation models and using their outputs for decision-making. This study contributes to filling this gap by developing a competency framework on simulation model-supported decision-making targeting Master of Public Health education.
methodsThe study combined a literature review, a two-stage online Delphi survey and an online consensus workshop. A draft competency framework was developed based on 28 peer-reviewed publications. A two-stage online Delphi survey involving 15 experts was conducted to refine the framework. Finally, an online consensus workshop, including six experts, evaluated the competency framework and discussed its implementation.
resultsThe competency framework identified 20 competencies related to stakeholder engagement, problem definition, evidence identification, participatory system mapping, model creation and calibration and the interpretation and dissemination of model results. The expert evaluation recommended differentiating professional profiles and levels of expertise and synergizing with existing course contents to support its implementation.
conclusionsThe competency framework developed in this study is instrumental to including simulation model-supported decision-making in public health training. Future research is required to differentiate expertise levels and develop implementation strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.