Building Data and Information Capacity in Environmental Public Health: A Best-Worst Scaling Experiment
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
CONTEXT: Environmental public health practitioners rely on information technology (IT) to maintain and improve environmental health. However, current systems have limited capacity. A better understanding of the importance of IT features is needed to enhance data and information capacity. OBJECTIVE: (1) Rank IT features according to the percentage of respondents who rated them as essential to an information management system and (2) quantify the relative importance of a subset of these features using best-worst scaling. DESIGN: Information technology features were initially identified from a previously published systematic review of software evaluation criteria and a list of software options from a private corporation specializing in inspection software. Duplicates and features unrelated to environmental public health were removed. The condensed list was refined by a working group of environmental public health management to a final list of 57 IT features. The essentialness of features was electronically rated by environmental public health managers. Features where 50% to 80% of respondents rated them as essential (n = 26) were subsequently evaluated using best-worst scaling. SETTING: Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Environmental public health professionals in local public health. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Importance scores of IT features. RESULTS: The majority of IT features (47/57) were considered essential to an information management system by at least half of the respondents (n = 52). The highest-rated features were delivery to printer, software encryption capability, and software maintenance services. Of the 26 features evaluated in the best-worst scaling exercise, the most important features were orientation to all practice areas, off-line capability, and ability to view past inspection reports and results. CONCLUSIONS: The development of a single, unified environmental public health information management system that fulfills the reporting and functionality needs of system users is recommended. This system should be implemented by all public health units to support data and information capacity in local environmental public health. This study can be used to guide vendor evaluation, negotiation, and selection in local environmental public health, and provides an example of academia-practice partnerships and the use of best-worst scaling in public health research.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,014 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,012 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».