Recruitment of Cohort Number 20 of Field Epidemiology Training Program — Lessons Learned — Egypt, 2017
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: The Field Epidemiology Training Program (FETP) had been established in Egypt since 1993. It was the second in the Eastern Mediterranean region. Up to this year, 18 cohorts were graduated from FETP. Approximately 80% of graduates work in the Egyptian ministry of health and population (MOHP) and many fill leadership positions. Others provide essential epidemiological services abroad and to neighboring countries. Objective: We aim to describe and evaluate recruitment process for new FETP residents. Methods: An announcement for recruitment of a new cohort was published on newsletter and on FETP Egypt Facebook page on September 31 for two weeks. Inclusion criteria listed on the announcement based on MoHP requirements. Interested candidates were encouraged to fill an application on FETP Egypt website. The application consists of open ended as well as closed questions. Data were extracted, edit and cleaned using Microsoft Excel. One hundred applicants were short listed and invited by phone call to a Face-to-Face interview. Candidate evaluation was web based, it included measurement of skills, qualifications, and experience using Likert scale. Results: Out 364 responses, 39/346 (11.3%) were replicate applications making 307 total applicants. A total of 269/307 (87.6%) applicants were eligible for FETP requirements. Proportion of females was 176/269 (65.4%). Out of 269 candidates; pharmacists, physicians, dentists and veterinarians were 170 (63.2%), 73 (27.1%), 20 (7.4%), 6 (2.2%) respectively. Out of 100 shortlisted applicants; 87 (87%) responded to the call for the interview. A total of 75 interviewed candidates were placed in various departments of preventive sector; 27 (36.0%) at central level and 48 (64.0%) at directorate level representing 19 governorates. Seven candidates (8.0%) were out of the preventive sector and five (5.7%) were veterinarians serving ministry of agriculture. Conclusions: The online applications made recruitment process ran smoothly; it was much easier and less time consuming. However, open ended questions could be closed.
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 | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 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 ».