State Health Officials: Backgrounds and Qualifications
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
CONTEXT: State health officials (SHOs), the executive and administrative leaders of state public health, play a key role in policy development, must be versed in the relevant/current evidence, and provide expertise about health issues to the legislature and the governor. OBJECTIVE: To provide an empirical examination of SHO backgrounds and qualifications over time. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional survey of current/former SHOs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: State health official educational backgrounds; public health experience; previous employment setting. RESULTS: Two-thirds of respondents (64.6%) reported having a medical degree, approximately half (48.3%) a formal public health degree, and almost one-quarter (21.8%) a management degree. The majority had governmental public health experience at some prior point in their career (70.0%). Almost two-thirds worked in governmental public health immediately before becoming an SHO. The proportion that was female increased significantly by decade from 5.6% in the 1970s/80s to 46.4% in the 2010s (P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: The main finding from this study shows that more than two-thirds of SHOs have had governmental public health experience at some point in their career. This is not a new trend as there were no statistical differences in public health experience by decade. More than half of the SHOs were appointed to the role directly from governmental public health, indicating that their public health experience is timely and likely germane to their appointment as SHO. Findings also indicate improvements in gender diversity among one of the most influential leadership roles in governmental public health whereas significant changes in racial and ethnic diversity were not identified. Women are increasingly being appointed as SHOs, indicating increasing gender diversity in this influential position. Given that governmental public health employees are predominantly women, there is still room for gender equity improvements in executive leadership roles. This is coupled with the need for further racial and ethnic diversity improvements as well.
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 | 0,029 | 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 | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».