MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386640633 · doi:10.3389/phrs.2023.1606110

The Governance of Core Competencies for Public Health: A Rapid Review of the Literature

2023· review· en· W4386640633 on OpenAlexafffund
Harman Singh Sandhu, Victoria Otterman, Lynda Tjaden, Rosemarie Shephard, Emma Apatu, Erica Di Ruggiero, Richard Musto, Jasmine Pawa, Malcolm Steinberg, Claire Betker

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic health reviews · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPublic Health Policies and Education
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityCanadian Public Health AssociationImpactPublic Health Agency of CanadaNOSM UniversityPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoSimon Fraser UniversitySt. Francis Xavier UniversityHealth Canada
FundersPublic Health AgencyPublic Health Agency of CanadaMcMaster University
KeywordsDelphi methodPublic healthCorporate governanceCore competencyWorkforceDelphiMedicinePolitical scienceKnowledge managementPublic relationsBusinessPsychologyNursingComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Core competencies for public health (CCPH) define the knowledge, skills, and attitudes required of a public health workforce. Although numerous sets of CCPH have been established, few studies have systematically examined the governance of competency development, review, and monitoring, which is critical to their implementation and impact. This rapid review included 42 articles. The findings identified examples of collaboration and community engagement in governing activities (e.g., using the Delphi method to develop CCPH) and different ways of approaching CCPH review and revision (e.g., every 3 years). Insights on monitoring and resource management were scarce. Preliminary lessons emerging from the findings point towards the need for systems, structures, and processes that support ongoing reviews, revisions, and monitoring of CCPH.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.054
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.362
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0540.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.568
GPT teacher head0.563
Teacher spread0.005 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublic health reviewsSame topicPublic Health Policies and EducationFrench-language works237,207