MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4391774374 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0278434

Frameworks for measuring population health: A scoping review

2024· review· en· W4391774374 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sze Ling Chan, Clement Zhong Hao Ho, Nang Ei Ei Khaing, Ezra Ho, Candelyn Pong, Jia Sheng Guan, Calida Chua, Zongbin Li, Trudi Lim, Shao Wei Lam, Lian Leng Low, Choon How How

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Medical Research CouncilMedical Research Council
KeywordsConceptualizationPopulationPopulation healthContext (archaeology)Social determinants of healthGrey literatureIndigenousMEDLINEData sciencePublic healthGeographyComputer scienceMedicineEnvironmental healthPolitical scienceEcologyBiologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Many regions in the world are using the population health approach and require a means to measure the health of their population of interest. Population health frameworks provide a theoretical grounding for conceptualization of population health and therefore a logical basis for selection of indicators. The aim of this scoping review was to provide an overview and summary of the characteristics of existing population health frameworks that have been used to conceptualize the measurement of population health. METHODS: We used the Population, Concept and Context (PCC) framework to define eligibility criteria of frameworks. We were interested in frameworks applicable for general populations, that contained components of measurement of health with or without its antecedents and applied at the population level or used a population health approach. Eligible reports of eligible frameworks should include at least domains and subdomains, purpose, or indicators. We searched 5 databases (Pubmed, EMBASE, Web of Science, NYAM Grey Literature Report, and OpenGrey), governmental and organizational sites on Google and websites of selected organizations using keywords from the PCC framework. Characteristics of the frameworks were summarized descriptively and narratively. RESULTS: Fifty-seven frameworks were included. The majority originated from the US (46%), Europe (23%) and Canada (19%). Apart from 1 framework developed for rural populations and 2 for indigenous populations, the rest were for general urban populations. The numbers of domains, subdomains and indicators were highly variable. Health status and social determinants of health were the most common domains across all frameworks. Different frameworks had different priorities and therefore focus on different domains. CONCLUSION: Key domains common across frameworks other than health status were social determinants of health, health behaviours and healthcare system performance. The results in this review serve as a useful resource for governments and healthcare organizations for informing their population health measurement efforts.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.098
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.268
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.902
Threshold uncertainty score0.521

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0980.268
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.009
Bibliometrics0.0610.059
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0120.014
Open science0.0060.009
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.422
GPT teacher head0.491
Teacher spread0.069 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
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

Citations25
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicHealth disparities and outcomes→French-language works237,207→