MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394581409 · doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2023-012601

National public health institutes in the Eastern Mediterranean Region: Insights from experts in the field

2024· article· en· W4394581409 on OpenAlexaff
Hala Abou-Taleb, Sebastian van Gilst, Nada Mohamed, Awad Mataria

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Global Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Systems and Reforms
Canadian institutionsRegional Municipality of Ottawa
FundersWorld Health Organization
KeywordsPublic healthHealth policyTransparency (behavior)Government (linguistics)Corporate governanceInternational healthPublic relationsPolitical sciencePublic administrationBusinessMedicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

National public health institutes (NPHIs) are crucial to the effectiveness of public health systems, including delivering essential public health functions and generating evidence for national health policies, strategies and plans. Currently, there is a significant lack of information regarding NPHI or NPHI-like organisations in Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR) countries, including how they fit into their broader health systems governance landscape. NPHIs exist in 12 out of 22 EMR countries, yet there is no official International Association of National Public Health Institutes (IANPHI) regional network for the EMR, despite established IANPHI networks in four other regions. In 2022, the WHO's Eastern Mediterranean Regional Office led a study comprising an online survey and key informant interviews, which synthesised expert insights and summarised recommendations to strengthen the health systems governance-related role of NPHIs in EMR countries. Study participants included current and former high-level representatives of NPHIs, the government (eg, Ministries of Health, health regulatory authorities), multilateral organisations or non-governmental organisations focusing on health, and others identified as senior health systems governance experts from EMR. Insights and recommendations from experts varied widely, but there were also many common elements and overlaps. These included the need for enhancing NPHI functionalities and collaborative efforts with the public health sector (eg, Ministry of Health, Health Council) in health policy and decision-making formulation and implementation. This, in turn, requires advancing NPHI's fit-for-purpose and sustainable governance and financing arrangements, improving the accessibility and transparency of health data for NPHIs, strengthening engagement and collaboration between NPHIs and other health system actors (including the private sector), and promoting a more prominent role for NPHIs in the development and implementation of public health-related policies and legislation. While many excellent insights and thoughtful strategic guidance are provided, further adaptation may be needed to implement the proposed recommendations in different EMR country contexts going forward.

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)0.045
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.240

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0450.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0090.007
Scholarly communication0.0090.009
Open science0.0020.012
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.163
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.216 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Global HealthSame topicHealthcare Systems and ReformsFrench-language works237,207