Researchers began with policy and institutional documents, published research and interviews with 20 public health professionals in Hebei Province. These sources informed 49 candidate indicators concerning practice-based learning. Two groups of experts then assessed each candidate’s importance, scientific soundness and feasibility through Delphi rounds involving 20 experts in the first round and 18 in the second. The researchers summarised ratings descriptively and used tie-corrected Kendall’s W to assess concordance in the experts’ relative rankings.

The second-round mean ratings ranged from 3.89 to 4.67 across the three assessment dimensions, while every coefficient of variation was no greater than 0.25. Expert agreement on ranking was low: Kendall’s W was 0.0529 for importance, 0.0569 for scientific soundness and 0.0474 for feasibility, and all associated P values exceeded 0.05. The results therefore indicate that experts gave generally high ratings to the retained indicators without consistently ranking them in the same order.

After the Delphi process, the framework contained three primary dimensions, nine secondary domains, 19 tertiary subdomains and 45 fourth-level indicators. A fuzzy analytic hierarchy process assigned Process the largest primary weight, at 0.481, followed by Input at 0.266 and Output at 0.253. The global weights were based on pairwise judgments made by the first author, with calculations jointly checked by the first and corresponding authors; products of local weights were then normalised to obtain global indicator weights. These values represent the weighting model’s priorities rather than measured effects on learning outcomes.

At the indicator level, specification of practice-mentor guidance time received the highest normalised global weight, 0.080508. Dual-qualified faculty ranked next, followed by four indicators with equal weights concerning practical training and assessment. The framework consequently provides a structured set of candidate conditions for reviewing how Chinese MPH programmes organise practical learning, including supervision and assessment within the wider degree. Because the study did not test implementation across programmes or students, its authors conclude that empirical evaluation is needed to determine whether the arrangements are delivered as intended and associated with students’ public health performance.

Subject of Research: Expert-informed evaluation of practice-based learning conditions in Chinese Master of Public Health programmes

Article Title: Evaluating the conditions for practice-based learning: an expert-informed Input–Process–Output framework for Master of Public Health programmes in China

Article References: Tang, L., Shi, H., Li, B., Lan, J., & Tian, J. (2026). Evaluating the conditions for practice-based learning: an expert-informed Input–Process–Output framework for Master of Public Health programmes in China. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-026-10429-x

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s12909-026-10429-x

Keywords: public health education, Master of Public Health, China, practice-based learning, Delphi method, student supervision, programme evaluation, fuzzy analytic hierarchy process, medical education, Evaluating, conditions, practice-based