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

Abstract Background Preparing Master of Public Health (MPH) graduates for practice requires opportunities to apply evidence to population-health problems and receive feedback on their work. This study developed an expert-informed Input–Process–Output (IPO) framework for evaluating how Chinese MPH programmes organise practical training, supervision and assessment within the wider programme. Methods Policy and institutional documents, published research and interviews with 20 public health professionals in Hebei Province informed 49 candidate indicators. Two Delphi rounds, involving 20 and 18 experts, assessed importance, scientific soundness and feasibility. Item ratings were summarised descriptively, and tie-corrected Kendall’s W assessed concordance in relative rankings. Fuzzy analytic hierarchy weighting used the first author’s pairwise judgements, with calculations jointly checked by the first and corresponding authors. Products of local weights were normalised to obtain global indicator weights. Results The final framework comprised three primary dimensions, nine secondary domains, 19 tertiary subdomains and 45 fourth-level indicators. Round 2 mean ratings ranged from 3.89 to 4.67 across the three rating dimensions, with all coefficients of variation ≤ 0.25. Rank concordance was low: Kendall’s W was 0.0529 for importance, 0.0569 for scientific soundness and 0.0474 for feasibility (all P > 0.05). Process received the highest primary weight (0.481), followed by Input (0.266) and Output (0.253). Specification of practice-mentor guidance time had the highest normalised global weight (0.080508), followed by dual-qualified faculty and four equally weighted indicators concerning practical training and assessment. Conclusions The framework identifies candidate conditions for practice-based MPH learning and offers a structure for reviewing practical training, supervision and assessment. Empirical evaluation is needed to determine whether these arrangements are implemented as intended and associated with students’ public health performance.