Rural definition of health: a systematic literature review.
Rural definition of health: a systematic literature review.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s12889-015-1658-9
复制
发表时间：
2015-04-14
影响因子：
4.5
通讯作者：
VanWormer J
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Gessert C;Waring S;Bailey-Davis L;Conway P;Roberts M;VanWormer J
以患者为中心的护理的出现向政策制定者、卫生保健管理人员、临床医生和患者倡导者提出了挑战，要求他们了解有助于有效激活患者的因素。需要更好地理解患者如何看待和定义自己的健康，以更有效地“激活”患者，并培养和支持患者改善健康的努力。2500多年来，研究人员一直在暗示，农村人口对待健康的方式可能与非农村人口不同。我们对文献进行了系统的回顾，以评估支持农村健康定义的证据的范围和强度。如果研究以英语发表，报道了原始研究，并提交了与农村健康定义相关的发现或评论，在过去40年中发表了研究，并基于对美国、加拿大或澳大利亚农村人口的观察，则有资格纳入这些研究。每篇选定的文章都分配了两名评审员，并对另一名评审员的评论视而不见。对于不一致的评价，进行了第三次盲法评价。在从文献中确定的125篇已发表的文章中，有34篇包含与农村健康定义有关的评论或发现。在这些研究中，有6项包括城市对照组。很少有研究直接比较农村和城市对健康的定义。与农村健康定义相关的调查结果涉及的范围很广；然而，良好的健康通常被描述为能够工作、在社会关系中相互作用和保持独立。这篇综述在很大程度上证实了许多关于农村健康观点的一般特征，但也证明了经验性比较农村和城市样本的研究在数量和质量方面的广泛方法局限性。最值得注意的是，由于经常没有平行比较小组和标准化评估工具，这一领域的证据基础被削弱。要让农村患者参与并激活他们自己的医疗保健，需要更好地了解农村人口的健康信念。这篇综述表明，农村居民可能确实对如何定义健康持有不同的观点，但需要更严格的研究来证实这些发现。本文的在线版本(doi：10.1186/s12889-0151658-9)包含补充材料，授权用户可以使用。
The advent of patient-centered care challenges policy makers, health care administrators, clinicians, and patient advocates to understand the factors that contribute to effective patient activation. Improved understanding of how patients think about and define their health is needed to more effectively “activate” patients, and to nurture and support patients’ efforts to improve their health. Researchers have intimated for over 25 years that rural populations approach health in a distinct fashion that may differ from their non-rural counterparts. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to assess the extent and strength of evidence for rural definition of health. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were published in English, reported on original research and presented findings or commentary relevant to rural definition of health, were published over the last 40 years, and were based on observations of rural U.S., Canadian, or Australian populations. Two reviewers were assigned to each selected article and blinded to the other reviewer’s comments. For discordant reviews, a third blinded review was performed. Of the 125 published articles identified from the literature, 34 included commentary or findings relevant to a rural definition of health. Of these studies, 6 included an urban comparison group. Few studies compared rural and urban definitions of health directly. Findings relevant to rural definition of health covered a broad range; however, good health was commonly characterized as being able to work, reciprocate in social relationships, and maintain independence. This review largely confirmed many general characteristics on rural views of health, but also documented the extensive methodological limitations, both in terms of quantity and quality, of studies that empirically compare rural vs. urban samples. Most notably, the evidence base in this area is weakened by the frequent absence of parallel comparison groups and standardized assessment tools. To engage and activate rural patients in their own healthcare, a better understanding of the health beliefs in rural populations is needed. This review suggests that rural residents may indeed hold distinct views on how to define health, but more rigorous studies are needed to confirm these findings. The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12889-015-1658-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1081
发表时间：
2013-02
期刊：
Health affairs (Project Hope)
影响因子：
--
作者：
Danis M;Solomon M
通讯作者：
Solomon M
DOI：
10.1111/j.1440-1584.1997.tb00239.x
发表时间：
1997-05-01
期刊：
The Australian journal of rural health
影响因子：
--
作者：
Elliott-Schmidt, R;Strong, J
通讯作者：
Strong, J
影响因子：
5.9
作者：
Rakauskas, Michael E.;Ward, Nicholas J.;Gerberich, Susan G.
通讯作者：
Gerberich, Susan G.
影响因子：
3.1
作者：
Hoyt, DR;Conger, RD;Weihs, K
通讯作者：
Weihs, K
影响因子：
5.7
作者：
Greene, Jessica;Hibbard, Judith H.
通讯作者：
Hibbard, Judith H.