Trading quality for relevance: non-health decision-makers' use of evidence on the social determinants of health.
Trading quality for relevance: non-health decision-makers' use of evidence on the social determinants of health.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007053
复制
发表时间：
2015-04-02
期刊：
影响因子：
2.9
通讯作者：
Lock K
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
McGill E;Egan M;Petticrew M;Mountford L;Milton S;Whitehead M;Lock K
地方政府的服务和政策影响着许多部门的健康决定因素，如规划、交通、住房和休闲。研究人员和政策制定者认为，影响健康、幸福和不平等的更广泛决定因素的决定应该以证据为依据。这项研究探索了信息和证据是如何被卫生部门以外的当地专业人员定义、评估和利用的，但他们的决定可能会影响健康：在这种情况下，是从事建筑环境设计、规划和维护工作的从业者。使用三个焦点小组的定性研究。进行了专题分析。焦点小组在英国各地举行，有在英国两个地区以及巴西、美国和加拿大工作的当地从业者参加。在当地政府层面从事建筑环境设计和管理的英国和国际从业人员。参与者描述了一系列构成证据的数据和信息，学术研究只是其中的一部分。建筑环境决策者重视经验性证据，但也强调通过将他们的作品与艺术和哲学联系在一起的叙事，较少经验性思维方式的合法性和相关性。参与者优先考虑干预措施的可接受性、可交付性和可持续性方面的证据，而不是长期结果(包括许多健康结果)的证据。参与者通常享有当地信息的特权，包括个人经历和当地数据，但不太愿意接受来自被认为与他们自己不同的背景的证据。地方性建筑环境从业者利用证据做出决定，但他们对“最佳证据”的看法似乎优先考虑与当地的相关性，而不是学术严谨性。学术界可以通过与相关从业者合作提高当地数据和评估的质量，并通过改进提高学术研究的外部有效性的方法，促进影响健康的社会决定因素的循证地方决策。
Local government services and policies affect health determinants across many sectors such as planning, transportation, housing and leisure. Researchers and policymakers have argued that decisions affecting wider determinants of health, well-being and inequalities should be informed by evidence. This study explores how information and evidence are defined, assessed and utilised by local professionals situated beyond the health sector, but whose decisions potentially affect health: in this case, practitioners working in design, planning and maintenance of the built environment. A qualitative study using three focus groups. A thematic analysis was undertaken. The focus groups were held in UK localities and involved local practitioners working in two UK regions, as well as in Brazil, USA and Canada. UK and international practitioners working in the design and management of the built environment at a local government level. Participants described a range of data and information that constitutes evidence, of which academic research is only one part. Built environment decision-makers value empirical evidence, but also emphasise the legitimacy and relevance of less empirical ways of thinking through narratives that associate their work to art and philosophy. Participants prioritised evidence on the acceptability, deliverability and sustainability of interventions over evidence of longer term outcomes (including many health outcomes). Participants generally privileged local information, including personal experiences and local data, but were less willing to accept evidence from contexts perceived to be different from their own. Local-level built environment practitioners utilise evidence to make decisions, but their view of ‘best evidence’ appears to prioritise local relevance over academic rigour. Academics can facilitate evidence-informed local decisions affecting social determinants of health by working with relevant practitioners to improve the quality of local data and evaluations, and by advancing approaches to improve the external validity of academic research.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
6.3
作者：
Macintyre, Sally
通讯作者：
Macintyre, Sally
DOI：
10.1111/j.1365-2753.2006.00600.x
发表时间：
2006-06-01
影响因子：
2.4
作者：
Kemm, John
通讯作者：
Kemm, John
影响因子：
5.4
作者：
Marchal, Bruno;Westhorp, Gill;Pawson, Ray
通讯作者：
Pawson, Ray
案例研究方法。
影响因子：
4
作者：
Crowe S;Cresswell K;Robertson A;Huby G;Avery A;Sheikh A
通讯作者：
Sheikh A
影响因子：
15.8
作者：
Bosch-Capblanch X;Lavis JN;Lewin S;Atun R;Røttingen JA;Dröschel D;Beck L;Abalos E;El-Jardali F;Gilson L;Oliver S;Wyss K;Tugwell P;Kulier R;Pang T;Haines A
通讯作者：
Haines A