首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>The Scientific World Journal >Vocational Bias: A Potential Pitfall in the Use of Key Informant Interviews in Pediatric Community Needs Assessments
【2h】

Vocational Bias: A Potential Pitfall in the Use of Key Informant Interviews in Pediatric Community Needs Assessments

机译:职业偏见:在儿童社区需求评估中使用关键信息面试的潜在陷阱

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Key informants are individuals with insight into a community or a problem of interest. Our objective was to evaluate the effect of the employment type of key informants on the outcome of a pediatric needs assessment for an urban community. Twenty-one interviews were conducted during the course of a pediatric community needs assessment. As part of the interview, informants were asked to list the top three problems facing children in their community. We analyzed their answers to determine if informant responses differed by employment type. Key informants were divided into four employment types: health care setting, social service, business, and infrastructure. Responses were coded as being primarily one of three types: medical, social, or resource. Our results showed that those informants who worked in a health care setting listed medical problems more often than those who did not (p < 0.04). Those who worked in social services listed resource problems more often than those who did not (p < 0.05). Those in business and infrastructure positions listed more social problems (p < 0.37). No difference was observed in response type between those who had lived in the community at some point and those who had not. This study lends support to the hypothesis that informants’ reporting of community problems is biased by their vocation. Clinicians often focus their needs assessments on health care workers. This study suggests, however, that we need to take into consideration the bias this presents and to seek to interview people with diverse work experiences. By limiting the process to health care workers, clinicians are likely to get a skewed perspective of a community’s needs and wants.
机译:关键线人是对社区或感兴趣的问题有洞察力的个人。我们的目标是评估关键线人的聘用类型对城市社区儿童需求评估结果的影响。在儿科社区需求评估过程中进行了21次访谈。作为访谈的一部分,要求线人列出他们所在社区儿童面临的三大问题。我们分析了他们的答案,以确定线人的回答是否因就业类型而异。关键线人分为四种就业类型:卫生保健机构,社会服务,企业和基础设施。响应被编码为主要三种类型之一:医疗,社会或资源。我们的结果表明,在医疗机构工作的线人比没有线人的患病率更高(p <0.04)。与没有服务的人相比,从事社会服务的人列出资源问题的频率更高(p <0.05)。在企业和基础设施部门工作的人列出了更多的社会问题(p <0.37)。居住在社区中的人与未居住在社区中的人之间在反应类型上没有观察到差异。这项研究为以下假说提供了支持:线人对社区问题的报告受其职业偏见。临床医生通常将需求评估的重点放在医护人员上。但是,这项研究表明,我们需要考虑到这种偏见,并试图采访具有不同工作经验的人。通过将流程限制在医护人员手中,临床医生可能会对社区的需求和偏见有所偏见。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号