...
首页> 外文期刊>BMC Public Health >Use and value of systematic reviews in English local authority public health: a qualitative study
【24h】

Use and value of systematic reviews in English local authority public health: a qualitative study

机译:英国地方权力公共卫生中的系统评价的使用和价值:一个定性研究

获取原文
           

摘要

Responsibility for public health in England transferred from the National Health Service to local authorities in 2013, representing a different decision-making environment. Systematic reviews are considered the gold standard of evidence for clinical decision-making but little is known about their use in local government public health. This study aimed to explore the extent to which public health decision-makers in local authorities engage with systematic reviews and how they do so. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with senior public health practitioners (n?=?14) in Yorkshire and the Humber local authorities. Sampling was purposive and involved contacting Directors of Public Health directly and snowballing through key contacts. Face-to-face or telephone interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using the Framework Method. Public health practitioners described using systematic reviews directly in decision-making and engaging with them more widely in a range of ways, often through a personal commitment to professional development. They saw themselves as having a role to advocate for the use of rigorous evidence, including systematic reviews, in the wider local authority. Systematic reviews were highly valued in principle and public health practitioners had relevant skills to find and appraise them. However, the extent of use varied by individual and local authority and was limited by the complexity of decision-making and various barriers. Barriers included that there were a limited number of systematic reviews available on certain public health topics, such as the wider determinants of health, and that the narrow focus of reviews was not reflective of complex public health decisions facing local authorities. Reviews were used alongside a range of other evidence types, including grey literature. The source of evidence was often considered an indicator of quality, with specific organisations, such as Public Health England, NICE and Cochrane, particularly trusted. Research use varies and should be considered within the specific decision-making and political context. There is a need for systematic reviews to be more reflective of the decisions facing local authority public health teams.
机译:英格兰公共卫生责任于2013年从国家卫生服务转移到地方当局,代表不同的决策环境。系统评价被视为临床决策的黄金证据标准,但对当地政府公共卫生的使用很少。本研究旨在探讨地方当局公共卫生决策者的程度,与系统审查以及它们的系统审查以及如何实现。在约克郡和亨伯地方当局的高级公共卫生从业者(N?= 14)进行半结构化访谈。抽样是有目的的,并通过关键联系方式直接与公共卫生的董事联系。面对面或电话采访被数字记录,翻译逐字并使用框架方法进行分析。公共卫生从业人员使用的系统评价直接在决策中,并在各种方式中更广泛地与他们一起参与,通常是通过个人对专业发展的承诺。他们认为自己是在更广泛的地方当局中倡导使用严格的证据,包括系统性评论,包括系统评价。系统的评价是原则上的高度重视,公共卫生从业者有相关技能来查找和评价它们。但是,个人和地方权力所不同的使用程度,受到决策和各种障碍的复杂性的限制。障碍包括在某些公共卫生主题上有有限数量的系统评论,例如卫生的更广泛的决定因素,以及狭隘的评论焦点并不反映当地当局面临复杂的公共卫生决策。除了一系列其他证据类型以及包括灰色文学的评论,包括评论。证据来源通常被认为是质量的指标,具体组织,如公共卫生英格兰,漂亮和教练,特别值得信赖。研究用量有所不同,应在特定决策和政治背景下被视为。有必要对地方当局公共卫生团队面临的决策有所系统的审查。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

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