首页> 外文期刊>Health & social care in the community >Reframing “participation” and “inclusion” in public health policy and practice to address health inequalities: Evidence from a major resident‐led neighbourhood improvement initiative
【24h】

Reframing “participation” and “inclusion” in public health policy and practice to address health inequalities: Evidence from a major resident‐led neighbourhood improvement initiative

机译:在公共卫生政策和实践中重新恢复“参与”和“包含”,以解决健康不平等:来自主要居民领导的邻里改善倡议的证据

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Abstract There is a need for greater conceptual clarity in place‐based initiatives that seek to give residents of disadvantaged neighbourhoods more control over action to address the social determinants of health inequalities at a local level. In this article, we address this issue as it relates to the concepts of participation and inclusion. We draw on qualitative data generated during the first phase of the Communities in Control Study, a longitudinal multisite independent evaluation of the impact of Big Local on the social determinants of health and health inequalities. Big Local is a resident‐led area improvement initiative in England, funded by the UK Big Lottery Fund. Initiatives focused on community empowerment are increasingly prominent in public health policy and practice globally. Approaches emphasise the promotion of greater control over decisions and action among individuals, groups, and communities, particularly those living in disadvantaged circumstances. However, when it comes to participation and inclusion in taking action and making decisions, the field is characterised by conceptual confusion. This risks undermining the impact of these initiatives. While participation and inclusion are necessary conditions for empowerment and collective control, they are not necessarily sufficient. Sufficiency requires attention to the breadth of participation (i.e., to inclusion) and to the depth of participation (i.e., the extent to which it is experienced as empowering and ultimately enables the exercise of collective control over decisions and actions). In observing how different Big Local resident‐led partnerships across England are tackling the day‐to‐day challenges of engaging with their communities, we reveal the potential for policy and practice of reframing, and therefore clarifying (to highlight the different roles they have) the concepts of participation and inclusion in terms of depth and breadth.
机译:摘要旨在提高基于地基的概念清晰度,寻求为贫困社区提供居民的居民,以控制行动,以解决地方一级健康不平等的社会决定因素。在本文中,我们解决了这个问题,因为它涉及参与和包含的概念。我们利用在对照研究的社区第一阶段产生的定性数据,纵向多路独立评估大本地对健康和健康不平等的社会决定因素的影响。大本地是英国资助英国的居民LED地区改善倡议,由英国大彩票资助。专注于社区赋权的举措在公共卫生政策和全球卫生方面越来越突出。方法强调,促进更大控制个人,群体和社区之间的决策和行动,特别是居住在弱势环境中的人。但是,在参与和纳入采取行动和做出决定时,该领域的特点是概念混乱。这种风险破坏了这些举措的影响。虽然参与和纳入是赋权和集体控制的必要条件,但它们不一定足够。充足需要注意参与的广度(即,纳入)和参与深度(即,它被赋予的程度,并且最终使得能够对决定和行动的集体控制进行集体控制)。在观察英格兰的不同大型当地居民LED伙伴关系在与他们的社区中的日常挑战正在解决,我们揭示了重新制作的政策和实践的潜力,因此阐明(以突出他们所拥有的不同角色)参与和纳入深度和广度的概念。

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