首页> 外文OA文献 >Building the field of health policy and systems research: social science matters
【2h】

Building the field of health policy and systems research: social science matters

机译:建立卫生政策和系统研究领域:社会科学至关重要

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

The first paper in this series on building the field of Health Policy and Systems Research (HPSR) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) [1] outlined the scope and questions of the field and highlighted the key challenges and opportunities it is currently facing. This paper examines more closely one key challenge, the risk of disciplinary capture - the imposition of a particular knowledge frame on the field, privileging some questions and methodologies above others. In HPSR the risk of disciplinary capture can be seen in the current methodological critique of the field, with consequences for its status and development (especially when expressed by research leaders). The main criticisms are reported to be: that the context specificity of the research makes generalisation from its findings difficult; lack of sufficiently clear conclusions for policy makers; and questionable quality and rigour [2]. Some critique is certainly warranted and has come from HPS researchers themselves. However, this critique also reflects a clash of knowledge paradigms, between some of those with clinical, biomedical, and epidemiological backgrounds and those with social science backgrounds. Yet, as HPSR is defined by the topics and questions it considers rather than a particular disciplinary approach, it requires engagement across disciplines; indeed, understanding the complexity of health policy and systems demands multi- and inter-disciplinary inquiry [3].
机译:本系列的第一篇关于在中低收入国家(LMIC)建立卫生政策和系统研究(HPSR)领域的论文[1]概述了该领域的范围和问题,并强调了它所面临的主要挑战和机遇目前面临。本文更仔细地研究了一个关键挑战,即纪律处分的风险-在现场施加特定的知识框架,使某些问题和方法优先于其他问题和方法。在HPSR中,纪律处分的风险可以从该领域的当前方法学评论中看出,对其状态和发展有影响(特别是在研究负责人表示时)。据报道,主要的批评是:研究的背景特殊性使研究结果难以推广;决策者缺乏足够明确的结论;质量和严谨性令人质疑[2]。 HPS研究人员本身肯定提出了一些批评。但是,这种批评也反映了知识范式之间的冲突,这些范式在一些具有临床,生物医学和流行病学背景的人与具有社会科学背景的人之间。但是,由于HPSR是由其考虑的主题和问题而不是特定的学科方法定义的,因此它需要跨学科的参与。实际上,了解卫生政策和制度的复杂性需要跨学科和跨学科的研究[3]。

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