Current Status and Challenges of Research Methology for Health Promotion Research: Focusing on Research Funded by the Korea Health Promotion Foundation, 2005-2011

Ji-Young An, Kwang Kee Kim, Jung JeKarl, Hyunjung Moon, S. Cha, E. Jeong
{"title":"Current Status and Challenges of Research Methology for Health Promotion Research: Focusing on Research Funded by the Korea Health Promotion Foundation, 2005-2011","authors":"Ji-Young An, Kwang Kee Kim, Jung JeKarl, Hyunjung Moon, S. Cha, E. Jeong","doi":"10.14367/KJHEP.2013.30.5.047","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: To investigate the current status and challenges of research methodology for health promotion research (HPR), this study analyzed HPR funded by the Korea Health Promotion Foundation (KHPF) from 2005 to 2011. Methods: All of the research reports funded by the KHPF for the period were included in this study. From the literature reviewed, a framework of this study was developed. Results: Quantitative research was 67.7%. The most common quantitative research design was cross-sectional survey (46.6%). Only 7.3% of quantitative research employed theoretical frameworks, and more than a half (53.4%) used primary data. For qualitative research (2.8%), most cases were conducted together with quantitative research. No qualitative research employed a philosophical underpinning. Only 7.0% of research received consent form, and 2.1% was approved by institutional review board. The results of this study indicate that there is a need to employ various research methods to study key concepts of HPR more in-depth. Efforts should be made to reduce statistical errors and also employ newly introduced statistical methods. Conclusions: Overall, a lack of scientific evidence from the HPR reports analyzed in this study was observed. Therefore, the KHPF and the academia should work together to solve the problems indicated from this study.","PeriodicalId":84995,"journal":{"name":"Journal of health education","volume":"30 1","pages":"47-59"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of health education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14367/KJHEP.2013.30.5.047","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Objectives: To investigate the current status and challenges of research methodology for health promotion research (HPR), this study analyzed HPR funded by the Korea Health Promotion Foundation (KHPF) from 2005 to 2011. Methods: All of the research reports funded by the KHPF for the period were included in this study. From the literature reviewed, a framework of this study was developed. Results: Quantitative research was 67.7%. The most common quantitative research design was cross-sectional survey (46.6%). Only 7.3% of quantitative research employed theoretical frameworks, and more than a half (53.4%) used primary data. For qualitative research (2.8%), most cases were conducted together with quantitative research. No qualitative research employed a philosophical underpinning. Only 7.0% of research received consent form, and 2.1% was approved by institutional review board. The results of this study indicate that there is a need to employ various research methods to study key concepts of HPR more in-depth. Efforts should be made to reduce statistical errors and also employ newly introduced statistical methods. Conclusions: Overall, a lack of scientific evidence from the HPR reports analyzed in this study was observed. Therefore, the KHPF and the academia should work together to solve the problems indicated from this study.
健康促进研究方法的现状与挑战:以2005-2011年韩国健康促进基金会资助的研究为重点
目的:为了解健康促进研究(HPR)的研究方法现状及面临的挑战,本研究对韩国健康促进基金会(KHPF) 2005 - 2011年资助的健康促进研究(HPR)进行分析。方法:收集本研究期间所有由基金会资助的研究报告。从文献综述中,形成了本研究的框架。结果:定量研究占67.7%。最常见的定量研究设计是横断面调查(46.6%)。只有7.3%的定量研究采用了理论框架,超过一半(53.4%)使用了原始数据。对于定性研究(2.8%),大多数病例与定量研究一起进行。没有任何定性研究采用哲学基础。只有7.0%的研究获得了同意书,2.1%的研究得到了机构审查委员会的批准。本研究结果表明,有必要采用多种研究方法对HPR的关键概念进行更深入的研究。应努力减少统计误差,并采用新引进的统计方法。结论:总的来说,本研究分析的HPR报告缺乏科学证据。因此,KHPF和学术界应该共同努力解决本研究提出的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信