对用于健康保护和应急响应的行为科学方法和框架进行范围审查。

IF 3.5 4区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Alice Zelenka Martin, D Weston, J M Kesten, C E French
{"title":"对用于健康保护和应急响应的行为科学方法和框架进行范围审查。","authors":"Alice Zelenka Martin, D Weston, J M Kesten, C E French","doi":"10.1177/17579139241257102","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>Rapid intervention development, implementation, and evaluation are required for emergency public health contexts, such as the recent COVID-19 pandemic. A novel Agile Co-production and Evaluation (ACE) framework has been developed to assist this endeavour in future public health emergencies. This scoping review aimed to map available behavioural science resources that can be used to develop and evaluate public health guidance, messaging, and interventions in emergency contexts onto components of ACE: rapid development and implementation, co-production with patients or the public including seldom heard voices from diverse communities, and inclusion of evaluation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A scoping review methodology was used. Searches were run on MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Google, with search terms covering emergency response and behavioural science. Articles published since 2014 and which discussed a framework or guidance for using behavioural science in response to a public health emergency were included. A narrative synthesis was conducted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventeen records were included in the synthesis. The records covered a range of emergency contexts, the most frequent of which were COVID-19 (<i>n</i> = 7) and non-specific emergencies (<i>n</i> = 4). One record evaluated existing approaches, 6 proposed new approaches, and 10 described existing approaches. Commonly used approaches included the Behavioural Change Wheel; Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Behaviour model; and social identity theory. Three records discuss co-production with the target audience and consideration of diverse populations. Four records incorporate rapid testing, evaluation, or validation methods. Six records state that their approaches are designed to be implemented rapidly. No records cover all components of ACE.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We recommend that future research explores how to create guidance involving rapid implementation, co-production with patients or the public including seldom heard voices from diverse communities, and evaluation.</p>","PeriodicalId":47256,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives in Public Health","volume":" ","pages":"17579139241257102"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A scoping review of behavioural science approaches and frameworks for health protection and emergency response.\",\"authors\":\"Alice Zelenka Martin, D Weston, J M Kesten, C E French\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17579139241257102\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>Rapid intervention development, implementation, and evaluation are required for emergency public health contexts, such as the recent COVID-19 pandemic. A novel Agile Co-production and Evaluation (ACE) framework has been developed to assist this endeavour in future public health emergencies. This scoping review aimed to map available behavioural science resources that can be used to develop and evaluate public health guidance, messaging, and interventions in emergency contexts onto components of ACE: rapid development and implementation, co-production with patients or the public including seldom heard voices from diverse communities, and inclusion of evaluation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A scoping review methodology was used. Searches were run on MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Google, with search terms covering emergency response and behavioural science. Articles published since 2014 and which discussed a framework or guidance for using behavioural science in response to a public health emergency were included. A narrative synthesis was conducted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventeen records were included in the synthesis. The records covered a range of emergency contexts, the most frequent of which were COVID-19 (<i>n</i> = 7) and non-specific emergencies (<i>n</i> = 4). One record evaluated existing approaches, 6 proposed new approaches, and 10 described existing approaches. Commonly used approaches included the Behavioural Change Wheel; Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Behaviour model; and social identity theory. Three records discuss co-production with the target audience and consideration of diverse populations. Four records incorporate rapid testing, evaluation, or validation methods. Six records state that their approaches are designed to be implemented rapidly. No records cover all components of ACE.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We recommend that future research explores how to create guidance involving rapid implementation, co-production with patients or the public including seldom heard voices from diverse communities, and evaluation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47256,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Perspectives in Public Health\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"17579139241257102\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Perspectives in Public Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17579139241257102\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perspectives in Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17579139241257102","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:突发公共卫生事件(如最近的 COVID-19 大流行)需要快速制定、实施和评估干预措施。我们开发了一个新颖的敏捷联合生产与评估(ACE)框架,以协助在未来的突发公共卫生事件中开展这项工作。本范围综述旨在将可用于制定和评估紧急情况下公共卫生指南、信息和干预措施的现有行为科学资源映射到 ACE 的各个组成部分:快速开发和实施、与患者或公众(包括很少听到的来自不同社区的声音)共同生产以及纳入评估:方法:采用范围审查方法。在 MEDLINE、EMBASE、PsycINFO 和 Google 上进行检索,检索词包括应急响应和行为科学。纳入了自 2014 年以来发表的文章,这些文章讨论了利用行为科学应对公共卫生突发事件的框架或指南。对这些文章进行了叙述性综合:结果:17 条记录被纳入综述。这些记录涵盖了一系列紧急情况,其中最常见的是 COVID-19 (n = 7)和非特定紧急情况(n = 4)。1 份记录评估了现有方法,6 份记录提出了新方法,10 份记录描述了现有方法。常用的方法包括行为改变轮;能力、机会和动机行为模型;以及社会认同理论。三份记录讨论了与目标受众的共同制作以及对不同人群的考虑。四份记录采用了快速测试、评估或验证方法。六份记录指出其方法旨在快速实施。没有任何记录涵盖了 ACE 的所有组成部分:我们建议,未来的研究应探讨如何制定涉及快速实施、与患者或公众(包括很少听到的来自不同社区的声音)共同制定以及评估的指南。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A scoping review of behavioural science approaches and frameworks for health protection and emergency response.

Aims: Rapid intervention development, implementation, and evaluation are required for emergency public health contexts, such as the recent COVID-19 pandemic. A novel Agile Co-production and Evaluation (ACE) framework has been developed to assist this endeavour in future public health emergencies. This scoping review aimed to map available behavioural science resources that can be used to develop and evaluate public health guidance, messaging, and interventions in emergency contexts onto components of ACE: rapid development and implementation, co-production with patients or the public including seldom heard voices from diverse communities, and inclusion of evaluation.

Methods: A scoping review methodology was used. Searches were run on MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Google, with search terms covering emergency response and behavioural science. Articles published since 2014 and which discussed a framework or guidance for using behavioural science in response to a public health emergency were included. A narrative synthesis was conducted.

Results: Seventeen records were included in the synthesis. The records covered a range of emergency contexts, the most frequent of which were COVID-19 (n = 7) and non-specific emergencies (n = 4). One record evaluated existing approaches, 6 proposed new approaches, and 10 described existing approaches. Commonly used approaches included the Behavioural Change Wheel; Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Behaviour model; and social identity theory. Three records discuss co-production with the target audience and consideration of diverse populations. Four records incorporate rapid testing, evaluation, or validation methods. Six records state that their approaches are designed to be implemented rapidly. No records cover all components of ACE.

Conclusion: We recommend that future research explores how to create guidance involving rapid implementation, co-production with patients or the public including seldom heard voices from diverse communities, and evaluation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Perspectives in Public Health
Perspectives in Public Health PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
1.70%
发文量
74
期刊介绍: Perspectives in Public Health is a bi-monthly peer-reviewed journal. It is practice orientated and features current topics and opinions; news and views on current health issues; case studies; book reviews; letters to the Editor; as well as updates on the Society"s work. The journal also commissions articles for themed issues and publishes original peer-reviewed articles. Perspectives in Public Health"s primary aim is to be an invaluable resource for the Society"s members, who are health-promoting professionals from many disciplines, including environmental health, health protection, health and safety, food safety and nutrition, building and engineering, primary care, academia and government.
×
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