共同创建关于中低收入国家暴力侵害妇女行为的全球共享研究议程。

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Julienne Corboz, Elizabeth Dartnall, Chay Brown, Emma Fulu, Sarah Gordon, Mark Tomlinson
{"title":"共同创建关于中低收入国家暴力侵害妇女行为的全球共享研究议程。","authors":"Julienne Corboz, Elizabeth Dartnall, Chay Brown, Emma Fulu, Sarah Gordon, Mark Tomlinson","doi":"10.1186/s12961-024-01153-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite a large growth in evidence on violence against women (VAW) over the last 25 years, VAW persists, as do gaps in the field's knowledge of how to prevent and respond to it. To ensure that research on VAW in low- and middle-income countries (LIMCs) is addressing the most significant gaps in knowledge, and to prioritise evidence needs to reduce VAW and better support victims/survivors, the Sexual Violence Research Initiative (SVRI) and Equality Institute (EQI) led a process of developing a global shared research agenda (GSRA) on VAW in LMICs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The GSRA was developed through a six-stage adaptation of the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method, which draws on the principle of the 'wisdom of the crowd'. These steps included: a review of the literature on VAW in LMICs and development of domains; the generation of research questions within four domains by an Advisory Group; the consolidation of research questions; scoring of research questions by a Global Expert Group and the Advisory Group according to three criteria (applicability, effectiveness and equity); consultation and validation of the findings with the Advisory Group; and wide dissemination of the findings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The highest ranked research questions in the GSRA pertain to the domain of Intervention research, with some highly ranked questions also pertaining to the domain of Understanding VAW in its multiple forms. Questions under the other two domains, Improving existing interventions, and Methodological and measurement gaps, were not prioritised as highly by experts. There was strong consistency in top ranked research questions according to experts' characteristics, albeit with some important differences according to experts' gender, occupation and geographical location.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The GSRA findings suggest that currently the VAW field is shifting towards intervention research after several decades of building evidence on understanding VAW, including prevalence, drivers and impacts of violence. The findings also suggest a strong emphasis on under-served populations, and under-researched forms of VAW. Future priority setting exercises in LMICs that seek to decolonise knowledge should ensure that methodologies, and modalities of engagement, put diverse voices at the centre of engagement. Trial registration Not applicable.</p>","PeriodicalId":12870,"journal":{"name":"Health Research Policy and Systems","volume":"22 1","pages":"71"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11194916/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Co-creating a global shared research agenda on violence against women in low- and middle-income countries.\",\"authors\":\"Julienne Corboz, Elizabeth Dartnall, Chay Brown, Emma Fulu, Sarah Gordon, Mark Tomlinson\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12961-024-01153-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Despite a large growth in evidence on violence against women (VAW) over the last 25 years, VAW persists, as do gaps in the field's knowledge of how to prevent and respond to it. To ensure that research on VAW in low- and middle-income countries (LIMCs) is addressing the most significant gaps in knowledge, and to prioritise evidence needs to reduce VAW and better support victims/survivors, the Sexual Violence Research Initiative (SVRI) and Equality Institute (EQI) led a process of developing a global shared research agenda (GSRA) on VAW in LMICs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The GSRA was developed through a six-stage adaptation of the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method, which draws on the principle of the 'wisdom of the crowd'. These steps included: a review of the literature on VAW in LMICs and development of domains; the generation of research questions within four domains by an Advisory Group; the consolidation of research questions; scoring of research questions by a Global Expert Group and the Advisory Group according to three criteria (applicability, effectiveness and equity); consultation and validation of the findings with the Advisory Group; and wide dissemination of the findings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The highest ranked research questions in the GSRA pertain to the domain of Intervention research, with some highly ranked questions also pertaining to the domain of Understanding VAW in its multiple forms. Questions under the other two domains, Improving existing interventions, and Methodological and measurement gaps, were not prioritised as highly by experts. There was strong consistency in top ranked research questions according to experts' characteristics, albeit with some important differences according to experts' gender, occupation and geographical location.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The GSRA findings suggest that currently the VAW field is shifting towards intervention research after several decades of building evidence on understanding VAW, including prevalence, drivers and impacts of violence. The findings also suggest a strong emphasis on under-served populations, and under-researched forms of VAW. Future priority setting exercises in LMICs that seek to decolonise knowledge should ensure that methodologies, and modalities of engagement, put diverse voices at the centre of engagement. Trial registration Not applicable.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12870,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Research Policy and Systems\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"71\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11194916/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Research Policy and Systems\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-024-01153-3\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Research Policy and Systems","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-024-01153-3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:尽管在过去的 25 年中,有关暴力侵害妇女行为(VAW)的证据大幅增加,但暴力侵害妇女行为依然存在,该领域在如何预防和应对暴力侵害妇女行为方面的知识差距也依然存在。为确保对中低收入国家(LIMCs)暴力侵害妇女行为的研究能够解决知识方面最重要的差距,并优先考虑减少暴力侵害妇女行为和更好地支持受害者/幸存者的证据需求,性暴力研究倡议(SVRI)和平等研究所(EQI)牵头制定了关于中低收入国家暴力侵害妇女行为的全球共享研究议程(GSRA):方法:全球共享研究议程是根据 "群众智慧 "原则,通过对儿童健康与营养研究倡议 (CHNRI) 方法的六阶段调整而制定的。这些步骤包括:审查关于低收入和中等收入国家暴力侵害妇女问题的文献并制定领域;由顾问小组在四个领域内提出研究问题;合并研究问题;由全球专家组和顾问小组根据三项标准(适用性、有效性和公平性)对研究问题进行评分;与顾问小组协商并验证研究结果;以及广泛传播研究结果:GSRA 中排名最高的研究问题与干预研究领域有关,一些排名较高的问题也与了解对 妇女的暴力行为的多种形式领域有关。其他两个领域的问题,即改进现有干预措施以及方法和衡量差距,并没有被专家们列为优先事项。根据专家的特点,排名靠前的研究问题具有很强的一致性,尽管根据专家的性别、职业和地理位置存在一些重要差异:性别问题全球风险评估的结果表明,经过数十年对暴力侵害妇女问题的了解,包括暴力的普遍性、驱动因素和影响等方面的证据积累,目前暴力侵害妇女问题领域正在转向干预研究。研究结果还表明,对服务不足的人群和研究不足的暴力侵害妇女形式的重视程度很高。在低收入和中等收入国家,未来在确定优先事项时,如果希望实现知识的非殖民化,则应确保在方法和参与方式上将不同的声音放在参与的中心位置。试验注册 不适用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Co-creating a global shared research agenda on violence against women in low- and middle-income countries.

Background: Despite a large growth in evidence on violence against women (VAW) over the last 25 years, VAW persists, as do gaps in the field's knowledge of how to prevent and respond to it. To ensure that research on VAW in low- and middle-income countries (LIMCs) is addressing the most significant gaps in knowledge, and to prioritise evidence needs to reduce VAW and better support victims/survivors, the Sexual Violence Research Initiative (SVRI) and Equality Institute (EQI) led a process of developing a global shared research agenda (GSRA) on VAW in LMICs.

Methods: The GSRA was developed through a six-stage adaptation of the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) method, which draws on the principle of the 'wisdom of the crowd'. These steps included: a review of the literature on VAW in LMICs and development of domains; the generation of research questions within four domains by an Advisory Group; the consolidation of research questions; scoring of research questions by a Global Expert Group and the Advisory Group according to three criteria (applicability, effectiveness and equity); consultation and validation of the findings with the Advisory Group; and wide dissemination of the findings.

Results: The highest ranked research questions in the GSRA pertain to the domain of Intervention research, with some highly ranked questions also pertaining to the domain of Understanding VAW in its multiple forms. Questions under the other two domains, Improving existing interventions, and Methodological and measurement gaps, were not prioritised as highly by experts. There was strong consistency in top ranked research questions according to experts' characteristics, albeit with some important differences according to experts' gender, occupation and geographical location.

Conclusions: The GSRA findings suggest that currently the VAW field is shifting towards intervention research after several decades of building evidence on understanding VAW, including prevalence, drivers and impacts of violence. The findings also suggest a strong emphasis on under-served populations, and under-researched forms of VAW. Future priority setting exercises in LMICs that seek to decolonise knowledge should ensure that methodologies, and modalities of engagement, put diverse voices at the centre of engagement. Trial registration Not applicable.

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
Health Research Policy and Systems
Health Research Policy and Systems HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
7.50%
发文量
124
审稿时长
27 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Research Policy and Systems is an Open Access, peer-reviewed, online journal that aims to provide a platform for the global research community to share their views, findings, insights and successes. Health Research Policy and Systems considers manuscripts that investigate the role of evidence-based health policy and health research systems in ensuring the efficient utilization and application of knowledge to improve health and health equity, especially in developing countries. Research is the foundation for improvements in public health. The problem is that people involved in different areas of research, together with managers and administrators in charge of research entities, do not communicate sufficiently with each other.
×
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