真实世界的公共卫生干预措施展示了研究证据如何为计划的推广提供依据。

IF 2.3 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Melanie Crane, Karen Lee, Luke Wolfenden, Philayrath Phongsavan, Adrian Bauman
{"title":"真实世界的公共卫生干预措施展示了研究证据如何为计划的推广提供依据。","authors":"Melanie Crane, Karen Lee, Luke Wolfenden, Philayrath Phongsavan, Adrian Bauman","doi":"10.1093/heapro/daae111","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Evidence-based population interventions rely on intervention testing (efficacy and effectiveness trials) to determine what works to improve public health. We investigated the characteristics of real-world public health interventions to address obesity and explored the extent to which research testing was undertaken prior to scale-up. We identified 90 population health interventions targeting physical activity, nutrition or obesity-related health behaviours and collected publicly available information on their key characteristics and outcomes. We then assessed the differences between interventions that followed a research pathway and those that did not. Two-thirds (n = 60) of the interventions were reported as having followed a research pathway. Univariate logistic regression analysis revealed that these interventions were more likely to be health education interventions [odds ratio (OR): 5.56; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.38-22.38], developed by research institutes (OR: 12.81; 95% CI: 3.47-47.34), delivered in North America (OR: 4.13; 95% CI: 1.61-10.62), and less likely to be owned (OR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.14-0.88) or funded by government organizations (OR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.14-0.95). Interventions that followed a research pathway were nearly three times more likely to have a positive impact on population health (OR: 2.72; 95% CI: 1.04-7.14). Interventions that followed a research pathway to scale-up were no more likely to be sustained longer than those that did not. Differences exist across real-world interventions between those that follow a research pathway to population-scale delivery and those that do not, regarding organizational and environmental context. A key benefit of research pathway to scale-up is the impact it has on health outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":54256,"journal":{"name":"Health Promotion International","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Real-world public health interventions demonstrate how research evidence informs program scale-up.\",\"authors\":\"Melanie Crane, Karen Lee, Luke Wolfenden, Philayrath Phongsavan, Adrian Bauman\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/heapro/daae111\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Evidence-based population interventions rely on intervention testing (efficacy and effectiveness trials) to determine what works to improve public health. We investigated the characteristics of real-world public health interventions to address obesity and explored the extent to which research testing was undertaken prior to scale-up. We identified 90 population health interventions targeting physical activity, nutrition or obesity-related health behaviours and collected publicly available information on their key characteristics and outcomes. We then assessed the differences between interventions that followed a research pathway and those that did not. Two-thirds (n = 60) of the interventions were reported as having followed a research pathway. Univariate logistic regression analysis revealed that these interventions were more likely to be health education interventions [odds ratio (OR): 5.56; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.38-22.38], developed by research institutes (OR: 12.81; 95% CI: 3.47-47.34), delivered in North America (OR: 4.13; 95% CI: 1.61-10.62), and less likely to be owned (OR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.14-0.88) or funded by government organizations (OR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.14-0.95). Interventions that followed a research pathway were nearly three times more likely to have a positive impact on population health (OR: 2.72; 95% CI: 1.04-7.14). Interventions that followed a research pathway to scale-up were no more likely to be sustained longer than those that did not. Differences exist across real-world interventions between those that follow a research pathway to population-scale delivery and those that do not, regarding organizational and environmental context. A key benefit of research pathway to scale-up is the impact it has on health outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54256,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Promotion International\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Promotion International\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daae111\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Promotion International","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daae111","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

循证人口干预依赖于干预测试(疗效和有效性试验)来确定哪些措施对改善公众健康有效。我们调查了现实世界中针对肥胖问题的公共卫生干预措施的特点,并探讨了在推广之前进行研究测试的程度。我们确定了 90 项针对体育锻炼、营养或肥胖相关健康行为的人群健康干预措施,并收集了有关其主要特征和结果的公开信息。然后,我们评估了遵循研究路径的干预措施与未遵循研究路径的干预措施之间的差异。据报告,三分之二(n = 60)的干预措施遵循了研究路径。单变量逻辑回归分析表明,这些干预措施更有可能是健康教育干预措施[几率比(OR):5.56;95% 置信区间(CI):1.38-22.38]、由研究机构开发的干预措施(OR:12.81;95% CI:3.47-47.34),在北美洲实施(OR:4.13;95% CI:1.61-10.62),并且不太可能由研究机构拥有(OR:0.35;95% CI:0.14-0.88)或由政府组织资助(OR:0.37;95% CI:0.14-0.95)。遵循研究路径的干预措施对人群健康产生积极影响的可能性要高出近三倍(OR:2.72;95% CI:1.04-7.14)。遵循研究路径扩大规模的干预措施与不遵循研究路径的干预措施相比,持续时间不会更长。在组织和环境背景方面,在现实世界的干预措施中,遵循研究路径以扩大人群规模的干预措施与不遵循研究路径的干预措施之间存在差异。从研究到推广的关键优势在于其对健康结果的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Real-world public health interventions demonstrate how research evidence informs program scale-up.

Evidence-based population interventions rely on intervention testing (efficacy and effectiveness trials) to determine what works to improve public health. We investigated the characteristics of real-world public health interventions to address obesity and explored the extent to which research testing was undertaken prior to scale-up. We identified 90 population health interventions targeting physical activity, nutrition or obesity-related health behaviours and collected publicly available information on their key characteristics and outcomes. We then assessed the differences between interventions that followed a research pathway and those that did not. Two-thirds (n = 60) of the interventions were reported as having followed a research pathway. Univariate logistic regression analysis revealed that these interventions were more likely to be health education interventions [odds ratio (OR): 5.56; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.38-22.38], developed by research institutes (OR: 12.81; 95% CI: 3.47-47.34), delivered in North America (OR: 4.13; 95% CI: 1.61-10.62), and less likely to be owned (OR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.14-0.88) or funded by government organizations (OR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.14-0.95). Interventions that followed a research pathway were nearly three times more likely to have a positive impact on population health (OR: 2.72; 95% CI: 1.04-7.14). Interventions that followed a research pathway to scale-up were no more likely to be sustained longer than those that did not. Differences exist across real-world interventions between those that follow a research pathway to population-scale delivery and those that do not, regarding organizational and environmental context. A key benefit of research pathway to scale-up is the impact it has on health outcomes.

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 Promotion International
Health Promotion International Medicine-Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
7.40%
发文量
146
期刊介绍: Health Promotion International contains refereed original articles, reviews, and debate articles on major themes and innovations in the health promotion field. In line with the remits of the series of global conferences on health promotion the journal expressly invites contributions from sectors beyond health. These may include education, employment, government, the media, industry, environmental agencies, and community networks. As the thought journal of the international health promotion movement we seek in particular theoretical, methodological and activist advances to the field. Thus, the journal provides a unique focal point for articles of high quality that describe not only theories and concepts, research projects and policy formulation, but also planned and spontaneous activities, organizational change, as well as social and environmental development.
×
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