过程追踪如何应用于卫生研究?系统的范围审查。

IF 4.9 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Rebecca Johnson , Derek Beach , Hareth Al-Janabi
{"title":"过程追踪如何应用于卫生研究?系统的范围审查。","authors":"Rebecca Johnson ,&nbsp;Derek Beach ,&nbsp;Hareth Al-Janabi","doi":"10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.117539","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Complex health system questions often have a case study (such as a country) as the unit of analysis. Process tracing, a method from policy studies, is a flexible approach for causal analysis within case studies, increasingly used in applied health research. The aim of this study was to identify the ways in which process tracing methods have been used in health research, and provide insights for best practice. We conducted a systematic scoping review of applied studies purporting to use process tracing methods in health research contexts. We examined the range of studies and how they conducted and reported process tracing. We found 84 studies published from 2011 to 2023. Studies were categorised into two groups: those with greater methodological description (n = 19 studies) and those with less methodological description (n = 65 studies). A majority of studies were focused on public health and health policy with around half of studies focused on low and middle income countries. Of those 19 studies that provided greater methodological description eight studies featured four areas of good practice: (1) reporting the development of a mechanistic theory and making it explicit; (2) linking empirical material collected to the mechanistic theory; (3) clearly presenting the causal mechanism tracing; and (4) reporting how consideration of counterfactuals or evidence of alternatives within the study were analysed in practice. The review demonstrates the rapid take-up of process tracing to generate theory and evidence to support a better understanding of causal mechanisms in complex health research. To support future studies in conducting and reporting process tracing, we provide emergent recommendations.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49122,"journal":{"name":"Social Science & Medicine","volume":"366 ","pages":"Article 117539"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How is process tracing applied in health research? A systematic scoping review\",\"authors\":\"Rebecca Johnson ,&nbsp;Derek Beach ,&nbsp;Hareth Al-Janabi\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.117539\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Complex health system questions often have a case study (such as a country) as the unit of analysis. Process tracing, a method from policy studies, is a flexible approach for causal analysis within case studies, increasingly used in applied health research. The aim of this study was to identify the ways in which process tracing methods have been used in health research, and provide insights for best practice. We conducted a systematic scoping review of applied studies purporting to use process tracing methods in health research contexts. We examined the range of studies and how they conducted and reported process tracing. We found 84 studies published from 2011 to 2023. Studies were categorised into two groups: those with greater methodological description (n = 19 studies) and those with less methodological description (n = 65 studies). A majority of studies were focused on public health and health policy with around half of studies focused on low and middle income countries. Of those 19 studies that provided greater methodological description eight studies featured four areas of good practice: (1) reporting the development of a mechanistic theory and making it explicit; (2) linking empirical material collected to the mechanistic theory; (3) clearly presenting the causal mechanism tracing; and (4) reporting how consideration of counterfactuals or evidence of alternatives within the study were analysed in practice. The review demonstrates the rapid take-up of process tracing to generate theory and evidence to support a better understanding of causal mechanisms in complex health research. To support future studies in conducting and reporting process tracing, we provide emergent recommendations.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49122,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Science & Medicine\",\"volume\":\"366 \",\"pages\":\"Article 117539\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Science & Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953624009936\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"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":"Social Science & Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953624009936","RegionNum":2,"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

复杂的卫生系统问题通常以案例研究(如一个国家)作为分析单位。进程追踪是政策研究的一种方法,是在案例研究中进行因果分析的一种灵活方法,越来越多地用于应用卫生研究。本研究的目的是确定在卫生研究中使用过程追踪方法的方式,并为最佳实践提供见解。我们对旨在在健康研究背景下使用过程追踪方法的应用研究进行了系统的范围评估。我们检查了研究的范围,以及它们是如何进行和报告过程跟踪的。我们发现从2011年到2023年发表了84项研究。研究被分为两组:方法描述较多的研究(n = 19)和方法描述较少的研究(n = 65)。大多数研究侧重于公共卫生和卫生政策,约有一半的研究侧重于低收入和中等收入国家。在这19项研究中,提供了更多的方法描述,其中8项研究突出了四个方面的良好实践:(1)报告机制理论的发展并使其明确;(2)将收集到的经验材料与机制理论联系起来;(3)清晰呈现因果机制溯源;(4)报告如何在实践中分析研究中的反事实或替代证据。这一综述表明,在复杂的卫生研究中,快速采用过程追踪来产生理论和证据,以支持更好地了解因果机制。为了支持未来在进行和报告过程跟踪方面的研究,我们提供了紧急建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How is process tracing applied in health research? A systematic scoping review
Complex health system questions often have a case study (such as a country) as the unit of analysis. Process tracing, a method from policy studies, is a flexible approach for causal analysis within case studies, increasingly used in applied health research. The aim of this study was to identify the ways in which process tracing methods have been used in health research, and provide insights for best practice. We conducted a systematic scoping review of applied studies purporting to use process tracing methods in health research contexts. We examined the range of studies and how they conducted and reported process tracing. We found 84 studies published from 2011 to 2023. Studies were categorised into two groups: those with greater methodological description (n = 19 studies) and those with less methodological description (n = 65 studies). A majority of studies were focused on public health and health policy with around half of studies focused on low and middle income countries. Of those 19 studies that provided greater methodological description eight studies featured four areas of good practice: (1) reporting the development of a mechanistic theory and making it explicit; (2) linking empirical material collected to the mechanistic theory; (3) clearly presenting the causal mechanism tracing; and (4) reporting how consideration of counterfactuals or evidence of alternatives within the study were analysed in practice. The review demonstrates the rapid take-up of process tracing to generate theory and evidence to support a better understanding of causal mechanisms in complex health research. To support future studies in conducting and reporting process tracing, we provide emergent recommendations.
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
Social Science & Medicine
Social Science & Medicine PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
5.60%
发文量
762
审稿时长
38 days
期刊介绍: Social Science & Medicine provides an international and interdisciplinary forum for the dissemination of social science research on health. We publish original research articles (both empirical and theoretical), reviews, position papers and commentaries on health issues, to inform current research, policy and practice in all areas of common interest to social scientists, health practitioners, and policy makers. The journal publishes material relevant to any aspect of health from a wide range of social science disciplines (anthropology, economics, epidemiology, geography, policy, psychology, and sociology), and material relevant to the social sciences from any of the professions concerned with physical and mental health, health care, clinical practice, and health policy and organization. We encourage material which is of general interest to an international readership.
×
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