成为预防俱乐部的成员:跨学科预防术语的发展。

IF 1.5
Karin Streimann, Triin Vilms, Ruth Erm, Kersti Pärna, Dagmar Kutsar, Andero Uusberg, Evelyn Kiive, Merike Sisask, Sirje Vaask, Jana Holmar, Kadi Lubi, Ülle Ernits, Merle Varik, Kaja-Triin Laisaar
{"title":"成为预防俱乐部的成员:跨学科预防术语的发展。","authors":"Karin Streimann, Triin Vilms, Ruth Erm, Kersti Pärna, Dagmar Kutsar, Andero Uusberg, Evelyn Kiive, Merike Sisask, Sirje Vaask, Jana Holmar, Kadi Lubi, Ülle Ernits, Merle Varik, Kaja-Triin Laisaar","doi":"10.1007/s10935-025-00858-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Prevention science is interdisciplinary, drawing upon multiple fields of research and practice to develop integrated knowledge. A challenge facing the field is the proliferation of different terms with the same meaning, and of terms with different meanings. This can create confusion in communication, affect evaluation standards, and ultimately also affect the implementation of preventive interventions. Contributing to the development of evidence standards for preventive interventions, this article describes the process and results of interdisciplinary prevention terminology development in Estonia.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following the Participatory Action Research (PAR) approach, different co-design tools were used during a four-year process to help understand terminological needs, generate ideas, draw concept maps, and test examples of definitions in different target groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-five terms were tested, refined, and published. Six of these represent the main concepts relevant to prevention and intervention evaluation: vulnerability, prevention, preventive intervention, well-being, process evaluation, and impact evaluation. Several candidate terms were omitted for being confusing, ambiguous, or misunderstood in terms of the type or mechanism of intervention, the quality of evidence, or the quality of practice.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Collaborative and participatory methods can be used to bridge the divide in language and to help pursue consensus definitions. Shared understanding is needed both nationally and internationally between disciplines, sectors, implementation levels, and professions, as the involved parties include policymakers, researchers, innovators, and practitioners in the domains of healthcare and public health, education, safety, social work and welfare, justice, and culture. The development of an interdisciplinary prevention glossary described in this paper was novel in its approach and has the potential to support successful continuing interdisciplinary collaboration in the prevention field.</p>","PeriodicalId":73905,"journal":{"name":"Journal of prevention (2022)","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Becoming a Member of the Prevention Club: Development of Interdisciplinary Prevention Terminology.\",\"authors\":\"Karin Streimann, Triin Vilms, Ruth Erm, Kersti Pärna, Dagmar Kutsar, Andero Uusberg, Evelyn Kiive, Merike Sisask, Sirje Vaask, Jana Holmar, Kadi Lubi, Ülle Ernits, Merle Varik, Kaja-Triin Laisaar\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10935-025-00858-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Prevention science is interdisciplinary, drawing upon multiple fields of research and practice to develop integrated knowledge. A challenge facing the field is the proliferation of different terms with the same meaning, and of terms with different meanings. This can create confusion in communication, affect evaluation standards, and ultimately also affect the implementation of preventive interventions. Contributing to the development of evidence standards for preventive interventions, this article describes the process and results of interdisciplinary prevention terminology development in Estonia.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Following the Participatory Action Research (PAR) approach, different co-design tools were used during a four-year process to help understand terminological needs, generate ideas, draw concept maps, and test examples of definitions in different target groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-five terms were tested, refined, and published. Six of these represent the main concepts relevant to prevention and intervention evaluation: vulnerability, prevention, preventive intervention, well-being, process evaluation, and impact evaluation. Several candidate terms were omitted for being confusing, ambiguous, or misunderstood in terms of the type or mechanism of intervention, the quality of evidence, or the quality of practice.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Collaborative and participatory methods can be used to bridge the divide in language and to help pursue consensus definitions. Shared understanding is needed both nationally and internationally between disciplines, sectors, implementation levels, and professions, as the involved parties include policymakers, researchers, innovators, and practitioners in the domains of healthcare and public health, education, safety, social work and welfare, justice, and culture. The development of an interdisciplinary prevention glossary described in this paper was novel in its approach and has the potential to support successful continuing interdisciplinary collaboration in the prevention field.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73905,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of prevention (2022)\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of prevention (2022)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-025-00858-7\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of prevention (2022)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-025-00858-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

前言:预防科学是一门跨学科的学科,它综合了多个领域的研究和实践,形成了综合性的知识。该领域面临的一个挑战是具有相同含义的不同术语和具有不同含义的术语的激增。这可能造成沟通混乱,影响评价标准,并最终影响预防性干预措施的实施。有助于预防干预措施的证据标准的发展,本文描述了爱沙尼亚跨学科预防术语发展的过程和结果。方法:遵循参与式行动研究(PAR)方法,在为期四年的过程中使用不同的协同设计工具来帮助理解术语需求,产生想法,绘制概念图,并在不同的目标群体中测试定义示例。结果:35个术语被检验、提炼并发表。其中六个代表了与预防和干预评估相关的主要概念:脆弱性、预防、预防性干预、福祉、过程评估和影响评估。一些候选术语因在干预的类型或机制、证据的质量或实践的质量方面令人困惑、模棱两可或误解而被省略。讨论:协作和参与性方法可用于弥合语言上的分歧,并有助于寻求共识定义。由于涉及各方包括医疗保健和公共卫生、教育、安全、社会工作和福利、司法和文化等领域的决策者、研究人员、创新者和从业人员,因此需要在国内和国际上的学科、部门、实施水平和专业之间达成共识。本文中描述的跨学科预防术语表的开发在其方法上是新颖的,并且具有支持预防领域成功的持续跨学科合作的潜力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Becoming a Member of the Prevention Club: Development of Interdisciplinary Prevention Terminology.

Introduction: Prevention science is interdisciplinary, drawing upon multiple fields of research and practice to develop integrated knowledge. A challenge facing the field is the proliferation of different terms with the same meaning, and of terms with different meanings. This can create confusion in communication, affect evaluation standards, and ultimately also affect the implementation of preventive interventions. Contributing to the development of evidence standards for preventive interventions, this article describes the process and results of interdisciplinary prevention terminology development in Estonia.

Methods: Following the Participatory Action Research (PAR) approach, different co-design tools were used during a four-year process to help understand terminological needs, generate ideas, draw concept maps, and test examples of definitions in different target groups.

Results: Thirty-five terms were tested, refined, and published. Six of these represent the main concepts relevant to prevention and intervention evaluation: vulnerability, prevention, preventive intervention, well-being, process evaluation, and impact evaluation. Several candidate terms were omitted for being confusing, ambiguous, or misunderstood in terms of the type or mechanism of intervention, the quality of evidence, or the quality of practice.

Discussion: Collaborative and participatory methods can be used to bridge the divide in language and to help pursue consensus definitions. Shared understanding is needed both nationally and internationally between disciplines, sectors, implementation levels, and professions, as the involved parties include policymakers, researchers, innovators, and practitioners in the domains of healthcare and public health, education, safety, social work and welfare, justice, and culture. The development of an interdisciplinary prevention glossary described in this paper was novel in its approach and has the potential to support successful continuing interdisciplinary collaboration in the prevention field.

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
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信