中国健康影响评估政策确定的影响因素探讨:卫生与非卫生部门的比较研究。

IF 3.6 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Yanyun Xu, Liyuan Song, Xiang Liu, Yingzi Liu, Siyu Zhou, Meng Zhang
{"title":"中国健康影响评估政策确定的影响因素探讨:卫生与非卫生部门的比较研究。","authors":"Yanyun Xu, Liyuan Song, Xiang Liu, Yingzi Liu, Siyu Zhou, Meng Zhang","doi":"10.1186/s12961-025-01312-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Existing research indicates that both subject trust and procedural justice exert an influence on government staff's level of identification with health impact assessment (HIA) policies, revealing notable differences in attitudes, comprehension levels and preferences for implementing HIA policies among staff from different sectors. There is an urgent requirement to develop an integrated research model that systematically investigates the extent of HIA policy identification and its underlying drivers, commencing with the perspectives of staff from health and nonhealth sectors alike.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A questionnaire survey using a multistage stratified random sampling method was conducted among health sector staff (n = 247) and nonhealth sector staff (n = 408) in Zhejiang province in China. Univariate analysis was used to describe differences in HIA policy identification between the two groups. A multigroup analysis within a structural equation model tested the similarities and differences of influencing factors on HIA policy identification in different sectors.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Health sector staff (4.26 ± 0.59) demonstrated a significantly higher level of policy cognition regarding HIA than nonhealth sector staff (3.96 ± 0.63). Conversely, nonhealth sector staff (3.72 ± 0.73) exhibited significantly higher levels of policy evaluation than health sector staff (3.47 ± 0.88). Subject trust positively influenced the three dimensions of HIA policy identification for both groups. However, procedural justice only positively influenced the policy sentiment and evaluation of health sector staff, with no significant impact on nonhealth sector staff. Additionally, other factors, such as position, education, work experience and familiarity with HIA, impacted HIA policy identification across sectors.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study confirms that subject trust can enhance policy identification and cooperative behaviour. On the basis of this, the health sector should strive to understand the policy objectives of other sectors to seize opportunities for action, thereby enabling nonhealth sectors to participate in the actions of the health sector.</p>","PeriodicalId":12870,"journal":{"name":"Health Research Policy and Systems","volume":"23 1","pages":"76"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12153183/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring factors influencing health impact assessment policy identification in China: a comparative study of health and nonhealth sectors.\",\"authors\":\"Yanyun Xu, Liyuan Song, Xiang Liu, Yingzi Liu, Siyu Zhou, Meng Zhang\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12961-025-01312-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Existing research indicates that both subject trust and procedural justice exert an influence on government staff's level of identification with health impact assessment (HIA) policies, revealing notable differences in attitudes, comprehension levels and preferences for implementing HIA policies among staff from different sectors. There is an urgent requirement to develop an integrated research model that systematically investigates the extent of HIA policy identification and its underlying drivers, commencing with the perspectives of staff from health and nonhealth sectors alike.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A questionnaire survey using a multistage stratified random sampling method was conducted among health sector staff (n = 247) and nonhealth sector staff (n = 408) in Zhejiang province in China. Univariate analysis was used to describe differences in HIA policy identification between the two groups. A multigroup analysis within a structural equation model tested the similarities and differences of influencing factors on HIA policy identification in different sectors.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Health sector staff (4.26 ± 0.59) demonstrated a significantly higher level of policy cognition regarding HIA than nonhealth sector staff (3.96 ± 0.63). Conversely, nonhealth sector staff (3.72 ± 0.73) exhibited significantly higher levels of policy evaluation than health sector staff (3.47 ± 0.88). Subject trust positively influenced the three dimensions of HIA policy identification for both groups. However, procedural justice only positively influenced the policy sentiment and evaluation of health sector staff, with no significant impact on nonhealth sector staff. Additionally, other factors, such as position, education, work experience and familiarity with HIA, impacted HIA policy identification across sectors.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study confirms that subject trust can enhance policy identification and cooperative behaviour. On the basis of this, the health sector should strive to understand the policy objectives of other sectors to seize opportunities for action, thereby enabling nonhealth sectors to participate in the actions of the health sector.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12870,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Research Policy and Systems\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"76\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12153183/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Research Policy and Systems\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-025-01312-0\",\"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/s12961-025-01312-0","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:已有研究表明,主体信任和程序公正都会影响政府工作人员对健康影响评估政策的认同程度,不同部门工作人员对健康影响评估政策的态度、理解程度和偏好存在显著差异。迫切需要建立一个综合研究模型,系统地调查卫生保健政策确定的程度及其潜在驱动因素,从卫生和非卫生部门工作人员的角度开始。方法:采用多阶段分层随机抽样方法,对浙江省卫生部门工作人员(247人)和非卫生部门工作人员(408人)进行问卷调查。单变量分析用于描述两组间HIA政策识别的差异。通过结构方程模型的多组分析,检验了不同行业HIA政策识别影响因素的异同。结果:卫生部门工作人员(4.26±0.59)对HIA的政策认知水平显著高于非卫生部门工作人员(3.96±0.63)。相反,非卫生部门工作人员(3.72±0.73)的政策评价水平显著高于卫生部门工作人员(3.47±0.88)。受试者信任正向影响两组HIA政策识别的三个维度。然而,程序公正仅对卫生部门工作人员的政策情绪和评价产生积极影响,对非卫生部门工作人员没有显著影响。此外,其他因素,如职位、教育、工作经验和对HIA的熟悉程度,也会影响跨部门HIA政策的确定。结论:本研究证实了主体信任可以促进政策识别和合作行为。在此基础上,卫生部门应努力了解其他部门的政策目标,以便抓住采取行动的机会,从而使非卫生部门能够参与卫生部门的行动。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Exploring factors influencing health impact assessment policy identification in China: a comparative study of health and nonhealth sectors.

Background: Existing research indicates that both subject trust and procedural justice exert an influence on government staff's level of identification with health impact assessment (HIA) policies, revealing notable differences in attitudes, comprehension levels and preferences for implementing HIA policies among staff from different sectors. There is an urgent requirement to develop an integrated research model that systematically investigates the extent of HIA policy identification and its underlying drivers, commencing with the perspectives of staff from health and nonhealth sectors alike.

Methods: A questionnaire survey using a multistage stratified random sampling method was conducted among health sector staff (n = 247) and nonhealth sector staff (n = 408) in Zhejiang province in China. Univariate analysis was used to describe differences in HIA policy identification between the two groups. A multigroup analysis within a structural equation model tested the similarities and differences of influencing factors on HIA policy identification in different sectors.

Results: Health sector staff (4.26 ± 0.59) demonstrated a significantly higher level of policy cognition regarding HIA than nonhealth sector staff (3.96 ± 0.63). Conversely, nonhealth sector staff (3.72 ± 0.73) exhibited significantly higher levels of policy evaluation than health sector staff (3.47 ± 0.88). Subject trust positively influenced the three dimensions of HIA policy identification for both groups. However, procedural justice only positively influenced the policy sentiment and evaluation of health sector staff, with no significant impact on nonhealth sector staff. Additionally, other factors, such as position, education, work experience and familiarity with HIA, impacted HIA policy identification across sectors.

Conclusions: This study confirms that subject trust can enhance policy identification and cooperative behaviour. On the basis of this, the health sector should strive to understand the policy objectives of other sectors to seize opportunities for action, thereby enabling nonhealth sectors to participate in the actions of the health sector.

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:604180095
Book学术官方微信