政府如何影响公共卫生研究:范围审查。

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Helen Jane Senior, Navid Teimouri, Michael Waller, Simon Capewell, Katherine Cullerton
{"title":"政府如何影响公共卫生研究:范围审查。","authors":"Helen Jane Senior, Navid Teimouri, Michael Waller, Simon Capewell, Katherine Cullerton","doi":"10.1093/heapro/daaf097","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Governments can become involved in academic research to assist in public health decision-making. However, when governments become involved, the research process can be influenced away from academic research practices, jeopardizing research integrity. This review aimed to improve understanding of this by (i) establishing the extent of literature about government influence on research, (ii) detailing key characteristics of influence, and (iii) identifying gaps meriting future investigation. We conducted a scoping review to identify relevant literature by searching five electronic databases and grey literature. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text. Extracted data included the source, characteristics of the research projects, and the influence reported. Results were categorized and analysed using numerical summaries and narrative synthesis. The literature search yielded 6890 documents, with 71 eligible for full-text review. Seventeen documents met the inclusion criteria. Published between 2007 and 2021, most came from the UK (n = 8) and/or Australia (n = 11), with two coming from both. 126 modes of influence were reported, which could take multiple forms within one document and occur at any stage of the research process. The modes of influence were categorized as 'Direct' in 11 documents, 'Indirect' in 14, and/or 'Subtle' in 4. Influence was predominantly negative in 13 documents, with one reporting solely positive influences. This review summarizes reported instances of governments influencing the public health research process. The results highlight a need for deeper understanding of government-academic interactions and more transparent mechanisms for good practice. By fostering positive interactions, we can support beneficial population health outcomes. The protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework on 20 Aug 2023 (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/YB7FE).</p>","PeriodicalId":54256,"journal":{"name":"Health Promotion International","volume":"40 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12230708/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How governments influence public health research: a scoping review.\",\"authors\":\"Helen Jane Senior, Navid Teimouri, Michael Waller, Simon Capewell, Katherine Cullerton\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/heapro/daaf097\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Governments can become involved in academic research to assist in public health decision-making. However, when governments become involved, the research process can be influenced away from academic research practices, jeopardizing research integrity. This review aimed to improve understanding of this by (i) establishing the extent of literature about government influence on research, (ii) detailing key characteristics of influence, and (iii) identifying gaps meriting future investigation. We conducted a scoping review to identify relevant literature by searching five electronic databases and grey literature. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text. Extracted data included the source, characteristics of the research projects, and the influence reported. Results were categorized and analysed using numerical summaries and narrative synthesis. The literature search yielded 6890 documents, with 71 eligible for full-text review. Seventeen documents met the inclusion criteria. Published between 2007 and 2021, most came from the UK (n = 8) and/or Australia (n = 11), with two coming from both. 126 modes of influence were reported, which could take multiple forms within one document and occur at any stage of the research process. The modes of influence were categorized as 'Direct' in 11 documents, 'Indirect' in 14, and/or 'Subtle' in 4. Influence was predominantly negative in 13 documents, with one reporting solely positive influences. This review summarizes reported instances of governments influencing the public health research process. The results highlight a need for deeper understanding of government-academic interactions and more transparent mechanisms for good practice. By fostering positive interactions, we can support beneficial population health outcomes. The protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework on 20 Aug 2023 (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/YB7FE).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54256,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Promotion International\",\"volume\":\"40 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12230708/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Promotion International\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daaf097\",\"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/daaf097","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

政府可以参与学术研究,以协助公共卫生决策。然而,当政府介入时,研究过程可能会受到影响,远离学术研究实践,从而危及研究的完整性。本综述旨在通过(i)确定有关政府对研究影响的文献范围,(ii)详细说明影响的关键特征,以及(iii)确定值得未来调查的差距,提高对此的理解。我们通过检索5个电子数据库和灰色文献进行了范围综述,以确定相关文献。两位审稿人独立筛选标题、摘要和全文。提取的数据包括来源、研究项目的特征和报告的影响。结果分类和分析使用数值总结和叙述综合。文献检索产生6890篇文献,其中71篇符合全文审查的条件。17份文件符合纳入标准。发表于2007年至2021年之间,大多数来自英国(n = 8)和/或澳大利亚(n = 11),其中两份来自这两个国家。报告了126种影响模式,可以在一份文件中采取多种形式,并发生在研究过程的任何阶段。影响模式在11份文件中被分类为“直接”,在14份文件中被分类为“间接”,在4份文件中被分类为“微妙”。在13份文件中,影响主要是负面的,一份文件只报告了积极的影响。本综述总结了政府影响公共卫生研究进程的报告实例。研究结果突出表明,需要更深入地了解政府与学术的互动,并建立更透明的良好实践机制。通过促进积极的互动,我们可以支持有益的人口健康成果。该方案已于2023年8月20日在开放科学框架(https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/YB7FE)上注册。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

How governments influence public health research: a scoping review.

How governments influence public health research: a scoping review.

Governments can become involved in academic research to assist in public health decision-making. However, when governments become involved, the research process can be influenced away from academic research practices, jeopardizing research integrity. This review aimed to improve understanding of this by (i) establishing the extent of literature about government influence on research, (ii) detailing key characteristics of influence, and (iii) identifying gaps meriting future investigation. We conducted a scoping review to identify relevant literature by searching five electronic databases and grey literature. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full-text. Extracted data included the source, characteristics of the research projects, and the influence reported. Results were categorized and analysed using numerical summaries and narrative synthesis. The literature search yielded 6890 documents, with 71 eligible for full-text review. Seventeen documents met the inclusion criteria. Published between 2007 and 2021, most came from the UK (n = 8) and/or Australia (n = 11), with two coming from both. 126 modes of influence were reported, which could take multiple forms within one document and occur at any stage of the research process. The modes of influence were categorized as 'Direct' in 11 documents, 'Indirect' in 14, and/or 'Subtle' in 4. Influence was predominantly negative in 13 documents, with one reporting solely positive influences. This review summarizes reported instances of governments influencing the public health research process. The results highlight a need for deeper understanding of government-academic interactions and more transparent mechanisms for good practice. By fostering positive interactions, we can support beneficial population health outcomes. The protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework on 20 Aug 2023 (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/YB7FE).

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:604180095
Book学术官方微信