[公民作为公共卫生哨兵:在危机时期理解适应性和上下文敏感的实时队列研究的研究参与]。

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Stephanie Zintel, Hannah Z Hennig, Christopher M Jones, Vera Araújo-Soares, Marike Andreas, Kristina Hoffmann, Birgit Kramer, Björn Mergarten, Sven Schneider, Falko F Sniehotta, Anna K Kaiser
{"title":"[公民作为公共卫生哨兵:在危机时期理解适应性和上下文敏感的实时队列研究的研究参与]。","authors":"Stephanie Zintel, Hannah Z Hennig, Christopher M Jones, Vera Araújo-Soares, Marike Andreas, Kristina Hoffmann, Birgit Kramer, Björn Mergarten, Sven Schneider, Falko F Sniehotta, Anna K Kaiser","doi":"10.1007/s00103-025-04108-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for high-resolution evidence on the social and contextual conditions as well as health outcomes of such emergency events. The PULS (Populationsbasierte Umfrage zur Lebenssituation und Sozialen Gesundheit, i.e., Population-Based Survey on Living Conditions and Social Health) study aims to provide such evidence with an agile and responsive real-time cohort. Here, we examine the determinants of participation in such a study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A qualitative study using seven semi-structured focus groups (between 16 December 2024 and 14 February 2025), each with 4 to 7 participants (total of 22 men, 17 women, 2 non-binary individuals; diverse backgrounds). Statements were deductively coded along the 14 domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants primarily emphasized the importance of various aspects associated with the domains of Reinforcement, Beliefs about Consequences, Environmental Context and Resources, and Goals, and Beliefs about Capabilities. However, participants did not only mention distinct aspects but also weighed them against each other. For example, participants were more willing to invest resources such as time if the resulting political and social implications of the study aligned with their personal goals, thus demonstrating a subjective contribution to the common good.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Participation in an agile, responsive, and long-term cohort study is viewed acceptable and feasible under certain conditions. The perceived impact on society and politics as well as the translation of research into policy seem to be key incentives for citizens and can outweigh personally invested resources. These results have implications not only for the implementation of the PULS study but also for the related translation pathways.</p>","PeriodicalId":9562,"journal":{"name":"Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz","volume":" ","pages":"1035-1044"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12391147/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[Citizens as public health sentinels: understanding study participation in an adaptive and context-sensitive real-time cohort study during times of crisis].\",\"authors\":\"Stephanie Zintel, Hannah Z Hennig, Christopher M Jones, Vera Araújo-Soares, Marike Andreas, Kristina Hoffmann, Birgit Kramer, Björn Mergarten, Sven Schneider, Falko F Sniehotta, Anna K Kaiser\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00103-025-04108-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for high-resolution evidence on the social and contextual conditions as well as health outcomes of such emergency events. The PULS (Populationsbasierte Umfrage zur Lebenssituation und Sozialen Gesundheit, i.e., Population-Based Survey on Living Conditions and Social Health) study aims to provide such evidence with an agile and responsive real-time cohort. Here, we examine the determinants of participation in such a study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A qualitative study using seven semi-structured focus groups (between 16 December 2024 and 14 February 2025), each with 4 to 7 participants (total of 22 men, 17 women, 2 non-binary individuals; diverse backgrounds). Statements were deductively coded along the 14 domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants primarily emphasized the importance of various aspects associated with the domains of Reinforcement, Beliefs about Consequences, Environmental Context and Resources, and Goals, and Beliefs about Capabilities. However, participants did not only mention distinct aspects but also weighed them against each other. For example, participants were more willing to invest resources such as time if the resulting political and social implications of the study aligned with their personal goals, thus demonstrating a subjective contribution to the common good.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Participation in an agile, responsive, and long-term cohort study is viewed acceptable and feasible under certain conditions. The perceived impact on society and politics as well as the translation of research into policy seem to be key incentives for citizens and can outweigh personally invested resources. These results have implications not only for the implementation of the PULS study but also for the related translation pathways.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9562,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1035-1044\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12391147/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00103-025-04108-3\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/7/28 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00103-025-04108-3","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/28 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:2019冠状病毒病大流行突出表明,需要关于此类紧急事件的社会和背景条件以及健康后果的高分辨率证据。以人口为基础的生活条件和社会健康调查(即以人口为基础的生活条件和社会健康调查)研究旨在通过灵活和反应迅速的实时队列提供这些证据。在这里,我们检查参与这样一个研究的决定因素。方法:采用7个半结构化焦点小组(2024年12月16日至2025年2月14日)进行定性研究,每个小组有4至7名参与者(男性22名,女性17名,非二元个体2名;不同背景的)。根据理论域框架的14个域对语句进行演绎编码。结果:参与者主要强调与强化、关于结果的信念、环境背景和资源、目标和关于能力的信念相关的各个方面的重要性。然而,参与者不仅提到了不同的方面,而且还相互权衡。例如,如果研究结果的政治和社会影响与他们的个人目标一致,参与者更愿意投入时间等资源,从而显示出对共同利益的主观贡献。讨论:在某些条件下,参与敏捷、反应灵敏、长期的队列研究是可以接受和可行的。对社会和政治的感知影响以及将研究转化为政策似乎是公民的主要激励因素,可能超过个人投入的资源。这些结果不仅对PULS研究的实施有意义,而且对相关的翻译途径也有意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

[Citizens as public health sentinels: understanding study participation in an adaptive and context-sensitive real-time cohort study during times of crisis].

[Citizens as public health sentinels: understanding study participation in an adaptive and context-sensitive real-time cohort study during times of crisis].

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for high-resolution evidence on the social and contextual conditions as well as health outcomes of such emergency events. The PULS (Populationsbasierte Umfrage zur Lebenssituation und Sozialen Gesundheit, i.e., Population-Based Survey on Living Conditions and Social Health) study aims to provide such evidence with an agile and responsive real-time cohort. Here, we examine the determinants of participation in such a study.

Methods: A qualitative study using seven semi-structured focus groups (between 16 December 2024 and 14 February 2025), each with 4 to 7 participants (total of 22 men, 17 women, 2 non-binary individuals; diverse backgrounds). Statements were deductively coded along the 14 domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework.

Results: Participants primarily emphasized the importance of various aspects associated with the domains of Reinforcement, Beliefs about Consequences, Environmental Context and Resources, and Goals, and Beliefs about Capabilities. However, participants did not only mention distinct aspects but also weighed them against each other. For example, participants were more willing to invest resources such as time if the resulting political and social implications of the study aligned with their personal goals, thus demonstrating a subjective contribution to the common good.

Discussion: Participation in an agile, responsive, and long-term cohort study is viewed acceptable and feasible under certain conditions. The perceived impact on society and politics as well as the translation of research into policy seem to be key incentives for citizens and can outweigh personally invested resources. These results have implications not only for the implementation of the PULS study but also for the related translation pathways.

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
Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz
Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
5.90%
发文量
145
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Die Monatszeitschrift Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz - umfasst alle Fragestellungen und Bereiche, mit denen sich das öffentliche Gesundheitswesen und die staatliche Gesundheitspolitik auseinandersetzen. Ziel ist es, zum einen über wesentliche Entwicklungen in der biologisch-medizinischen Grundlagenforschung auf dem Laufenden zu halten und zum anderen über konkrete Maßnahmen zum Gesundheitsschutz, über Konzepte der Prävention, Risikoabwehr und Gesundheitsförderung zu informieren. Wichtige Themengebiete sind die Epidemiologie übertragbarer und nicht übertragbarer Krankheiten, der umweltbezogene Gesundheitsschutz sowie gesundheitsökonomische, medizinethische und -rechtliche Fragestellungen.
×
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