放下大师的工具?解决卫生不平等的社会决定因素的新研究战略。

0 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Ted Schrecker
{"title":"放下大师的工具?解决卫生不平等的社会决定因素的新研究战略。","authors":"Ted Schrecker","doi":"10.1177/27551938231161932","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A dramatic increase in the volume of research literature referencing social determinants of health (SDH) since the report of the World Health Organization Commission on the topic in 2008 has not been matched by expansion of policies and interventions to reduce health inequalities by way of SDH. This article argues that familiar hierarchies of evidence that privilege clinical epidemiology as used in evidence-based medicine are inappropriate to address SDH. They misunderstand both the range of relevant evidence and the value-based nature of standards of proof. A richer conceptual armamentarium is available; it includes several applications of the concepts of epidemiological worlds and the lifecourse, which are explained in the article. A more appropriate evidentiary approach to SDH and health inequalities requires \"downing the master's tools,\" to adapt Audre Lorde's phrase, and instead applying a multidisciplinary approach to assessing the evidence that adequately reflects the complexity of the relevant causal pathways. Doing so is made more difficult by the power structures that shape research priorities, yet it is essential.</p>","PeriodicalId":73479,"journal":{"name":"International journal of social determinants of health and health services","volume":"53 3","pages":"253-265"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/39/c9/10.1177_27551938231161932.PMC10315868.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Downing the Master's Tools? New Research Strategies to Address Social Determinants of Health Inequalities.\",\"authors\":\"Ted Schrecker\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/27551938231161932\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>A dramatic increase in the volume of research literature referencing social determinants of health (SDH) since the report of the World Health Organization Commission on the topic in 2008 has not been matched by expansion of policies and interventions to reduce health inequalities by way of SDH. This article argues that familiar hierarchies of evidence that privilege clinical epidemiology as used in evidence-based medicine are inappropriate to address SDH. They misunderstand both the range of relevant evidence and the value-based nature of standards of proof. A richer conceptual armamentarium is available; it includes several applications of the concepts of epidemiological worlds and the lifecourse, which are explained in the article. A more appropriate evidentiary approach to SDH and health inequalities requires \\\"downing the master's tools,\\\" to adapt Audre Lorde's phrase, and instead applying a multidisciplinary approach to assessing the evidence that adequately reflects the complexity of the relevant causal pathways. Doing so is made more difficult by the power structures that shape research priorities, yet it is essential.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73479,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of social determinants of health and health services\",\"volume\":\"53 3\",\"pages\":\"253-265\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/39/c9/10.1177_27551938231161932.PMC10315868.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of social determinants of health and health services\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/27551938231161932\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of social determinants of health and health services","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/27551938231161932","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

自2008年世界卫生组织委员会就这一专题发表报告以来,提及健康的社会决定因素的研究文献数量急剧增加,但通过健康的社会决定因素减少健康不平等的政策和干预措施却没有扩大。本文认为,循证医学中使用的以临床流行病学为特权的熟悉的证据等级不适合解决SDH。他们误解了相关证据的范围和证明标准的价值基础性质。更丰富的概念装备是可用的;它包括流行病学世界和生命过程概念的几种应用,本文对此进行了解释。对可持续发展和卫生不平等采取更适当的循证方法需要“放下大师的工具”,套用Audre Lorde的说法,而是采用多学科方法来评估充分反映相关因果途径复杂性的证据。决定研究优先次序的权力结构使得这样做更加困难,但这是必不可少的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Downing the Master's Tools? New Research Strategies to Address Social Determinants of Health Inequalities.

Downing the Master's Tools? New Research Strategies to Address Social Determinants of Health Inequalities.

Downing the Master's Tools? New Research Strategies to Address Social Determinants of Health Inequalities.

A dramatic increase in the volume of research literature referencing social determinants of health (SDH) since the report of the World Health Organization Commission on the topic in 2008 has not been matched by expansion of policies and interventions to reduce health inequalities by way of SDH. This article argues that familiar hierarchies of evidence that privilege clinical epidemiology as used in evidence-based medicine are inappropriate to address SDH. They misunderstand both the range of relevant evidence and the value-based nature of standards of proof. A richer conceptual armamentarium is available; it includes several applications of the concepts of epidemiological worlds and the lifecourse, which are explained in the article. A more appropriate evidentiary approach to SDH and health inequalities requires "downing the master's tools," to adapt Audre Lorde's phrase, and instead applying a multidisciplinary approach to assessing the evidence that adequately reflects the complexity of the relevant causal pathways. Doing so is made more difficult by the power structures that shape research priorities, yet it is essential.

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
CiteScore
6.40
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信