Was wird unter einer Public-Health-Intervention verstanden? Ergebnisse eines Delphi-Prozesses im deutschsprachigen Raum

Jessica Dieudonné , Lisa Jantzen , Michelle Sanwald , Michaela Trompke , Dawid Pieper , Constance Stegbauer , Gerald Willms , Barbara Buchberger , Roland Brian Büchter , Stefanie Bühn , Florian Fischer , Katharina Klein , Joseph Kuhn , Melanie Messer , Uta Wegewitz , Marlen Niederberger
{"title":"Was wird unter einer Public-Health-Intervention verstanden? Ergebnisse eines Delphi-Prozesses im deutschsprachigen Raum","authors":"Jessica Dieudonné ,&nbsp;Lisa Jantzen ,&nbsp;Michelle Sanwald ,&nbsp;Michaela Trompke ,&nbsp;Dawid Pieper ,&nbsp;Constance Stegbauer ,&nbsp;Gerald Willms ,&nbsp;Barbara Buchberger ,&nbsp;Roland Brian Büchter ,&nbsp;Stefanie Bühn ,&nbsp;Florian Fischer ,&nbsp;Katharina Klein ,&nbsp;Joseph Kuhn ,&nbsp;Melanie Messer ,&nbsp;Uta Wegewitz ,&nbsp;Marlen Niederberger","doi":"10.1016/j.zefq.2023.05.022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Internationally, a variety of definitions for public health interventions (PHI) exist. In the German-speaking countries, however, a definition is still outstanding. Therefore, the aim of this study was to derive consensus criteria for the definition of PHI from the expert perspective of science and practice.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A Delphi survey with two online rounds was conducted from December 2022 to February 2023. Six criteria were formulated by a working group and posed for consensus: 1) the intention of the intervention, 2) potential conflicts of interest of the initiators of the intervention, 3) primary vs. secondary/tertiary prevention, 4) costs, 5) targeting, and 6) the reach of the intervention. In both Delphi rounds, experts from academia and practice were recruited through relevant networks and associations throughout the German-speaking world. The judgments were asked about standardized rating scales with the possibility of open justification.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>In the first Delphi round, n = 52 and in the second round n = 43 experts from research, care and administration/management in health care participated. Consensus was reached on four of the six criteria after the second Delphi round: the intention of the intervention, possible conflicts of interest of the initiators of the intervention, primary vs. secondary/tertiary prevention, and the scope of the intervention. From the perspective of the experts interviewed, these are the criteria that distinguish PHI.</p></div><div><h3>Discussion and conclusion</h3><p>Based on the consensus criteria, PHI can be defined more concretely. Thus, the results contribute to a better inter- and transdisciplinary understanding. Ideally, the criteria will make it easier to assign interventions to the public health sector in the future, even if a precise examination will be necessary in individual cases, among other things because the experts disagreed on the criteria of costs and how to address the target group.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46628,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift fur Evidenz Fortbildung und Qualitaet im Gesundheitswesen","volume":"182 ","pages":"Pages 89-97"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zeitschrift fur Evidenz Fortbildung und Qualitaet im Gesundheitswesen","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1865921723001289","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Internationally, a variety of definitions for public health interventions (PHI) exist. In the German-speaking countries, however, a definition is still outstanding. Therefore, the aim of this study was to derive consensus criteria for the definition of PHI from the expert perspective of science and practice.

Methods

A Delphi survey with two online rounds was conducted from December 2022 to February 2023. Six criteria were formulated by a working group and posed for consensus: 1) the intention of the intervention, 2) potential conflicts of interest of the initiators of the intervention, 3) primary vs. secondary/tertiary prevention, 4) costs, 5) targeting, and 6) the reach of the intervention. In both Delphi rounds, experts from academia and practice were recruited through relevant networks and associations throughout the German-speaking world. The judgments were asked about standardized rating scales with the possibility of open justification.

Results

In the first Delphi round, n = 52 and in the second round n = 43 experts from research, care and administration/management in health care participated. Consensus was reached on four of the six criteria after the second Delphi round: the intention of the intervention, possible conflicts of interest of the initiators of the intervention, primary vs. secondary/tertiary prevention, and the scope of the intervention. From the perspective of the experts interviewed, these are the criteria that distinguish PHI.

Discussion and conclusion

Based on the consensus criteria, PHI can be defined more concretely. Thus, the results contribute to a better inter- and transdisciplinary understanding. Ideally, the criteria will make it easier to assign interventions to the public health sector in the future, even if a precise examination will be necessary in individual cases, among other things because the experts disagreed on the criteria of costs and how to address the target group.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
公共关系的干涉是什么意思?从德语区设立
在国际上,公共卫生干预(PHI)的定义多种多样。然而,在讲德语的国家,一个定义仍然很突出。因此,本研究的目的是从科学和实践的专家角度得出PHI定义的共识标准。方法于2022年12月至2023年2月进行两轮在线德尔菲调查。工作组制定了六个标准,并提出了共识:1)干预的意图,2)干预发起者的潜在利益冲突,3)一级预防与二级/三级预防,4)成本,5)目标,6)干预的范围。在两轮德尔菲会议中,通过德语世界的相关网络和协会从学术界和实践中招募了专家。这些判断被问及标准化的评定量表,并有可能公开证明。结果在第一轮德尔菲调查中,n = 52人,第二轮调查中,n = 43名来自卫生保健研究、护理和行政/管理领域的专家参与了调查。在第二轮德尔菲轮之后,就六项标准中的四项达成了共识:干预的意图、干预发起者可能的利益冲突、一级预防与二级/三级预防以及干预的范围。从受访专家的角度来看,这些是区分PHI的标准。讨论与结论基于共识准则,可以更具体地定义PHI。因此,这些结果有助于更好地进行跨学科和跨学科的理解。理想情况下,这些标准将使今后更容易将干预措施分配给公共卫生部门,即使在个别情况下需要进行精确审查,因为专家们在费用标准和如何处理目标群体方面存在分歧。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
18.20%
发文量
129
期刊最新文献
Socioeconomic deprivation and survival among patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): Investigation using population-based Clinical Cancer Registry data of Lower Saxony Germany) and discussion of worldwide evidence. [Quality indicators from the S3 guideline on palliative care for patients with incurable cancer: Identification of documentation processes, data sources, and challenges in palliative care units]. [Why health services research projects may fail in practice - Insights from experts using the example of RECUR, a German registry for recurrent urolithiasis]. [The "arriba Diabetes" decision aid - Results of a qualitative evaluation study]. [Outpatient diagnoses in primary care: Adding transparency in the field of outpatient diagnoses].
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1