[Health Services Research in the Public Health Department - An Explorative Interview Study on Scientific Methodological Competence in the PHS in Baden-Württemberg, Germany].

IF 0.7 4区 医学 Q4 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Gesundheitswesen Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-04-17 DOI:10.1055/a-2308-7059
Emily Piontkowski, Hannah Richter, Jonas Bischof, Anja Herrmann, Christine Preiser, David Häske, Stefanie Joos, Monika A Rieger
{"title":"[Health Services Research in the Public Health Department - An Explorative Interview Study on Scientific Methodological Competence in the PHS in Baden-Württemberg, Germany].","authors":"Emily Piontkowski, Hannah Richter, Jonas Bischof, Anja Herrmann, Christine Preiser, David Häske, Stefanie Joos, Monika A Rieger","doi":"10.1055/a-2308-7059","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aim of the study: </strong>One aim of the pact for the Public Health Service (\"Pakt für den ÖGD\") is to increase scientific activity in the Public Health Service (PHS). This study deals with the question, which methods related to health services research are known and applied in the PHS and which methods are needed by PHS employees in the federal state Baden-Württemberg in Germany.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Guideline-based interviews (focus group and individual interviews) were conducted with 12 persons at different hierarchy levels from public health departments in Baden-Württemberg. The interviews were subjected to content analysis acording to Kuckartz.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The interviewees described their heterogeneous needs as well as their methodological competences. Staff members expressed existing competences more frequently than leaders. These competencies included those used in everyday work such as literature research in routinely collected data (e. g., school entry examination), or different methods for data analysis. Needs seemed to exist primarily in the area of data analysis and collection, but were also expressed in the area of basic scientific methods. Topics relating to guidelines for good scientific practice (e. g., ethics proposals) and publications were also rather less known. A need for a support from research institutions or higher authorities was frequently mentioned. In addition, motivation and barriers for research in public health departments were mentioned.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study shows that existing methodological competencies and needs are heterogeneous and can be attributed to the heterogeneous backgrounds and fields of activity of the interviewees. Competencies are indicated, for example, in literature research and analysis of existing data. There is a need in methods, for example, of data collection/analysis as well as in basic scientific methods and deepening of existing skills. Furthermore support offers regarding scientific methodological competence for public health departments are required. There is also a lack of research infrastructure (e. g. software, access to literature) and a legal basis. The results can serve as a basis for the design of demand-oriented methodological programs for employees of the PHS in Baden-Württemberg.</p>","PeriodicalId":47653,"journal":{"name":"Gesundheitswesen","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gesundheitswesen","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2308-7059","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/4/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and aim of the study: One aim of the pact for the Public Health Service ("Pakt für den ÖGD") is to increase scientific activity in the Public Health Service (PHS). This study deals with the question, which methods related to health services research are known and applied in the PHS and which methods are needed by PHS employees in the federal state Baden-Württemberg in Germany.

Methods: Guideline-based interviews (focus group and individual interviews) were conducted with 12 persons at different hierarchy levels from public health departments in Baden-Württemberg. The interviews were subjected to content analysis acording to Kuckartz.

Results: The interviewees described their heterogeneous needs as well as their methodological competences. Staff members expressed existing competences more frequently than leaders. These competencies included those used in everyday work such as literature research in routinely collected data (e. g., school entry examination), or different methods for data analysis. Needs seemed to exist primarily in the area of data analysis and collection, but were also expressed in the area of basic scientific methods. Topics relating to guidelines for good scientific practice (e. g., ethics proposals) and publications were also rather less known. A need for a support from research institutions or higher authorities was frequently mentioned. In addition, motivation and barriers for research in public health departments were mentioned.

Conclusion: This study shows that existing methodological competencies and needs are heterogeneous and can be attributed to the heterogeneous backgrounds and fields of activity of the interviewees. Competencies are indicated, for example, in literature research and analysis of existing data. There is a need in methods, for example, of data collection/analysis as well as in basic scientific methods and deepening of existing skills. Furthermore support offers regarding scientific methodological competence for public health departments are required. There is also a lack of research infrastructure (e. g. software, access to literature) and a legal basis. The results can serve as a basis for the design of demand-oriented methodological programs for employees of the PHS in Baden-Württemberg.

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
公共卫生部门的卫生服务研究--关于巴登-符腾堡州公共卫生服务部门科学方法能力的探索性访谈研究。
研究的背景和目的:公共卫生服务协议("Pakt für den ÖGD")的目的之一是提高公共卫生服务部门(PHS)的科研活动。本研究探讨的问题是,在德国巴登-符腾堡联邦州的公共卫生服务机构中,哪些与卫生服务研究相关的方法为人所知并得到应用,以及公共卫生服务机构的员工需要哪些方法:方法:对巴登-符腾堡州公共卫生部门不同级别的 12 名人员进行了基于指南的访谈(焦点小组和个别访谈)。根据库卡茨方法对访谈内容进行了分析:结果:受访者描述了他们的不同需求和方法能力。工作人员比领导者更经常地表达现有的能力。这些能力包括日常工作中使用的能力,如常规收集数据(如入学考试)中的文献研究,或不同的数据分析方法。需求似乎主要存在于数据分析和收集领域,但也存在于基本科学方法领域。与良好科学实践指南(如伦理建议)和出版物有关的主题也鲜为人知。经常提到需要研究机构或上级主管部门的支持。此外,还提到了公共卫生部门开展研究的动机和障碍:本研究表明,受访者现有的方法能力和需求各不相同,可归因于受访者不同的背景和活动 领域。例如,文献研究和现有数据分析方面的能力得到了体现。在数据收集/分析等方法以及基本科学方法和深化现有技能方面存在需求。此外,还需要为公共卫生部门提供科学方法能力方面的支持。此外,还缺乏研究基础设施(如软件、查阅文献)和法律基础。研究结果可作为巴登一符腾堡州公共卫生部门员工设计以需求为导向的方法论课程的基础。
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
Gesundheitswesen
Gesundheitswesen PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
18.20%
发文量
308
期刊介绍: The health service informs you comprehensively and up-to-date about the most important topics of the health care system. In addition to guidelines, overviews and comments, you will find current research results and contributions to CME-certified continuing education and training. The journal offers a scientific discussion forum and a platform for communications from professional societies. The content quality is ensured by a publisher body, the expert advisory board and other experts in the peer review process.
期刊最新文献
[Professional Health Literacy of General Practitioners - Results of the HLS-PROF]. [Rehabilitation Recommendations According to § 31 SGB XI: Empiricism, Discussion and Health Policy Implications]. [The Effect of Service Concentration on Outcome Quality in Obstetrics Departments - An Empirical Analysis of Newborn Mortality in German Hospitals]. [Development Of Long-Term Care Dependency And Utilisation Of Long-Term Care Services From 2017 To 2022 In Germany, Saxony-Anhalt: Analysis Of Health Insurance Data]. [Subjective Health Impairment And Associated Factors In The Heatwave Of Summer 2022: An Online Survey].
×
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:481959085
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