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":"公共关系的干涉是什么意思?从德语区设立","authors":"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","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":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Was wird unter einer Public-Health-Intervention verstanden? Ergebnisse eines Delphi-Prozesses im deutschsprachigen Raum\",\"authors\":\"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\",\"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\":1,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":16.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accounts of Chemical Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1865921723001289\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"化学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1865921723001289","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Was wird unter einer Public-Health-Intervention verstanden? Ergebnisse eines Delphi-Prozesses im deutschsprachigen Raum
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.
期刊介绍：
Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance.
Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
