德国的组织保健服务研究:会议摘要范围审查》。

IF 0.7 4区 医学 Q4 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Gesundheitswesen Pub Date : 2024-08-19 DOI:10.1055/a-2350-3857
Stefan Nöst, Felix Miedaner, Wagner Anke, Marina Beckmann, Mark Exworthy, Katja Götz, Mirjam Körner, Russell Mannion, Holger Pfaff, Alexandra Piotrowski, Antje Hammer, Lena Ansmann
{"title":"德国的组织保健服务研究:会议摘要范围审查》。","authors":"Stefan Nöst, Felix Miedaner, Wagner Anke, Marina Beckmann, Mark Exworthy, Katja Götz, Mirjam Körner, Russell Mannion, Holger Pfaff, Alexandra Piotrowski, Antje Hammer, Lena Ansmann","doi":"10.1055/a-2350-3857","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Health Services Research (HSR) is a growing field in Germany, in which Organisational Health Services Research (OHSR) has emerged as a subfield. The aim of this scoping review was to provide an overview of the field of OHSR within HSR in Germany and to map systematically original contributions by describing the organisational setting, the research design, the research objectives and the theoretical underpinning.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A scoping review examined published abstracts from the 19th German Conference on Health Services Research 2020. Abstracts were included if (1) health care organisations, subunits or organisational processes were mentioned as research objects, and (2) if at least one out of five research perspectives from a recent German definition of OHSR was addressed. After intensive pilot screenings within a group of nine researchers, all abstracts were screened independently in three review teams with three researchers each, and data from included abstracts were extracted using content analysis based on a self-developed detailed coding scheme.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of n=468 identified abstracts in German (84%) or English (16%) language, n=138 (29.5%) abstracts were included. The majority of included abstracts addressed acute care in hospitals (34.8%), reported results from observational studies (59.4%) and collected primary data (69.6%). There was a slightly higher use of quantitative (32.6%) than qualitative (24.6%) research methods with a considerable number of studies using more than one method (31.9%). An explicit reference to theory was made in 7.2% and 17.4% used the term 'organisation' or related terms explicitly in their abstract.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This review provides a systematic but preliminary overview of the scope to which HSR in Germany addresses OHSR. The organisational perspective is considered extensively in HSR abstracts, but mostly implicitly. The research is reported largely free of theory which can reduce their explanatory power. Therefore, a research agenda, more awareness as well as education and better conceptualisation of OHSR topics within German HSR are needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":47653,"journal":{"name":"Gesundheitswesen","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Organisational Health Services Research in Germany: A Scoping Review of Conference Abstracts.\",\"authors\":\"Stefan Nöst, Felix Miedaner, Wagner Anke, Marina Beckmann, Mark Exworthy, Katja Götz, Mirjam Körner, Russell Mannion, Holger Pfaff, Alexandra Piotrowski, Antje Hammer, Lena Ansmann\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/a-2350-3857\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Health Services Research (HSR) is a growing field in Germany, in which Organisational Health Services Research (OHSR) has emerged as a subfield. The aim of this scoping review was to provide an overview of the field of OHSR within HSR in Germany and to map systematically original contributions by describing the organisational setting, the research design, the research objectives and the theoretical underpinning.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A scoping review examined published abstracts from the 19th German Conference on Health Services Research 2020. Abstracts were included if (1) health care organisations, subunits or organisational processes were mentioned as research objects, and (2) if at least one out of five research perspectives from a recent German definition of OHSR was addressed. After intensive pilot screenings within a group of nine researchers, all abstracts were screened independently in three review teams with three researchers each, and data from included abstracts were extracted using content analysis based on a self-developed detailed coding scheme.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of n=468 identified abstracts in German (84%) or English (16%) language, n=138 (29.5%) abstracts were included. The majority of included abstracts addressed acute care in hospitals (34.8%), reported results from observational studies (59.4%) and collected primary data (69.6%). There was a slightly higher use of quantitative (32.6%) than qualitative (24.6%) research methods with a considerable number of studies using more than one method (31.9%). An explicit reference to theory was made in 7.2% and 17.4% used the term 'organisation' or related terms explicitly in their abstract.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This review provides a systematic but preliminary overview of the scope to which HSR in Germany addresses OHSR. The organisational perspective is considered extensively in HSR abstracts, but mostly implicitly. The research is reported largely free of theory which can reduce their explanatory power. Therefore, a research agenda, more awareness as well as education and better conceptualisation of OHSR topics within German HSR are needed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47653,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Gesundheitswesen\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-19\",\"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-2350-3857\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gesundheitswesen","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2350-3857","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在德国,健康服务研究(HSR)是一个不断发展的领域,而组织健康服务研究(OHSR)则是其中的一个子领域。本范围综述旨在概述德国健康服务研究中的组织健康服务研究领域,并通过描述组织环境、研究设计、研究目标和理论基础,系统地描绘原创性贡献:方法:对 2020 年第 19 届德国健康服务研究会议发表的摘要进行了范围界定审查。如果(1)提到医疗机构、子单位或组织流程作为研究对象,以及(2)至少涉及德国最新定义的 "OHSR "五个研究视角中的一个视角,则该摘要将被收录。在由九名研究人员组成的小组内进行了密集的试点筛选后,由三个评审小组(每组三名研究人员)对所有摘要进行了独立筛选,并根据自行开发的详细编码方案,采用内容分析法提取了所收录摘要中的数据:在 468 篇已确定的德文(84%)或英文(16%)摘要中,有 138 篇(29.5%)摘要被收录。大部分被收录的摘要涉及医院的急症护理(34.8%),报告了观察性研究的结果(59.4%),并收集了原始数据(69.6%)。定量研究方法的使用率(32.6%)略高于定性研究方法(24.6%),相当多的研究使用了一种以上的方法(31.9%)。7.2% 的研究明确提到了理论,17.4% 的研究在摘要中明确使用了 "组织 "或相关术语:本综述系统但初步地概述了德国职业健康安全研究的范围。组织视角在 HSR 摘要中被广泛考虑,但大多是隐含的。所报告的研究大多没有理论依据,这可能会降低其解释力。因此,需要制定一个研究议程,在德国的 HSR 中对 OHSR 主题进行更多的宣传和教育以及更好的概念化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Organisational Health Services Research in Germany: A Scoping Review of Conference Abstracts.

Background: Health Services Research (HSR) is a growing field in Germany, in which Organisational Health Services Research (OHSR) has emerged as a subfield. The aim of this scoping review was to provide an overview of the field of OHSR within HSR in Germany and to map systematically original contributions by describing the organisational setting, the research design, the research objectives and the theoretical underpinning.

Methods: A scoping review examined published abstracts from the 19th German Conference on Health Services Research 2020. Abstracts were included if (1) health care organisations, subunits or organisational processes were mentioned as research objects, and (2) if at least one out of five research perspectives from a recent German definition of OHSR was addressed. After intensive pilot screenings within a group of nine researchers, all abstracts were screened independently in three review teams with three researchers each, and data from included abstracts were extracted using content analysis based on a self-developed detailed coding scheme.

Results: Out of n=468 identified abstracts in German (84%) or English (16%) language, n=138 (29.5%) abstracts were included. The majority of included abstracts addressed acute care in hospitals (34.8%), reported results from observational studies (59.4%) and collected primary data (69.6%). There was a slightly higher use of quantitative (32.6%) than qualitative (24.6%) research methods with a considerable number of studies using more than one method (31.9%). An explicit reference to theory was made in 7.2% and 17.4% used the term 'organisation' or related terms explicitly in their abstract.

Discussion: This review provides a systematic but preliminary overview of the scope to which HSR in Germany addresses OHSR. The organisational perspective is considered extensively in HSR abstracts, but mostly implicitly. The research is reported largely free of theory which can reduce their explanatory power. Therefore, a research agenda, more awareness as well as education and better conceptualisation of OHSR topics within German HSR are needed.

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
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