促进利用研究证据改善青年成果的公共-学术伙伴关系:文献分析结果

IF 1.8 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Evidence & Policy Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI:10.1332/174426421x16210115966623
Amy P. Page, Oluwatoyin Olubiyi, Y. L. Wong, Christina D Kang-Yi
{"title":"促进利用研究证据改善青年成果的公共-学术伙伴关系:文献分析结果","authors":"Amy P. Page, Oluwatoyin Olubiyi, Y. L. Wong, Christina D Kang-Yi","doi":"10.1332/174426421x16210115966623","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Although public-academic partnerships (PAPs) to improve the health and well-being of vulnerable populations have proliferated in public care for youth, existing literature lacks information about whether PAPs lead to public care agency leaders’ use of research evidence and promote youth mental health and well-being.Aims and objectives: The document analysis was conducted to understand PAP contexts and mechanisms leading to public care agency leaders’ use of research evidence. This paper introduces US public mental health and child welfare systems, shares strategies of identifying PAPs, obtaining and conducting systematic document review of PAPs, and documents analysis findings.Methods: This project conducted document analysis of US PAPs aiming to improve mental health and promote well-being of youth aged 12–25 years.Findings: The 23 PAPs analysed had diverse partnership goals including implementation and dissemination of research/evaluation evidence, information sharing, and prioritising and streamlining research priorities. PAPs sustained longer than 10 years had more focused goals of programme and policy evaluations and professional training, while PAPs 10 years or newer were engaged in more diverse goals. The majority of PAPs used journal articles, presentations, and multimedia as dissemination strategies of findings. Fewer than half of the PAPs reported on use of PAP-generated evidence in subsequent decision making by public care agency leaders.Discussion and conclusions: Further research should examine which mechanisms link partnership contexts, PAP leaders’ research evidence use, and youth outcomes improvement. Future research should also examine PAPs by detailed stages of development and ask PAP leaders directly about their evidence use.Key messagesThis project conducted document analysis of PAPs focused on mental health and well-being of youth;The project aimed to reveal contexts and mechanisms that are present when PAP leaders use evidence;This paper shares strategies used and findings from conducting systematic document analysis.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"110 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Public-academic partnerships to foster use of research evidence in improving youth outcomes: findings from document analysis\",\"authors\":\"Amy P. Page, Oluwatoyin Olubiyi, Y. L. Wong, Christina D Kang-Yi\",\"doi\":\"10.1332/174426421x16210115966623\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Although public-academic partnerships (PAPs) to improve the health and well-being of vulnerable populations have proliferated in public care for youth, existing literature lacks information about whether PAPs lead to public care agency leaders’ use of research evidence and promote youth mental health and well-being.Aims and objectives: The document analysis was conducted to understand PAP contexts and mechanisms leading to public care agency leaders’ use of research evidence. This paper introduces US public mental health and child welfare systems, shares strategies of identifying PAPs, obtaining and conducting systematic document review of PAPs, and documents analysis findings.Methods: This project conducted document analysis of US PAPs aiming to improve mental health and promote well-being of youth aged 12–25 years.Findings: The 23 PAPs analysed had diverse partnership goals including implementation and dissemination of research/evaluation evidence, information sharing, and prioritising and streamlining research priorities. PAPs sustained longer than 10 years had more focused goals of programme and policy evaluations and professional training, while PAPs 10 years or newer were engaged in more diverse goals. The majority of PAPs used journal articles, presentations, and multimedia as dissemination strategies of findings. Fewer than half of the PAPs reported on use of PAP-generated evidence in subsequent decision making by public care agency leaders.Discussion and conclusions: Further research should examine which mechanisms link partnership contexts, PAP leaders’ research evidence use, and youth outcomes improvement. Future research should also examine PAPs by detailed stages of development and ask PAP leaders directly about their evidence use.Key messagesThis project conducted document analysis of PAPs focused on mental health and well-being of youth;The project aimed to reveal contexts and mechanisms that are present when PAP leaders use evidence;This paper shares strategies used and findings from conducting systematic document analysis.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51652,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evidence & Policy\",\"volume\":\"110 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evidence & Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16210115966623\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16210115966623","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:虽然公共-学术合作伙伴关系(PAPs)改善弱势群体的健康和福祉已经在青少年公共护理中激增,但现有文献缺乏关于PAPs是否导致公共护理机构领导人使用研究证据并促进青少年心理健康和福祉的信息。目的和目的:进行文献分析,以了解PAP的背景和机制,导致公共保健机构领导人使用研究证据。本文介绍了美国的公共心理健康和儿童福利制度,分享了识别PAPs的策略,获取和进行系统的PAPs文件审查,以及文件分析结果。方法:本项目对美国12-25岁青少年心理健康改善计划进行文献分析。研究结果:分析的23个行动计划具有不同的伙伴关系目标,包括实施和传播研究/评价证据、信息共享以及确定研究重点和精简研究重点。持续10年以上的行动方案的目标更集中于方案和政策评价以及专业培训,而10年或更新成立的行动方案的目标则更多样化。大多数pap使用期刊文章、报告和多媒体作为研究结果的传播策略。不到一半的pap报告了在公共保健机构领导人随后的决策中使用pap生成的证据。讨论和结论:进一步的研究应该检查哪些机制将伙伴关系背景、PAP领导人的研究证据使用和青年成果改善联系起来。未来的研究还应该通过详细的发展阶段来检查PAP,并直接询问PAP领导人他们的证据使用情况。本项目开展了以青少年心理健康和福祉为重点的PAP文件分析;该项目旨在揭示PAP领导人使用证据时存在的背景和机制;本文分享了系统文件分析所使用的策略和发现。
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
Public-academic partnerships to foster use of research evidence in improving youth outcomes: findings from document analysis
Background: Although public-academic partnerships (PAPs) to improve the health and well-being of vulnerable populations have proliferated in public care for youth, existing literature lacks information about whether PAPs lead to public care agency leaders’ use of research evidence and promote youth mental health and well-being.Aims and objectives: The document analysis was conducted to understand PAP contexts and mechanisms leading to public care agency leaders’ use of research evidence. This paper introduces US public mental health and child welfare systems, shares strategies of identifying PAPs, obtaining and conducting systematic document review of PAPs, and documents analysis findings.Methods: This project conducted document analysis of US PAPs aiming to improve mental health and promote well-being of youth aged 12–25 years.Findings: The 23 PAPs analysed had diverse partnership goals including implementation and dissemination of research/evaluation evidence, information sharing, and prioritising and streamlining research priorities. PAPs sustained longer than 10 years had more focused goals of programme and policy evaluations and professional training, while PAPs 10 years or newer were engaged in more diverse goals. The majority of PAPs used journal articles, presentations, and multimedia as dissemination strategies of findings. Fewer than half of the PAPs reported on use of PAP-generated evidence in subsequent decision making by public care agency leaders.Discussion and conclusions: Further research should examine which mechanisms link partnership contexts, PAP leaders’ research evidence use, and youth outcomes improvement. Future research should also examine PAPs by detailed stages of development and ask PAP leaders directly about their evidence use.Key messagesThis project conducted document analysis of PAPs focused on mental health and well-being of youth;The project aimed to reveal contexts and mechanisms that are present when PAP leaders use evidence;This paper shares strategies used and findings from conducting systematic document analysis.
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
Evidence & Policy
Evidence & Policy SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
14.30%
发文量
53
期刊最新文献
Breaking the Overton Window: on the need for adversarial co-production Examining research systems and models for local government: a systematic review Experiences and perceptions of evidence use among senior health service decision makers in Ireland: a qualitative study The critical factors in producing high quality and policy-relevant research: insights from international behavioural science units Understanding brokers, intermediaries, and boundary spanners: a multi-sectoral review of strategies, skills, and outcomes
×
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