同理心是关键:解决“以工作为中心的医疗保健”政策进展的障碍

IF 1.8 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Evidence & Policy Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI:10.1332/174426421x16340308463939
S. Bartys, Rachel Martin, C. Parker, Amanda J Edmondson, K. Burton
{"title":"同理心是关键:解决“以工作为中心的医疗保健”政策进展的障碍","authors":"S. Bartys, Rachel Martin, C. Parker, Amanda J Edmondson, K. Burton","doi":"10.1332/174426421x16340308463939","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: In 2019, Public Health England commissioned the authors of this paper to conduct research examining healthcare professionals’ conversations about work with their patients to inform policy aimed at reducing work loss due to ill health.Aims and objectives: The purpose of this paper is to show how the commission provided a unique opportunity for the authors to collaborate with the funders to address obstacles to policy progress.Methods: A steering group was established to revise the original remit of research. In outlining that process here, qualitative data collected from a wide range of healthcare professionals as part of the commission are presented for the first time. We are able to further illuminate and expand on the previously published report findings and policy recommendations, revealing novel insights on researcher-policy engagement.Findings: Robust implementation of ‘work-focused healthcare’ policy has been limited, resulting in an overwhelming lack of empirical data and misguided directives. However, the existing evidence did provide important information about obstacles to policy progress and how to overcome them. The qualitative data were instrumental in this respect, with healthcare professionals revealing various interpretations of, and discourse on the policy.Discussion and conclusions: This paper adds to the expanding literature which suggests that long term, mutualistic, collaborative working is central to addressing barriers to improving evidence use and mobilising health policy into practice. It was shown that tacit, generous, open, empathic and ongoing knowledge exchange, advocacy, and alliances are needed.Key messagesThis paper builds on the literature which reports relationship- and skills-building with policymakers to be the most important factors in influencing the use of evidence and mobilising health policy into practice.A unique opportunity to participate in a continuous, informal, and timely exchange of information with decision makers to address obstacles to policy progress is described.Novel insights are revealed into the alliances needed between academic, policy, and healthcare professionals to implement ‘work-focused healthcare’.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Empathy is key: addressing obstacles to policy progress of ‘work-focused healthcare’\",\"authors\":\"S. Bartys, Rachel Martin, C. Parker, Amanda J Edmondson, K. Burton\",\"doi\":\"10.1332/174426421x16340308463939\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: In 2019, Public Health England commissioned the authors of this paper to conduct research examining healthcare professionals’ conversations about work with their patients to inform policy aimed at reducing work loss due to ill health.Aims and objectives: The purpose of this paper is to show how the commission provided a unique opportunity for the authors to collaborate with the funders to address obstacles to policy progress.Methods: A steering group was established to revise the original remit of research. In outlining that process here, qualitative data collected from a wide range of healthcare professionals as part of the commission are presented for the first time. We are able to further illuminate and expand on the previously published report findings and policy recommendations, revealing novel insights on researcher-policy engagement.Findings: Robust implementation of ‘work-focused healthcare’ policy has been limited, resulting in an overwhelming lack of empirical data and misguided directives. However, the existing evidence did provide important information about obstacles to policy progress and how to overcome them. The qualitative data were instrumental in this respect, with healthcare professionals revealing various interpretations of, and discourse on the policy.Discussion and conclusions: This paper adds to the expanding literature which suggests that long term, mutualistic, collaborative working is central to addressing barriers to improving evidence use and mobilising health policy into practice. It was shown that tacit, generous, open, empathic and ongoing knowledge exchange, advocacy, and alliances are needed.Key messagesThis paper builds on the literature which reports relationship- and skills-building with policymakers to be the most important factors in influencing the use of evidence and mobilising health policy into practice.A unique opportunity to participate in a continuous, informal, and timely exchange of information with decision makers to address obstacles to policy progress is described.Novel insights are revealed into the alliances needed between academic, policy, and healthcare professionals to implement ‘work-focused healthcare’.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51652,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evidence & Policy\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evidence & Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16340308463939\",\"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/10.1332/174426421x16340308463939","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: 0

摘要

背景:2019年,英国公共卫生部委托本文作者进行研究,调查医疗保健专业人员与患者关于工作的对话,为旨在减少因健康状况不佳而导致的工作损失的政策提供信息。目的和目标:本文的目的是展示委员会如何为作者提供一个独特的机会,与资助者合作,解决政策进展的障碍。方法:成立指导小组,修订原有的研究范围。在这里概述这一过程时,首次介绍了作为委员会的一部分从广泛的保健专业人员那里收集的定性数据。我们能够进一步阐明和扩展先前发表的报告结果和政策建议,揭示关于研究人员-政策参与的新见解。研究结果:“以工作为中心的医疗保健”政策的有力实施受到限制,导致经验数据的严重缺乏和误导性的指令。然而,现有的证据确实提供了关于政策进展的障碍以及如何克服这些障碍的重要信息。定性数据在这方面发挥了重要作用,医疗保健专业人员揭示了对该政策的各种解释和论述。讨论和结论:这篇论文增加了不断扩大的文献,这些文献表明,长期、互惠、协作的工作对于解决改善证据使用和动员卫生政策付诸实践的障碍至关重要。结果表明,需要默契、慷慨、开放、共情和持续的知识交流、倡导和联盟。关键信息本文建立在文献的基础上,这些文献报告了与决策者的关系和技能建设是影响证据使用和动员卫生政策付诸实践的最重要因素。描述了一个独特的机会,参与与决策者进行持续、非正式和及时的信息交流,以解决政策进展的障碍。新见解揭示了学术,政策和医疗保健专业人员之间需要的联盟,以实施“以工作为中心的医疗保健”。
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
Empathy is key: addressing obstacles to policy progress of ‘work-focused healthcare’
Background: In 2019, Public Health England commissioned the authors of this paper to conduct research examining healthcare professionals’ conversations about work with their patients to inform policy aimed at reducing work loss due to ill health.Aims and objectives: The purpose of this paper is to show how the commission provided a unique opportunity for the authors to collaborate with the funders to address obstacles to policy progress.Methods: A steering group was established to revise the original remit of research. In outlining that process here, qualitative data collected from a wide range of healthcare professionals as part of the commission are presented for the first time. We are able to further illuminate and expand on the previously published report findings and policy recommendations, revealing novel insights on researcher-policy engagement.Findings: Robust implementation of ‘work-focused healthcare’ policy has been limited, resulting in an overwhelming lack of empirical data and misguided directives. However, the existing evidence did provide important information about obstacles to policy progress and how to overcome them. The qualitative data were instrumental in this respect, with healthcare professionals revealing various interpretations of, and discourse on the policy.Discussion and conclusions: This paper adds to the expanding literature which suggests that long term, mutualistic, collaborative working is central to addressing barriers to improving evidence use and mobilising health policy into practice. It was shown that tacit, generous, open, empathic and ongoing knowledge exchange, advocacy, and alliances are needed.Key messagesThis paper builds on the literature which reports relationship- and skills-building with policymakers to be the most important factors in influencing the use of evidence and mobilising health policy into practice.A unique opportunity to participate in a continuous, informal, and timely exchange of information with decision makers to address obstacles to policy progress is described.Novel insights are revealed into the alliances needed between academic, policy, and healthcare professionals to implement ‘work-focused healthcare’.
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