Cargando…

Population health intervention research: the place of theories

BACKGROUND: An international workshop on population health intervention research (PHIR) was organized to foster exchanges between experts from different disciplines and different fields. This paper aims to summarize the discussions around some of the issues addressed: (1) the place of theories in PH...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Moore, Graham, Cambon, Linda, Michie, Susan, Arwidson, Pierre, Ninot, Grégory, Ferron, Christine, Potvin, Louise, Kellou, Nadir, Charlesworth, Julie, Alla, François
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6558700/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31186053
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3383-7
_version_ 1783425679547695104
author Moore, Graham
Cambon, Linda
Michie, Susan
Arwidson, Pierre
Ninot, Grégory
Ferron, Christine
Potvin, Louise
Kellou, Nadir
Charlesworth, Julie
Alla, François
author_facet Moore, Graham
Cambon, Linda
Michie, Susan
Arwidson, Pierre
Ninot, Grégory
Ferron, Christine
Potvin, Louise
Kellou, Nadir
Charlesworth, Julie
Alla, François
author_sort Moore, Graham
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: An international workshop on population health intervention research (PHIR) was organized to foster exchanges between experts from different disciplines and different fields. This paper aims to summarize the discussions around some of the issues addressed: (1) the place of theories in PHIR, (2) why theories can be useful, and (3) how to choose and use the most relevant of them in evaluating PHIR. METHODS: The workshop included formal presentations by participants and moderated discussions. An oral synthesis was produced by a rapporteur to validate, through an expert consensus, the key points of the discussion and the recommendations. All discussions were recorded and have been fully transcribed. RESULTS: The following recommendations were generated through a consensus in the workshop discussions: (i) The evaluation of interventions, like their development, could be improved through better use of theory. (ii) The referenced theory and framework must be clarified. (iii) An intervention theory should be developed by a partnership of researchers and practitioners. (iv) More use of social theory is recommended. (v) Frameworks and a common language are helpful in selecting and communicating a theory. (vi) Better reporting of interventions and theories is needed. CONCLUSION: Theory-driven interventions and evaluations are key in PHIR as they facilitate the understanding of mechanisms of change. There are many challenges in developing the most appropriate theories for interventions and evaluations. With the wealth of information now being generated, this subject is of increasing importance at many levels, including for public health policy. It is, therefore, timely to consider how to build on the experiences of many different disciplines to enable the development of better theories and facilitate evidence-based decisions.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6558700
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65587002019-06-13 Population health intervention research: the place of theories Moore, Graham Cambon, Linda Michie, Susan Arwidson, Pierre Ninot, Grégory Ferron, Christine Potvin, Louise Kellou, Nadir Charlesworth, Julie Alla, François Trials Commentary BACKGROUND: An international workshop on population health intervention research (PHIR) was organized to foster exchanges between experts from different disciplines and different fields. This paper aims to summarize the discussions around some of the issues addressed: (1) the place of theories in PHIR, (2) why theories can be useful, and (3) how to choose and use the most relevant of them in evaluating PHIR. METHODS: The workshop included formal presentations by participants and moderated discussions. An oral synthesis was produced by a rapporteur to validate, through an expert consensus, the key points of the discussion and the recommendations. All discussions were recorded and have been fully transcribed. RESULTS: The following recommendations were generated through a consensus in the workshop discussions: (i) The evaluation of interventions, like their development, could be improved through better use of theory. (ii) The referenced theory and framework must be clarified. (iii) An intervention theory should be developed by a partnership of researchers and practitioners. (iv) More use of social theory is recommended. (v) Frameworks and a common language are helpful in selecting and communicating a theory. (vi) Better reporting of interventions and theories is needed. CONCLUSION: Theory-driven interventions and evaluations are key in PHIR as they facilitate the understanding of mechanisms of change. There are many challenges in developing the most appropriate theories for interventions and evaluations. With the wealth of information now being generated, this subject is of increasing importance at many levels, including for public health policy. It is, therefore, timely to consider how to build on the experiences of many different disciplines to enable the development of better theories and facilitate evidence-based decisions. BioMed Central 2019-06-11 /pmc/articles/PMC6558700/ /pubmed/31186053 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3383-7 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Commentary
Moore, Graham
Cambon, Linda
Michie, Susan
Arwidson, Pierre
Ninot, Grégory
Ferron, Christine
Potvin, Louise
Kellou, Nadir
Charlesworth, Julie
Alla, François
Population health intervention research: the place of theories
title Population health intervention research: the place of theories
title_full Population health intervention research: the place of theories
title_fullStr Population health intervention research: the place of theories
title_full_unstemmed Population health intervention research: the place of theories
title_short Population health intervention research: the place of theories
title_sort population health intervention research: the place of theories
topic Commentary
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6558700/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31186053
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3383-7
work_keys_str_mv AT mooregraham populationhealthinterventionresearchtheplaceoftheories
AT cambonlinda populationhealthinterventionresearchtheplaceoftheories
AT michiesusan populationhealthinterventionresearchtheplaceoftheories
AT arwidsonpierre populationhealthinterventionresearchtheplaceoftheories
AT ninotgregory populationhealthinterventionresearchtheplaceoftheories
AT ferronchristine populationhealthinterventionresearchtheplaceoftheories
AT potvinlouise populationhealthinterventionresearchtheplaceoftheories
AT kellounadir populationhealthinterventionresearchtheplaceoftheories
AT charlesworthjulie populationhealthinterventionresearchtheplaceoftheories
AT allafrancois populationhealthinterventionresearchtheplaceoftheories
AT populationhealthinterventionresearchtheplaceoftheories