Jones K, Klein H
Green Mountain Institute for Environmental Democracy, Montpelier, Vermont 05602, USA.
Annu Rev Public Health. 1999;20:159-72. doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.20.1.159.
Can an analytical tool for comparing environmental risks and policy activities be used to evaluate their relative efficacy in ultimately changing the allocation of public funds? Some insight is possible through a review of comparative risk projects that have been carried out at the city, state, and national levels, as well as among Indian tribes, over the past 12 years. The lessons from this review should apply to the field of public health. For every comparison of environmental issues, such as clean-air standards with fish consumption advisories, there is a parallel discussion of public health priorities and strategies, such as antismoking and pregnancy prevention programs, immunization programs and disease surveillance efforts, or well-baby clinics and food safety programs. Lessons from comparative risk projects and processes may offer the public health community new ways of thinking about using stakeholder assessment processes in developing public health policy.
一种用于比较环境风险与政策活动的分析工具能否用于评估它们在最终改变公共资金分配方面的相对成效？通过回顾过去12年在城市、州和国家层面以及印第安部落中开展的比较风险项目，或许能获得一些见解。此次回顾所得的经验教训应适用于公共卫生领域。对于每一项环境问题的比较，比如清洁空气标准与鱼类消费建议，都会有关于公共卫生优先事项和策略的平行讨论，比如反吸烟和预防怀孕项目、免疫项目和疾病监测工作，或者健康婴儿诊所和食品安全项目。比较风险项目及流程中的经验教训或许能为公共卫生界提供思考如何在制定公共卫生政策时运用利益相关者评估流程的新方式。
