Saegert Susan C, Klitzman Susan, Freudenberg Nicholas, Cooperman-Mroczek Jana, Nassar Salwa
Department of Psychology, Center for Human Environments, City University of New York (CUNY) Graduate Center, 365 Fifth Avenue, New York City, NY 10016, USA.
Am J Public Health. 2003 Sep;93(9):1471-7. doi: 10.2105/ajph.93.9.1471.
We sought to characterize and to evaluate the success of current public health interventions related to housing. Two reviewers content-analyzed 72 articles selected from 12 electronic databases of US interventions from 1990 to 2001. Ninety-two percent of the interventions addressed a single condition, most often lead poisoning, injury, or asthma. Fifty-seven percent targeted children, and 13% targeted seniors. The most common intervention strategies employed a one-time treatment to improve the environment; to change behavior, attitudes, or knowledge; or both. Most studies reported statistically significant improvements, but few (14%) were judged extremely successful. Current interventions are limited by narrow definitions of housing and health, by brief time spans, and by limited geographic and social scales. An ecological paradigm is recommended as a guide to more effective approaches.
我们试图对当前与住房相关的公共卫生干预措施进行特征描述并评估其成效。两名评审员对从1990年至2001年美国干预措施的12个电子数据库中选取的72篇文章进行了内容分析。92%的干预措施针对单一状况,最常见的是铅中毒、伤害或哮喘。57%的措施针对儿童,13%针对老年人。最常见的干预策略是采用一次性治疗来改善环境、改变行为、态度或知识,或两者兼顾。大多数研究报告了具有统计学意义的改善,但很少有(14%)被判定为极其成功。当前的干预措施受到住房与健康的狭义定义、短暂的时间跨度以及有限的地理和社会范围的限制。建议采用生态范式作为更有效方法的指导。