Health promotion and Epidemiology, GGD Regio Nijmegen, AMPHI Integrated Health Policy, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Fam Pract. 2012 Apr;29 Suppl 1:i157-i162. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmr073.
A logical and promising next step for the development of an effective infrastructure for health promotion in the Netherlands are Academic Collaborative Centres (ACCs). Their aims are to bridge the gap between research, policy and practice; make better use of available knowledge and strengthen the evidence base for health promotion practice. To understand their position, they must be seen in light of the strong growth in health promotion in the Netherlands. Since the 1970s, the emphasis in health promotion has shifted from simple unidimensional interventions to much more comprehensive and integrated programmes. Comprehensive research programmes, which explicitly involve actual practice and policy, are also thus called for. These developments are described in this article. There is considerable and widespread enthusiasm about the establishment of ACCs in the Netherlands. Experiences from the first 5 years of collaboration between research, policy and practice within the ACCs, however, shows research to still have the dominant position. The different groups of stakeholders in the public health infrastructure are also shown to perceive and appreciate the current infrastructure rather differently. These findings are similar to results found in the USA. The predominance of research has recently led the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw) to impose stricter criteria and guidelines for the funding of such centres. These measures are aimed at eliciting a shift of power from science to practice. They seem to be a promising contribution to bridging the gap between research, policy and practice.
荷兰发展有效的健康促进基础设施的下一步是建立学术合作中心（ACCs）。它们的目标是弥合研究、政策和实践之间的差距；更好地利用现有知识，并加强健康促进实践的证据基础。为了理解它们的地位，必须结合荷兰健康促进的强劲增长来看待它们。自 20 世纪 70 年代以来，健康促进的重点已经从简单的一维干预措施转向更全面和综合的方案。因此，也需要制定明确涉及实际实践和政策的综合研究方案。本文描述了这些发展。荷兰对建立 ACCs 表现出了相当大的、广泛的热情。然而，ACCs 内部研究、政策和实践之间合作的前 5 年的经验表明，研究仍然占据主导地位。公共卫生基础设施的不同利益相关者群体也对当前的基础设施有着不同的看法和理解。这些发现与美国的结果相似。研究的主导地位最近导致荷兰健康研究与发展组织（ZonMw）为这种中心的资助制定了更严格的标准和指导方针。这些措施旨在将权力从科学转移到实践。它们似乎是弥合研究、政策和实践之间差距的一个有希望的贡献。
