Département de médecine sociale et préventive, Université de Montréal, Montréal, QC.
Can J Public Health. 2012 Sep 11;103(7 Suppl 1):eS63-4. doi: 10.1007/BF03404462.
A broad coalition of partners, entitled PHIRIC (Population Health Intervention Research Initiative for Canada), are working to increase the amount/quality of population health intervention research (PHIR) in our country. A central theme is to advance the science in this area. The current CJPH Supplement is welcomed as a set of diverse studies done to further our understanding of PHIR. The papers illustrate the range of questions that can be addressed and the variety of methods that need to be utilized. There is a need for critical reflection on three questions: 1) what constitutes PHIR? 2) which intervention parameters can be researched? and 3) what methods are recognized by the research community? Although legitimate attempts to define PHIR exist, the boundaries remain elusive. (Even the choice of articles in the current Supplement might be questioned.) It has cogently been argued that 'true' public health interventions intend to change risk conditions and alter distributions of health risk. This commentary suggests an important amendment to prior evaluation questions in stating that PHIR must pay attention to how intervention outcomes are distributed. There are also questions inherent in assessing the equity and distribution of an outcome. The bottom line is that we need to spread the word: more research is needed.
一个名为 PHIRIC(加拿大人口健康干预研究倡议)的广泛合作伙伴联盟,正在努力增加我国人口健康干预研究(PHIR)的数量/质量。一个核心主题是推进该领域的科学研究。本期 CJPH 增刊受到欢迎,因为其中包含了一系列旨在增进我们对 PHIR 理解的不同研究。这些论文说明了可以解决的问题范围以及需要利用的各种方法。需要对三个问题进行批判性反思:1)什么是 PHIR?2)可以研究哪些干预参数?3)研究界认可哪些方法?尽管已经对 PHIR 进行了合理的定义尝试,但界限仍然难以捉摸。(甚至当前增刊中文章的选择也可能受到质疑。)有人有力地指出,“真正的”公共卫生干预措施旨在改变风险状况并改变健康风险的分布。本评论建议在陈述 PHIR 必须关注干预结果如何分布时,对先前的评估问题进行重要修正。在评估结果的公平性和分布时,也存在内在问题。底线是我们需要广泛宣传:需要更多的研究。