Suppr超能文献

少数族裔和服务不足社区成员为健康研究设定优先事项。

Members of Minority and Underserved Communities Set Priorities for Health Research.

机构信息

Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan.

University of Minnesota.

出版信息

Milbank Q. 2018 Dec;96(4):675-705. doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.12354.

Abstract

UNLABELLED

Policy Points Engaging and involving underrepresented communities when setting research priorities could make the scientific research agenda more equitable, more just, and more responsive to their needs and values. Groups and individuals from minority and underserved communities strongly prioritized child health and mental health research, often choosing to invest at the highest possible level. Groups consisting of predominantly Native American or Arab American participants invested in culture and beliefs research at the highest level, while many groups did not select it at all. The priority given to culture and beliefs research by these groups illustrates the importance of paying special attention to unique preferences, and not just commonly held views, when getting public input on spending priorities for research.

CONTEXT

A major contributor to health disparities is the relative lack of resources-including resources for science-allocated to address the health problems of those with disproportionately greater needs. Engaging and involving underrepresented communities in setting research priorities could make the scientific research agenda more equitable, more just, and more responsive to their needs and values. We engaged minority and underserved communities in informed deliberations and report here their priorities for health research.

METHODS

Academic-community partnerships adapted the simulation exercise CHAT for setting health research priorities. We had participants from minority and medically underserved communities (47 groups, n = 519) throughout Michigan deliberate about health research priorities, and we used surveys and CHAT software to collect the demographic characteristics and priorities selected by individuals and groups.

FINDINGS

The participants ranged in age (18 to 88), included more women than men, and were overrepresented by minority groups. Nearly all the deliberating groups selected child health and mental health research (93.6% and 95.7%), and most invested at the highest level. Aging, access, promote health, healthy environment, and what causes disease were also prioritized by groups. Research on mental health and child health were high priorities for individuals both before and after group deliberations. Access was the only category more likely to be selected by individuals after group deliberation (77.0 vs 84.0%, OR = 1.63, p = .005), while improve research, health policy, and culture and beliefs were less likely to be selected after group deliberations (all, p < .001). However, the level of investment in many categories changed after the group deliberations. Participants identifying as Black/African American were less likely to prioritize mental health research, and those of Other race were more likely to prioritize culture and beliefs research.

CONCLUSIONS

Minority and medically underserved communities overwhelmingly prioritized mental health and child health research in informed deliberations about spending priorities.

摘要

未加标签

当设定研究优先事项时,让代表性不足的社区参与并投入其中,可以使科学研究议程更加公平、公正,并更好地回应他们的需求和价值观。来自少数族裔和服务不足社区的群体和个人将儿童健康和心理健康研究列为重中之重,通常选择在可能的最高水平上进行投资。由主要为美国原住民或阿拉伯裔美国人组成的群体在文化和信仰研究方面投入最高水平,而许多群体则根本没有选择。这些群体对文化和信仰研究的重视表明,在就研究支出重点征求公众意见时,特别需要关注独特的偏好,而不仅仅是普遍持有的观点。

背景

造成健康差距的一个主要因素是相对缺乏资源,包括用于解决那些需求更大的人群的健康问题的资源。让代表性不足的社区参与设定研究优先事项可以使科学研究议程更加公平、公正,并更好地回应他们的需求和价值观。我们让少数族裔和服务不足的社区参与知情讨论,并在此报告他们对健康研究的优先事项。

方法

学术-社区伙伴关系改编了用于设定健康研究优先事项的模拟练习 CHAT。我们在密歇根州各地的少数族裔和医疗服务不足的社区中都有参与者(47 个小组,n = 519),他们对健康研究的优先事项进行了审议,我们使用调查和 CHAT 软件收集了个人和群体选择的人口统计特征和优先事项。

结果

参与者的年龄从 18 岁到 88 岁不等,女性多于男性,少数族裔群体的代表性过高。几乎所有的审议小组都选择了儿童健康和心理健康研究(93.6%和 95.7%),并且大多数小组都进行了最高水平的投资。小组还将老龄化、获取途径、促进健康、健康环境和致病因素列为优先事项。心理健康和儿童健康研究也是个人在小组审议前后的重点。审议后,个人更有可能选择获取途径(77.0%比 84.0%,OR = 1.63,p =.005),而改善研究、健康政策和文化与信仰则不太可能在小组审议后被选中(均为 p <.001)。然而,许多类别的投资水平在小组审议后发生了变化。自认为是黑人/非裔美国人的参与者不太可能将心理健康研究列为优先事项,而自认为是其他种族的参与者更有可能将文化和信仰研究列为优先事项。

结论

少数族裔和医疗服务不足的社区在关于支出重点的知情审议中,压倒性地将心理健康和儿童健康研究列为重中之重。

相似文献

3
Evaluating community deliberations about health research priorities.评估关于健康研究重点的社区审议。
Health Expect. 2019 Aug;22(4):772-784. doi: 10.1111/hex.12931. Epub 2019 Jun 28.
4
How Would Low-Income Communities Prioritize Medicaid Spending?低收入社区将如何优先考虑医疗补助支出?
J Health Polit Policy Law. 2020 Jun 1;45(3):373-418. doi: 10.1215/03616878-8161024.

引用本文的文献

6
Evaluating community deliberations about health research priorities.评估关于健康研究重点的社区审议。
Health Expect. 2019 Aug;22(4):772-784. doi: 10.1111/hex.12931. Epub 2019 Jun 28.

本文引用的文献

1
The State as Community in Community-Based Participatory Research.基于社区的参与性研究中的国家作为社区
Prog Community Health Partnersh. 2016;10(4):515-522. doi: 10.1353/cpr.2016.0059.
7
Why and when should we use public deliberation?我们为何以及何时应该采用公众审议?
Hastings Cent Rep. 2012 Mar-Apr;42(2):17-20. doi: 10.1002/hast.27.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验