比较全球和国际健康研究方法：一项探索性研究。
Comparing Approaches to Research in Global and International Health: An Exploratory Study.
机构信息
Global Health Office, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, CA.
Department of Health, Social and Welfare Studies, University of South-Eastern Norway, NO.
出版信息
Ann Glob Health. 2020 Apr 29;86(1):47. doi: 10.5334/aogh.2799.
BACKGROUND
Global health is a term often used interchangeably with international health due to overlapping similarities and unclear distinctions. While some international health supporters argue that global health as a field is unnecessary as it is simply a duplicate of international health, global health supporters argue that global health is unique; for instance, it actively includes elements of empowerment and promotes cross-border collaboration.
OBJECTIVE
To investigate differences and similarities in research representing the fields of global and international health.
METHODS
We analyzed all the articles published in 2017 in two comparable academic journals representing the fields of global health (, AGH) and international health (, IHJ). Abstracted data included: research design and methods, income status of country of study, empowerment recommendations for practice, participation and research collaboration.
FINDINGS
Most studies in both AGH and IHJ used quantitative research methods but were significantly more common in IHJ (70%) compared to AGH (48%), whereas mores studies in AGH (17%) than IHJ (9%) used mixed methods. The majority of studies in both journals focused on low- or lower-middle income countries whereas more AGH studies (16%) focused on high-income countries compared to the IHJ studies (4%). It was more common in the AGH studies to make empowerment recommendations (90%) and to include stakeholders/users in the study (40%) compared to the IHJ studies (75% empowerment recommendations and 18% stakeholder/user participation). No difference was observed regarding cross-border research collaboration.
CONCLUSIONS
This study does not show great differences between global health and international health research; however, there are still some differences indicating that global health emphasises different aspects of research compared to international health. More research is necessary to understand whether and how the distinctions between the definitions of global and international health are applied in real life, in research and beyond.
背景
由于相似之处重叠且界限不明确，全球卫生经常与国际卫生互换使用。一些国际卫生支持者认为，全球卫生作为一个领域是不必要的，因为它只是国际卫生的重复；而全球卫生的支持者则认为，全球卫生是独特的；例如，它积极包含赋权的元素，并促进跨境合作。
目的
研究代表全球卫生和国际卫生领域的研究的差异和相似之处。
方法
我们分析了 2017 年在两个具有可比性的学术期刊上发表的所有文章，这些期刊分别代表全球卫生领域（《全球健康》，AGH）和国际卫生领域（《国际卫生杂志》，IJH）。提取的数据包括：研究设计和方法、研究国家的收入状况、实践赋权建议、参与和研究合作。
结果
AGH 和 IJH 中的大多数研究都使用定量研究方法，但在 IJH 中更为常见（70%），而在 AGH 中则相对较少（48%），而在 AGH 中使用混合方法的研究（17%）则多于 IJH（9%）。两个期刊中的大多数研究都集中在低收入或中下收入国家，而在 AGH 研究中（16%）更侧重于高收入国家，而在 IJH 研究中（4%）则更侧重于高收入国家。在 AGH 研究中更常见的是提出赋权建议（90%）并让利益相关者/用户参与研究（40%），而在 IJH 研究中（75%的赋权建议和 18%的利益相关者/用户参与）则较少。在跨境研究合作方面没有观察到差异。
结论
本研究并未显示全球卫生与国际卫生研究之间存在巨大差异；但是，仍有一些差异表明，与国际卫生相比，全球卫生更侧重于研究的不同方面。需要进一步研究以了解全球和国际卫生定义之间的区别在现实生活中、在研究中以及在其他方面的应用方式和程度。
Zotero 插件