• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

相似文献

1
Conducting operational research in humanitarian settings: is there a shared path for humanitarians, national public health authorities and academics?在人道主义环境中开展运筹学研究:人道主义工作者、国家公共卫生当局和学者是否有共同的道路?
Confl Health. 2020 May 13;14:25. doi: 10.1186/s13031-020-00280-2. eCollection 2020.
2
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.考克兰新生儿协作网的未来。
Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.
3
A qualitative systematic review of internal and external influences on shared decision-making in all health care settings.对所有医疗环境中共同决策的内部和外部影响进行的定性系统评价。
JBI Libr Syst Rev. 2012;10(58):4633-4646. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2012-432.
4
Research as usual in humanitarian settings? Equalising power in academic-NGO research partnerships through co-production.人道主义背景下照常开展研究?通过共同生产实现学术-非政府组织研究伙伴关系中的权力平等。
Confl Health. 2021 Aug 26;15(1):64. doi: 10.1186/s13031-021-00399-w.
5
A case analysis of partnered research on palliative care for refugees in Jordan and Rwanda.约旦和卢旺达为难民提供姑息治疗的合作研究案例分析。
Confl Health. 2021 Jan 6;15(1):2. doi: 10.1186/s13031-020-00333-6.
6
Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.在流行地区,服用抗叶酸抗疟药物的人群中,叶酸补充剂与疟疾易感性和严重程度的关系。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217.
7
Lessons from a research partnership in southwest England to understand community palliative care needs in rural, coastal and low-income communities.英格兰西南部一项研究合作项目的经验教训,旨在了解农村、沿海和低收入社区的社区姑息治疗需求。
Public Health Res (Southampt). 2024 Feb 28:1-40. doi: 10.3310/ATFA4287.
8
An analysis of humanitarian and health aid alignment over a decade (2011-2019) of the Syrian conflict.对叙利亚冲突十年(2011 - 2019年)期间人道主义援助与卫生援助协调情况的分析。
Confl Health. 2022 Nov 9;16(1):57. doi: 10.1186/s13031-022-00495-5.
9
Carrying out embedded implementation research in humanitarian settings: A qualitative study in Cox's Bazar, Bangladesh.在人道主义环境中开展嵌入式实施研究:孟加拉国考克斯巴扎尔的定性研究。
PLoS Med. 2020 Jul 16;17(7):e1003148. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003148. eCollection 2020 Jul.
10
Public health equity in refugee situations.难民处境中的公共卫生公平性。
Confl Health. 2011 May 16;5:6. doi: 10.1186/1752-1505-5-6.

引用本文的文献

1
Renewable resilience in conflict: lessons learned from Syria's solar-powered electric health vehicles.冲突中的可再生恢复力:从叙利亚太阳能电动医疗车辆中汲取的经验教训。
Front Public Health. 2025 Apr 2;13:1560063. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2025.1560063. eCollection 2025.
2
Advancing Refugee Health Data Management: The Implementation of ICD-11 in UNRWA's Primary Care System.推进难民健康数据管理:在近东救济工程处初级保健系统中实施 ICD-11。
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2024 Aug 26;21(9):1121. doi: 10.3390/ijerph21091121.
3
Implementing and evaluating integrated care models for non-communicable diseases in fragile and humanitarian settings.在脆弱和人道主义环境中实施及评估非传染性疾病的综合照护模式。
J Migr Health. 2024 Mar 27;9:100228. doi: 10.1016/j.jmh.2024.100228. eCollection 2024.
4
Assessing the Effectiveness of a Multicomponent Intervention on Hand Hygiene and Well-Being in Primary Health Care Centers and Schools Lacking Functional Water Supply in Protracted Conflict Settings: Protocol for a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.评估多组分干预措施对长期冲突地区缺乏功能性供水的初级卫生保健中心和学校手部卫生及健康状况的效果:一项整群随机对照试验方案
JMIR Res Protoc. 2024 Apr 3;13:e52959. doi: 10.2196/52959.
5
Community-engagement in research in humanitarian settings.在人道主义环境中开展研究的社区参与。
Front Public Health. 2023 Aug 17;11:1208684. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1208684. eCollection 2023.
6
Developing an integrated model of care for vulnerable populations living with non-communicable diseases in Lebanon: an online theory of change workshop.为黎巴嫩患有非传染性疾病的弱势群体建立综合护理模式:在线变革理论研讨会。
Confl Health. 2023 Jul 21;17(1):35. doi: 10.1186/s13031-023-00532-x.
7
Understanding children's experiences of self-wetting in humanitarian contexts: An evaluation of the Story Book methodology.了解儿童在人道主义背景下尿床的经历:故事书方法的评估
PLOS Glob Public Health. 2023 May 15;3(5):e0001194. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0001194. eCollection 2023.
8
Advancing and translating knowledge: a systematic inquiry into the 2010-2020 mental health and psychosocial support intervention research evidence base.推进与转化知识:对2010 - 2020年心理健康与社会心理支持干预研究证据基础的系统探究
Glob Ment Health (Camb). 2022 Mar 23;9:133-145. doi: 10.1017/gmh.2022.6. eCollection 2022.
9
The Humanitarian Lives Saved Tool: An evidence-based approach for reproductive, maternal, newborn, and child health program planning in humanitarian settings.人道主义拯救生命工具:一种用于在人道主义环境中进行生殖、孕产妇、新生儿和儿童健康项目规划的循证方法。
J Glob Health. 2021 Nov 27;11:03102. doi: 10.7189/jogh.11.03102. eCollection 2021.
10
Conflict-related health research in Syria, 2011-2019: a scoping review for The Lancet - AUB Commission on Syria.2011 - 2019年叙利亚与冲突相关的健康研究:《柳叶刀》- 美国贝鲁特大学叙利亚委员会的范围综述
Confl Health. 2021 Dec 14;15(1):92. doi: 10.1186/s13031-021-00384-3.

本文引用的文献

1
North-South inequities in research collaboration in humanitarian and conflict contexts.人道主义和冲突背景下研究合作中的南北不平等。
Lancet. 2019 Nov 2;394(10209):1597-1600. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)32482-1.
2
Lebanon's essential health care benefit package: A gateway for universal health coverage.黎巴嫩基本医疗保健福利包:全民健康覆盖的门户。
Int J Health Plann Manage. 2019 Oct;34(4):e1921-e1936. doi: 10.1002/hpm.2850. Epub 2019 Jul 4.
3
Utilization of primary health care services among Syrian refugee and Lebanese women targeted by the ICRC program in Lebanon: a cross-sectional study.红十字国际委员会在黎巴嫩开展的项目所针对的叙利亚难民妇女和黎巴嫩妇女对初级卫生保健服务的利用情况:一项横断面研究。
Confl Health. 2019 Mar 15;13:7. doi: 10.1186/s13031-019-0190-4. eCollection 2019.
4
The dark side of coproduction: do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research?共同生产的阴暗面:对于健康研究来说,其成本是否超过了收益?
Health Res Policy Syst. 2019 Mar 28;17(1):33. doi: 10.1186/s12961-019-0432-3.
5
A narrative review of health research capacity strengthening in low and middle-income countries: lessons for conflict-affected areas.对中低收入国家卫生研究能力建设的叙述性回顾:冲突影响地区的经验教训。
Global Health. 2019 Mar 26;15(1):23. doi: 10.1186/s12992-019-0465-y.
6
Protecting women and children in conflict settings.在冲突环境中保护妇女和儿童。
BMJ. 2019 Mar 12;364:l1095. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l1095.
7
Academic promotion policies and equity in global health collaborations.学术晋升政策与全球卫生合作中的公平性。
Lancet. 2018 Nov 3;392(10158):1607-1609. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32345-6.
8
Can the use of digital algorithms improve quality care? An example from Afghanistan.数字算法的使用能否提高医疗质量?来自阿富汗的一个例子。
PLoS One. 2018 Nov 26;13(11):e0207233. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207233. eCollection 2018.
9
Does the Structured Operational Research and Training Initiative (SORT IT) continue to influence health policy and/or practice?结构化运筹学与培训倡议(SORT IT)是否继续影响卫生政策和/或实践?
Glob Health Action. 2018;11(1):1500762. doi: 10.1080/16549716.2018.1500762.
10
Evaluating the effectiveness of sexual and reproductive health services during humanitarian crises: A systematic review.评估人道主义危机期间性健康和生殖健康服务的效果:系统评价。
PLoS One. 2018 Jul 6;13(7):e0199300. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0199300. eCollection 2018.

在人道主义环境中开展运筹学研究:人道主义工作者、国家公共卫生当局和学者是否有共同的道路?

Conducting operational research in humanitarian settings: is there a shared path for humanitarians, national public health authorities and academics?

作者信息

Leresche Enrica, Truppa Claudia, Martin Christophe, Marnicio Ariana, Rossi Rodolfo, Zmeter Carla, Harb Hilda, Hamadeh Randa Sami, Leaning Jennifer

机构信息

International Committee of the Red Cross Delegation, Beirut, Lebanon.

2Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health, Boston, USA.

出版信息

Confl Health. 2020 May 13;14:25. doi: 10.1186/s13031-020-00280-2. eCollection 2020.

DOI:10.1186/s13031-020-00280-2
PMID:32435274
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7222467/
Abstract

In humanitarian contexts, it is a difficult and multi-faceted task to enlist academics, humanitarian actors and health authorities in a collaborative research effort. The lack of research in such settings has been widely described in the past decade, but few have analysed the challenges in building strong and balanced research partnerships. The major issues include considering operational priorities, ethical imperatives and power differentials. This paper analyses in two steps a collaborative empirical endeavour to assess health service utilization by Syrian refugee and Lebanese women undertaken by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), the Lebanese Ministry of Public Health (MoPH) and the Harvard François-Xavier Bagnoud (FXB) Center. First, based on challenges documented in the literature, we shed light on how we negotiated appropriate research questions, methodologies, bias analyses, resource availability, population specificities, security, logistics, funding, ethical issues and organizational cultures throughout the partnership. Second, we describe how the negotiations required each partner to go outside their comfort zones. For the academics, the drivers to engage included the intellectual value of the collaboration, the readiness of the operational partners to conduct an empirical investigation and the possibility that such work might lead to a better understanding in public health terms of how the response met population needs. For actors responding to the humanitarian crisis (the ICRC and the MOPH), participating in a technical collaboration permitted methodological issues to be worked through in the context of deliberations within the wider epistemic community. We find that when they collaborate, academics, humanitarian actors and health authorities deploy their respective complementarities to build a more comprehensive approach. Barriers such as the lack of uptake of research results or weak links to the existing literature were overcome by giving space to define research questions and develop a longer-term collaboration involving individual and institutional learning. There is the need ahead of time to create balanced decision-making mechanisms, allow for relative financial autonomy, and define organizational responsibilities. Ultimately, mutual respect, trust and the recognition of each other's expertise formed the basis of an initiative that served to better understand populations affected by conflict and meet their needs.

摘要

在人道主义背景下,让学者、人道主义行动者和卫生当局参与合作研究工作是一项艰巨且多方面的任务。在过去十年中,此类背景下研究的匮乏已被广泛描述,但很少有人分析建立强大且平衡的研究伙伴关系所面临的挑战。主要问题包括考虑行动优先事项、道德要求和权力差异。本文分两个步骤分析了红十字国际委员会(ICRC)、黎巴嫩公共卫生部(MoPH)和哈佛弗朗索瓦 - 泽维尔·巴格诺德(FXB)中心开展的一项合作实证研究,该研究旨在评估叙利亚难民和黎巴嫩妇女的卫生服务利用情况。首先,基于文献中记载的挑战,我们阐明了在整个伙伴关系中,我们是如何就合适的研究问题、方法、偏差分析、资源可用性、人群特殊性、安全、后勤、资金、伦理问题和组织文化进行协商的。其次,我们描述了这些协商如何要求每个伙伴走出自己的舒适区。对于学者而言,参与的驱动因素包括合作的学术价值、行动伙伴开展实证调查的意愿,以及此类工作可能有助于从公共卫生角度更好地理解应对措施如何满足人群需求。对于应对人道主义危机的行动者(红十字国际委员会和公共卫生部)来说,参与技术合作使得方法问题能够在更广泛的认知社区的审议背景下得到解决。我们发现,当学者、人道主义行动者和卫生当局进行合作时,他们会发挥各自的互补性,构建更全面的方法。通过留出空间来确定研究问题并开展涉及个人和机构学习的长期合作,克服了诸如研究结果未被采纳或与现有文献联系薄弱等障碍。提前创建平衡的决策机制、允许相对的财务自主权并明确组织责任是很有必要的。最终,相互尊重、信任以及对彼此专业知识的认可构成了一项旨在更好地了解受冲突影响人群并满足其需求的倡议的基础。