Andreas Marike, Jabakhanji Samira Barbara
Medical Faculty Mannheim, Division of Public Health, Social and Preventive Medicine, Center for Preventive Medicine and Digital Health, Heidelberg University, Mannheim, Germany.
Front Psychol. 2023 Sep 7;14:1247703. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1247703. eCollection 2023.
In their recently published paper, Chater and Loewenstein critically elaborate on the differences between interventions that focus on individual behavior ('i-frame'), as opposed to the systems in which health behavior occurs ('s-frame'). They point out that behavioral scientists frequently rely on individual-level interventions, rather than systemic change to improve population health. As individual-level interventions have fallen short of the author's expectations to fix health problems, the authors argue that behavioral scientists should focus more on system-level change. They warn behavioral scientists that by framing disease as an individual problem they hinder real change. We agree with the arguments made by the authors; nevertheless, we propose that bringing underlying causes for the i-frame focus to light would advance their argument. In our commentary, we discuss that neoliberalism might be a reason for the focus on individual interventions in behavioral health sciences.
在他们最近发表的论文中，查特和洛温斯坦批判性地阐述了关注个体行为的干预措施（“i框架”）与健康行为发生的系统（“s框架”）之间的差异。他们指出，行为科学家经常依赖个体层面的干预措施，而不是系统性变革来改善人群健康。由于个体层面的干预措施未能达到作者解决健康问题的预期，作者认为行为科学家应更多地关注系统层面的变革。他们警告行为科学家，将疾病框定为个体问题会阻碍真正的变革。我们同意作者提出的论点；然而，我们建议揭示i框架关注的潜在原因将推进他们的论点。在我们的评论中，我们讨论了新自由主义可能是行为健康科学中关注个体干预措施的一个原因。
