Weisz George, Harper Jonathan
Dept. Social Studies of Medicine, McGill University, 3647 Peel Street, Montreal, QC, H3A 1X1, Canada.
Health Res Policy Syst. 2024 Jan 26;22(1):16. doi: 10.1186/s12961-023-01075-6.
Of numerous proposed frameworks for analyzing and impacting health systems, three stand out for the large number of publications that cite them and for their links to influential international institutions: Murray and Frenk (Bull World Health Organ 78:717-31, 2000) connected initially to the World Health Organization (WHO) and then to the Global Burden of Disease Project; Roberts et al. (Getting health reform right: a guide to improving performance and equity, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004) sponsored by the World Bank/Harvard Flagship Program; and de Savigny and Adam (Systems thinking for health systems strengthening, WHO, 2009) linked to the WHO and the Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research. In this paper, we examine the citation communities that form around these works to better understand the underlying logic of these citation grouping as well as the dynamics of Global Health research on health systems. We conclude that these groupings are largely independent of one another, reflecting a range of factors including the goals of each framework and the problems that it was meant to explore, the prestige and authority of institutions and individuals associated with these frameworks, and the intellectual and geographic proximity of the citing researchers to each other and to the framework authors.
在众多提出的用于分析和影响卫生系统的框架中,有三个因其被大量出版物引用以及与有影响力的国际机构的联系而脱颖而出:默里和弗伦克(《世界卫生组织公报》78:717 - 31, 2000)最初与世界卫生组织(WHO)相关,随后与全球疾病负担项目相关;罗伯茨等人(《正确进行卫生改革:提高绩效与公平性指南》,牛津大学出版社,牛津,2004)由世界银行/哈佛旗舰项目赞助;德萨维尼和亚当(《卫生系统强化的系统思维》,WHO,2009)与WHO以及卫生政策与系统研究联盟相关。在本文中,我们研究围绕这些著作形成的引用群体,以更好地理解这些引用分组的潜在逻辑以及全球卫生领域关于卫生系统研究的动态。我们得出结论,这些分组在很大程度上相互独立,反映了一系列因素,包括每个框架的目标及其旨在探索的问题、与这些框架相关的机构和个人的声望与权威,以及引用研究人员彼此之间以及与框架作者在知识和地理上的接近程度。