Suppr超能文献

英国医疗保健环境影响公众焦点小组:对协同效益方法的批判性分析

UK Public Focus Groups on Healthcare's Environmental Impacts: A Critical Analysis of Co-Benefits Approaches.

作者信息

Samuel Gabrielle, MacFarlane Miranda, Briggs Sarah

机构信息

Department of Global Health and Social Medicine, King's College London, London, UK.

Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

出版信息

Sociol Health Illn. 2025 Jun;47(5):e70058. doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.70058.

Abstract

The urgency of addressing climate change has accelerated the need for healthcare to mitigate its associated environmental harms. Co-benefits approaches are being used in policymaking to frame mitigation actions because they promise to deliver better health outcomes alongside environment benefits. Despite this, little empirical data exists on public perceptions about the acceptability and usefulness of this approach. We conducted 12 focus groups with 82 members of the UK public asking the question: what were participants' values, beliefs and experiences about the environmental harms associated with healthcare and how should these issues be conceptualised and addressed? Co-benefits framings resonated with participants, who perceived this approach as useful for prioritising healthcare needs while valuing the environment. However, when participants tried to frame co-benefits as a solution, they struggled to reconcile complexities. Furthermore, their discussions revealed a certain subjectivity and context-specificity in co-benefits framing, drawn from their own experiences and expectations of care. We emphasise paying attention to such subjectivities when developing co-benefits policies. This could be achieved by the inclusion of public and patient voices in policymaking. Any underlying assumptions associated with co-benefits policies-including which subjectivities are used in the framing and how tensions are resolved-must be made transparent.

摘要

应对气候变化的紧迫性加速了医疗保健领域减轻其相关环境危害的需求。在政策制定中,共同效益方法正被用于构建缓解行动,因为它们有望在带来环境效益的同时实现更好的健康结果。尽管如此,关于公众对这种方法的可接受性和有用性的看法,实证数据却很少。我们对82名英国公众成员进行了12次焦点小组访谈,提出的问题是:参与者对与医疗保健相关的环境危害有哪些价值观、信念和经历,以及这些问题应如何概念化和解决?共同效益框架引起了参与者的共鸣,他们认为这种方法有助于在重视环境的同时确定医疗保健需求的优先级。然而,当参与者试图将共同效益作为一种解决方案时,他们难以协调其中的复杂性。此外,他们的讨论揭示了共同效益框架中存在一定的主观性和情境特定性,这源于他们自己的经历和对护理的期望。我们强调在制定共同效益政策时要关注此类主观性。这可以通过在政策制定中纳入公众和患者的声音来实现。与共同效益政策相关的任何潜在假设——包括框架中使用了哪些主观性以及如何解决矛盾——都必须透明化。

相似文献

本文引用的文献

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