• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>BMC International Health and Human Rights >From international health to global health: how to foster a better dialogue between empirical and normative disciplines
【24h】

From international health to global health: how to foster a better dialogue between empirical and normative disciplines

机译：从国际卫生到全球卫生：如何促进经验和规范学科之间的更好对话

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Background Public health recommendations are usually based on a mixture of empirical evidence and normative arguments: to argue that authorities ought to implement an intervention that has proven effective in improving people’s health requires a normative position confirming that the authorities are responsible for improving people’s health. While public health (at the national level) is based on a widely accepted normative starting point – namely, that it is the responsibility of the state to improve people’s health – there is no widely accepted normative starting point for international health or global health. As global health recommendations may vary depending on the normative starting point one uses, global health research requires a better dialogue between researchers who are trained in empirical disciplines and researchers who are trained in normative disciplines. Discussion Global health researchers with a background in empirical disciplines seem reluctant to clarify the normative starting point they use, perhaps because normative statements cannot be derived directly from empirical evidence, or because there is a wide gap between present policies and the normative starting point they personally support. Global health researchers with a background in normative disciplines usually do not present their work in ways that help their colleagues with a background in empirical disciplines to distinguish between what is merely personal opinion and professional opinion based on rigorous normative research. If global health researchers with a background in empirical disciplines clarified their normative starting point, their recommendations would become more useful for their colleagues with a background in normative disciplines. If global health researchers who focus on normative issues used adapted qualitative research guidelines to present their results, their findings would be more useful for their colleagues with a background in empirical disciplines. Summary Although a single common paradigm for all scientific disciplines that contribute to global health research may not be possible or desirable, global health researchers with a background in empirical disciplines and global health researchers with a background in normative disciplines could present their ‘truths’ in ways that would improve dialogue. This paper calls for an exchange of views between global health researchers and editors of medical journals.
机译：背景信息公共卫生建议通常基于经验证据和规范性论点的混合：要说当局应实施一种已被证明能有效改善人们健康的干预措施，就需要一个规范性立场，以确认当局有责任改善人们的健康。尽管（国家一级的）公共卫生基于一个公认的规范起点（即，改善人民的健康是国家的责任），但国际卫生或全球卫生没有一个公认的规范起点。由于全球卫生建议可能会根据一个使用的规范起点而有所不同，因此全球卫生研究要求在经验学科中接受培训的研究人员与经验学科中接受培训的研究人员之间进行更好的对话。讨论具有经验学科背景的全球卫生研究人员似乎不愿澄清他们使用的规范起点，这可能是因为规范陈述不能直接从经验证据中得出，或者是因为现行政策与他们本人的规范起点之间存在很大差距支持。具有规范学科背景的全球卫生研究人员通常不会以帮助具有经验学科背景的同事的方式来介绍他们的工作，这些同事可以基于严格的规范研究来区分仅仅是个人意见还是专业意见。如果具有经验学科背景的全球卫生研究人员阐明他们的规范起点，那么他们的建议对于具有经验学科背景的同事将变得更加有用。如果专注于规范性问题的全球卫生研究人员使用了适应性的定性研究指南来展示其结果，那么他们的发现对于具有经验学科背景的同事将更加有用。总结尽管不可能或不希望为全球卫生研究做出贡献的所有科学学科有一个共同的范式，但是具有经验学科背景的全球卫生研究人员和具有规范学科背景的全球卫生研究人员可以通过各种方式展示其“真相”这将改善对话。本文呼吁全球卫生研究人员和医学期刊编辑之间交换意见。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号