Are We Producing the Right Kind of Actionable Evidence for the Social Determinants of Health?

O’Campo, Patricia

doi:10.1007/s11524-012-9695-5

Cited by 20 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, in her evaluation of the kinds of evidence used in understanding the social determinants of health, O'Campo argues that "research should not stop at demonstrating whether and how a program or policy improves well-being. More detailed information is also needed to facilitate adaptation, tailoring, and implementation of those programs and policies to local settings and target populations" [37]. Further, while evidence drawn from large controlled intervention trials meets higher standards of rigour, this evidence is not necessarily the most applicable to 'real world' practice [38] and may hinder the implementation of costeffective interventions.…”

Section: Considerations For Public Health Policy and Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Mechanisms and pathways to impact in public health research: a preliminary analysis of research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)

Boulding

Kamenetzky

Ghiga

et al. 2020

BMC Med Res Methodol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The mechanisms and pathways to impacts from public health research in the UK have not been widely studied. Through the lens of one funder (NIHR), our aims are to map the diversity of public health research, in terms of funding mechanisms, disciplinary contributions, and public health impacts, identify examples of impacts, and pathways to impact that existing reporting mechanisms may not otherwise have captured, and provide illustrations of how public health researchers perceive the generation of non-academic impact from their work. Methods: A total of 1386 projects were identified as 'public health research' by the NIHR and listed in the NIHR Public Health Overview database (2000)(2001)(2002)(2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012)(2013)(2014)(2015)(2016). From these, a subset of 857 projects were matched as potentially having begun reporting impacts via an external data-gathering platform (Researchfish). Data on the 857 projects were analyzed quantitatively, and nine projects were selected to investigate further through semi-structured interviews with principal investigators. Two workshops took place to validate emerging and final findings and facilitate analysis.Results: In addition to the NIHR School for Public Health Research and the NIHR Public Health Research Programme, 89% of projects contained in the NIHR Public Health Overview portfolio as 'public health research' are funded via other NIHR research programmes, suggesting significant diversity in disciplines contributing to public health research and outcomes. The pathways to impact observed in our in-depth case studies include contributing to debates on what constitutes appropriate evidence for national policy change, acknowledging local 'unintended' impacts, building trusted relationships with stakeholders across health and non-health sectors and actors, collaborating with local authorities, and using non-academic dissemination channels. Conclusions: Public health as a discipline contributes substantially to impact beyond academia. To support the diversity of these impacts, we need to recognise localized smaller-scale impacts, and the difference in types of evidence required for community and local authority-based impacts. This will also require building capacity and resources to enable impact to take place from public health research. Finally, support is required for engagement with local authorities and working with non-health sectors that contribute to health outcomes.

show abstract

Section: Considerations For Public Health Policy and Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Mechanisms and pathways to impact in public health research: a preliminary analysis of research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)

Boulding

Kamenetzky

Ghiga

et al. 2020

BMC Med Res Methodol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Considered in relation to field, as also shown in Table 2, a large jump in the 1990s occurred in articles on epidemiologic theory also indexed by "social epidemiology" [51] or by disciplines in the social sciences (overall and by each classic social science) [52]. A similar rise occurred in the 2000s for "population health" [53] and "social determinants of health" [54]. By mid-2013, the respective number of such articles for these four fields equaled 122, 121, 50 and 52.…”

Section: Prominence By Fieldmentioning

confidence: 98%

Got Theory? On the 21st c. CE Rise of Explicit use of Epidemiologic Theories of Disease Distribution: A Review and Ecosocial Analysis

Krieger

2013

Curr Epidemiol Rep

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 1957, an anonymous editorial published in the American Journal of Public Health boldly titled itself, "Prediction and Theory in Epidemiology", and raised the ante even higher in its subtitle: "Where there is no vision the people perish. Proverbs XXIX.18" Theory is indeed inextricably linked to vision-the Greek word "theoria" refers to seeing inwards, such that to theorize is to use our mind's eye systematically, following articulated principles, to discern meaningful patterns among both ideas and observations, and to develop causal explanations. Until the last decade of the 20 th c. CE, however, development or analysis of epidemiologic theories of disease distribution in the mainstream Englishlanguage literature was a rare event. A shift is now underway. In this article, guided by the ecosocial theory of disease distribution, I review developments in contemporary use of explicit epidemiologic theories, and provide critical suggestions for their further development and application.

show abstract

“…A number of recent reflections on the current state of social epidemiology bemoan the discipline's lack of engagement with interventions to change health and reduce health inequalities [12•, 13-15]. For example, O'Campo et al [15] recently argued that social epidemiologists should be pursuing evaluations of macro-level policies and programs in order to provide evidence on solutions to the complex problems that inhere in the production and maintenance of health inequalities. Moreover, though there is enormous heterogeneity across outcomes and environments, many social epidemiologists have argued that social inequalities in health are increasing, and that our efforts to reduce them, even as the specific target of policies, have not been successful [16].…”

Section: Consequentialism and Social Epidemiologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Prominent epidemiologists, including William Foege [1], Willard Cates [3], and, most recently, Sandro Galea, have called for a more "consequentialist" epidemiology that prioritizes the "assessment of the potential contribution to population health of particular interventions implemented" [2•]. In the domain of social epidemiology, Patricia O'Campo recently questioned whether we are producing actionable evidence to address the social determinants of health and health inequality [4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Consequential Is Social Epidemiology? A Review of Recent Evidence

Nandi

Harper

2014

Curr Epidemiol Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A number of authors have suggested that epidemiology generally, and social epidemiology in particular, should be producing more consequential research to inform specific interventions for improving population health. However, the extent to which current research in social epidemiology prioritizes consequentialist questions is unknown. To provide some quantitative evidence on this question, we collected all abstracts accepted for either an oral or poster presentation at the annual meetings of the Society for Epidemiologic Research between 2009 and 2013. We identified all abstracts relating to the study of social determinants of health and classified each abstract as consequentialist if it evaluated the effect of a specific intervention. Among 619 abstracts examining social determinants of health, we classified 41 studies (6.6 % of total) as consequentialist, with minimal year-to-year variation. Little of social epidemiology appears to be focused on consequential research. Changes in pedagogy and greater involvement with the policy community may help.

show abstract

Are We Producing the Right Kind of Actionable Evidence for the Social Determinants of Health?

Cited by 20 publications

References 56 publications

Mechanisms and pathways to impact in public health research: a preliminary analysis of research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)

Mechanisms and pathways to impact in public health research: a preliminary analysis of research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)

Got Theory? On the 21st c. CE Rise of Explicit use of Epidemiologic Theories of Disease Distribution: A Review and Ecosocial Analysis

How Consequential Is Social Epidemiology? A Review of Recent Evidence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About