4.6 Article

Building the Evidence Base to Inform Planned Intervention Adaptations by Practitioners Serving Health Disparity Populations

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 109, 期 -, 页码 S94-S101

出版社

AMER PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOC INC
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2018.304915

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health: the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD)
  2. National Institutes of Health: National Institute on Drug Abuse
  3. National Institutes of Health: Office of Research on Women's Health
  4. National Institutes of Health: Office of Disease Prevention
  5. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON MINORITY HEALTH AND HEALTH DISPARITIES [ZIAMD000014] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Many evidence-based interventions (EBIs) have been developed to prevent or treat major health conditions. However, many EBIs have exhibited limited adoption, reach, and sustainability when implemented in diverse community settings. This limitation is especially pronounced in low-resource settings that serve health disparity populations. Often, practitioners identify problems with existing EBIs originally developed and tested with populations different from their target population and introduce needed adaptations to make the intervention more suitable. Although some EBIs have been extensively adapted for diverse populations and evaluated, most local adaptations to improve fit for health disparity populations are not well documentedor evaluated. As a result, empirical evidence is often lacking regarding the potential effectiveness of specific adaptations practitioners may be considering. We advocate an expansion in the emphasis of adaptation research from researcher-led interventions to research that informs practitioner-led adaptations. By presenting a research vision and strategies needed to build this area of science, we aim to inform research that facilitates successful adaptation and equitable implementation and delivery of EBIs that reduce health disparities.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据