全球疫苗和免疫接种计划疫苗研究和发展

全球疫苗和免疫接种计划疫苗研究和发展谭明文译徐兆炜校１９９６年，世界卫生组织全球疫苗和免疫接种计划将提供启动基金资助以东方国家为目标的研究课题，优先资助领域和内容如下。研究计划申请必须在截止日期前收到。１疾病的特异性疫苗细菌性和病毒性腹泻及伤寒［截止...     

高等医学院校如何加强基础性研究

高等医学院校在发展我国医学基础研究领域发挥了重要作用，但由于其区别于科学院系统，有其自身的特点，在有所为有所不为的方针指导下，如何突出重点，深入开展医学基础研究，推动医学科学的发展，本文就此做些探讨。一、选择优先资助领域，发挥综合优势医学基础研究优先...     

我国农村改水发展战略和对策

本文在深入分析了我国农村改水现状的基础上,结合我国国情提出了以“科学先导、依法改水、改管并重、广泛参与、多方集资、资助贫病、多种形式、提高效益”的农村改水发展战略。文中还讨论了国家优先资助农村改水项目的原则和具体意见。对于地方改水规划的内容和要求制定了评分标准,有很好的实用性和可操作性。     

改善中国农村生育卫生服务的思考与切入点

世界卫生组织根据生育卫生的定义,全球生育卫生的现状及亟需进行研究的重大问题,筛选出１０个宜优先考虑的研究领域,其中首要的便是生育卫生规划与项目。生育卫生规划已逐渐成为各国卫生部门的一项重要工作。生育卫生项目对改善人群生育卫生同样具有重大意义。卫生部国外贷款办公室在福特基金会资助下,结合世界银行贷款卫生Ⅷ项目开展了“改善生育卫生服务项目”（ＲＨＩＰ项目）。作者结合ＲＨＩＰ项目探讨了改善中国农村生育卫     

世界卫生组织的政策类型及其特点

世界卫生组织的政策是一种全球范围的公共政策,发挥着创制全球性规则、开展全球性行动的作用。本文阐述了世界卫生组织政策的特征与作用,从多个角度分析了其政策类型,研究了政策制定的过程,并对不同类型政策的效力进行比较,讨论了世界卫生组织政策的特点,指出其影响力弱、难于落实和评价等局限性。对我们全面了解和准确把握世界卫生组织政策,进而参与其政策制定有一定借鉴意义。     

上海市卫生研究系统管理分析及改进建议

通过文献评阅和关键知情人访谈，了解目前上海市卫生研究系统的管理构架和领导能力，包括制定研究优先领域、伦理委员会建设、卫生研究管理法规、信息管理等方面的情况。研究发现卫生研究管理方面的一些薄弱环节，建议卫生研究系统加强对优先领域的投资、加强卫生研究法规建设与信息建设等。     

2008-2012年国家自然科学基金肿瘤学领域资助项目SCI论文产出情况分析

本文以2008-2012年间国家自然科学基金肿瘤学领域资助的5431个基金项目为研究对象,利用Web of Science数据平台,从肿瘤学各研究领域、项目类型、获得较高经费资助的依托单位三个方面分析科学基金项目的SCI论文产出情况,探讨合理有效地使用经费、努力实现低投入高产出的方法,为科研人员和科研管理部门改进工作、制定相关政策提供依据。     

本刊优先发表“基金论文”通知

为迅速报道我国疾病监测与控制领域各项科研成果，本刊决定对于获国家或省部级基金资助的科研论文予以优先发表，需提供单位推荐函、基金项目和编号。     

职业健康促进对职业危害防治效果的调查

目前职业卫生安全仍是一项各国政府议事日程中优先考虑的问题。国际劳工组织（ILO）制定了“职业安全、卫生与环境全球规划”，世界卫生组织（WHO）制定了“人人享有职业卫生全球战略”。健康促进（Healthpromotion）已被WHO列为战略重点项目，其中职业人群的健康促进已成为职业卫生的重要内容。     

世界首个异种移植国际标准将在长沙产生

近日，由国家卫生部和世界卫生组织、国际异种移植协会、中南大学共同主办的“全球异种移植临床研究规范国际研讨会”在长沙召开。会上，来自全球24个国家的44名异种移植研究领域的专家，在世界卫生组织（WHO）的主持下，正一起讨论制定一份各成员国开展异种移植临床研究应遵循的标准。这是WHO首次在中国制定医学临床研究的国际标准。     

A checklist for health research priority setting: nine common themes of good practice

Health research priority setting processes assist researchers and policymakers in effectively targeting research that has the greatest potential public health benefit. Many different approaches to health research prioritization exist, but there is no agreement on what might constitute best practice. Moreover, because of the many different contexts for which priorities can be set, attempting to produce one best practice is in fact not appropriate, as the optimal approach varies per exercise. Therefore, following a literature review and an analysis of health research priority setting exercises that were organized or coordinated by the World Health Organization since 2005, we propose a checklist for health research priority setting that allows for informed choices on different approaches and outlines nine common themes of good practice. It is intended to provide generic assistance for planning health research prioritization processes. The checklist explains what needs to be clarified in order to establish the context for which priorities are set; it reviews available approaches to health research priority setting; it offers discussions on stakeholder participation and information gathering; it sets out options for use of criteria and different methods for deciding upon priorities; and it emphasizes the importance of well-planned implementation, evaluation and transparency.     

Using participatory action research to build a priority setting process in a Canadian Regional Health Authority

Due to resource scarcity, every health system worldwide must decide what services to fund, and conversely, what services not to fund. In order to institute and refine a macro-level priority setting framework within a large, urban health authority in Alberta, Canada, researchers and decision makers together embarked on a participatory action research (PAR) project. The focus of this paper is the PAR process in this context, including reflections from PAR participants about the contribution of the research methodology to their own practice as health care managers and clinicians. The use of qualitative research in health economics--in this case, to refine the application of a macro-level priority setting model--is a relatively new advancement. PAR proved to be an appropriate and helpful approach to introducing a theoretically driven model of macro-level priority setting within a large, complex health organization. However, it is important that support for the change is sustained as long as necessary to embed the new practices into the organization.     

Effectiveness of health-promoting media literacy education: a systematic review

Media literacy education to promote health among youth involves them in a critical examination of media messages that promote risky behaviors and influence their perceptions and practices. Research on its effectiveness is in its infancy. Studies to date have been conducted with more or less rigor and achieved differing results, leaving many questions about effectiveness unanswered. To elucidate some of these questions, we conducted a systematic review of selected health-promoting media literacy education evaluation/research studies, guided by the following research question: What are the context and process elements of an effective health-promoting media literacy education intervention? Based on extensive analysis of 28 interventions, our findings provide a detailed picture of a small, 16- to 17-year (1990 to July 2006) body of important research, including citation information, health issue, target population/N/age, research design, intervention length and setting, concepts/skills taught, who delivered the intervention and ratings of effectiveness. The review provides a framework for organizing research about media literacy education which suggests that researchers should be more explicit about the media literacy core concepts/skills they are including in their interventions, and should more carefully address who delivered the intervention with what fidelity, in what setting, for how long and utilizing what pedagogical approach.     

The evidence-based approach in health policy and health care delivery

Evidence-based approaches are prominent on the national and international agendas for health policy and health research. It is unclear what the implications of this approach are for the production and distribution of health in populations, given the notion of multiple determinants in health. It is equally unclear what kind of barriers there are to the adoption of evidence-based approaches in health care practice. This paper sketches some developments in the way in which health policy is informed by the results from health research. It summarises evidence-based approaches in health at three impact levels: intersectoral assessment, national health care policy, and evidence-based medicine in everyday practice. Consensus is growing on the role of broad and specific health determinants, including health care, as well as on priority setting based on the burden of diseases. In spite of methodological constraints, there is a demand for intersectoral assessments, especially in health sector reform. Initiators of policy changes in other sectors may be held responsible for providing the evidence related to health. There are limited possibilities for priority setting at the national health care policy level. Hence, there is a decentralisation of responsibilities for resource use. Health care providers are encouraged to assume agency roles for both patients and society and asked to promote and deliver effective and efficient health care. Governments will have to design a national framework to facilitate their organisation and legal framework to enhance evidence-based health policy. Treatment guidelines supported by evidence on effectiveness and efficiency will be one essential element in this process. With the increasing number of advocates for the enhancement of population health in the policy arenas, evidence-based approaches provide the information and some of the tools to help with priority setting.     

Action Research—a Necessary Complement to Traditional Health Science?

There is continuing interest in action research in health care. This is despite action researchers facing major problems getting support for their projects from mainstream sources of R&D funds partly because its validity is disputed and partly because it is difficult to predict or evaluate and is therefore seen as risky. In contrast traditional health science dominates and relies on compliance with strictly defined scientific method and rules of accountability. Critics of scientific health care have highlighted many problems including a perpetual quality gap between what is publicly expected and what is deliverable in the face of rising costs and the cultural variability of scientific medicine. Political demand to close the quality gap led to what can be seen as an elitist reform of policy on UK health research by concentrating more resources on better fewer centres and this may also have reduced support for action research. However, incompetent, unethical or criminal clinical practice in the UK has shifted policy towards greater patient and public involvement in health care and research. This highlights complementarity between health science and action research because action research can, as UK health policy requires, involve patients and public in priority setting, defining research outcomes, selecting research methodology, patient recruitment, and interpretation of findings and dissemination of results. However action research will remain marginalised unless either scientific research is transformed generally into a more reflective cycle or there is increased representation of action research enthusiasts within the establishment of health R&D or current peer review and public accountability arrangements are modified. None of these seem likely at this time. The case for complementarity is illustrated with two case studies.     

Priority setting in primary health care: a framework for local catchments

Managers and staff in primary health care partnerships in local catchments, particularly in regional areas, are periodically required to work collaboratively to set health priorities. Setting priorities involves making decisions about which health needs are most important and what programs will be funded to address them. There is no universally agreed set of decision-making rules for setting priorities. Dominant approaches prioritise health economics, and have favoured expert knowledge drawn from technical-rational methodologies rather than consumer involvement and community action. However, research reveals that setting priorities is a complex, value laden, contested process buffeted by competing objectives and political interests. As such, an interdisciplinary, collaborative approach is called for. Using reflective practice from a priority setting project for a primary care partnership in a local, regional catchment in Victoria, Australia, a conceptual framework for priority setting is presented that identifies 13 interconnected factors spanning economic, political, policy, epidemiological, moral, evidentiary and evaluative domains. This interdisciplinary framework extends current knowledge about the considerations and trade-offs in setting priorities among collaborating primary health care agencies. It offers a potentially valuable heuristic tool for healthcare decision-makers in rural areas.     

Research methods,evidence and public health

In theory, our research questions should drive our choice of method. In practice, we know this is not always the case. At various stages of the research process different factors may apply to restrict the choice of research method. These filters might include a series of inter-related factors such as the political context of the research, the disciplinary affiliation of the researchers, the research setting and peer-review. We suggest that as researchers conduct research and encounter the various filters they come to know the methods that are more likely to survive the filtering process. In future projects they may favour these methods. Public health problems and research questions may increasingly be framed in the terms that can be addressed by a restricted array of methods. Innovative proposals - where new methods are applied to old problems, old methods to new areas of inquiry and high-quality interdisciplinary research - may be unlikely to survive the processes of filtering. This may skew the public health knowledge base, limiting public health action. We argue that we must begin to investigate the process of research. We need to document how and why particular methods are chosen to investigate particular sets of public health problems. This will help us understand how we know what we know in public health and help us plan how we may more appropriately draw upon a range of research methods.     

The role of computers in health education: some lessons from instructional technology.

There is an emerging consensus on the potentially positive applications of computers in health and patient education. Microcomputers are losing their novelty and gaining popularity with the general and professional public. There is a tendency to rush to computerize the classroom or other educational setting, while bypassing certain basic questions. Health educators should investigate in what areas the computer can help, in what areas use of computers may prove counterproductive, and the proper place of computers in education. Computers will not bring sudden changes in health and patient education. Computers will not, by themselves, create innovation in health and patient education practice. Computers will neither solve educational problems nor play a role as panacea. For educators to effectively use computers in health education, studies should be designed that provide practical suggestions in designing instructional materials and give answers to questions raised in the classroom setting. Longitudinal studies should be emphasized rather than short-term research which provides only limited implications. Individual subject differences should be considered in these studies, not in relation to learning speed but in terms of processing information. Effectiveness should be verified, while considering the interaction of computer attributes, learner cognitive style, and subject matter. On the basis of these research studies, health educators should collaborate on formulating goals, providing guidelines, designing and developing software, and incorporating computers into the existing curriculum. In this way, health educators can benefit from this new educational medium, which undoubtedly will be an integral part of future learning environments.