Macías-Chapula CA

Language: Spanish
References: 30
Page: 624-631
PDF size: 115.04 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective. To design a conceptual model on the transference of public health research results at the local, context level. Materials and methods. Using systems thinking concepts, a soft systems approach (SSM) was used to analyse and solve what was perceived as a problem situation related to the transference of research results within Honduras public health system. A bibliometric analysis was also conducted to enrich the problem situation. Results. Six root definitions were defined and modeled as relevant to the expressed problem situation. This led to the development of the conceptual model. The model obtained identified four levels of resolution as derived from the human activities involved in the transference of research results: 1) those of the researchers; 2) the information/documentation professionals; 3) health staff; and 4) the population/society. These actors/ clients and their activities were essential to the functioning of the model since they represent what the model is and does. Conclusions. SSM helped to design the conceptual model. The bibliometric analysis was relevant to construct the rich image of the problem situation.

REFERENCES

1. Alger J, Becerra-Posada F, Kennedy A, Martinelli E, Cuervo LG, Grupo Colaborativo de la Primera Conferencia Latinoamericana de Investigación e Innovación para la Salud. Sistemas nacionales de investigación para la salud en América Latina: una revisión de 14 países. Rev Panam Salud Pública 2009; 26(5): 447-457.

2. Global Forum on Health Research. The 10/90 report on health research. Geneve: World Health Organization, 1999.

3. Frenk J. Balancing relevance and excellence: organizational responses to link research with decision making. Soc Sci Med 1992; 35:1397-1404.

4. Gibbons M. Science’s new social contract with society. Nature 1999; 402(Suppl):82-84.

5. Lomas J. Diffusion, dissemination, and implementation: Who should do what? Ann NY Academy Science 1993; 703:226-235.

6. Lomas J. Improving research dissemination and uptake in the health sector: Beyond the sound of one hand clapping. Ontario: Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, McMaster University, 1997.

7. Almeida C, Bascolo E. Use of research results in policy decisionmaking, formulation, and implementation: a review of the literature. Cad Saúde Pública 2006; 22:S7-S19.

8. Levitan KB. Information resources as goods in the lifecycle of information production. JASIS 1982; 3(1):44-54.

9. Macías-Chapula CA. Estudio explorativo sobre un modelo de comunicación de la ciencia en el área de la salud. En: Almada de Ascencio M. editor. Memorias del Simposio Internacional de investigación sobre la comunicación científica: un enfoque multidisciplinario. México: UNAM/ CUIB, 2002: 55-68.

10. Hanney S, Kuruvilla S, Soper B, Mays N. Who needs what from a national health research system; lessons from reforms to the English Department of Health’s R&D system. Health Res Policy Syst 2010; 8:11.

11. González-Block MA, Mercado FJ, Ochoa H, Rivera H, Idrovo AJ. Utilización de la investigación por gestores de salud en México: diagnóstico de la capacidad y propuestas de fortalecimiento. Salud Publica Mex 2008; 50:498-507.

12. Macintosh-Murray A, Terrier L, Davis D. Research to practice in The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions: A thematic analysis of volumes 1 through 24. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2006; 26(3):230-243.

13. Masi CM, Suarez-Balcazar Y, Cassey MZ, Kinney L, Piotrowski ZH. Internet access and empowerment: a community-based health initiative. J Gen Intern Med 2003; 18(7):525-530.

14. Lavis JN, Ross SE, Hurley JE. Examining the role of health services research in public policy making. Milbank Q 2002; 80:125-154.

15. Rich RF. Measuring knowledge utilization processes and outcomes. Knowledge & policy. Int J Knowledge Transfer Util 1997; 10:11-24.

16. Checkland P. Systems thinking, systems practice. Chichester: Willey & Sons, 1981.

17. Checkland P. Achieving “desirable and feasible” change: An application of Soft Systems Methodology. J Opl Res Soc 1985; 36:821-831.

18. Checkland P. Soft systems methodology in action. Chichester: Wiley & Sons, 1999.

19. Checkland P, Winter M. Process and content: two ways of using SSM. J Opl Res Soc 2006; 57:1435-1441.

20. Castellanos P. Evolución histórica de la salud en Honduras durante el siglo XX. Rev Med Hondur 2005; 73(S2):17-36.

21. PNS2021 Honduras. Plan Nacional de Salud 2021. Tegucigalpa, Honduras: Secretaría de Estado en el Despacho de Salud, 2005.

22. Johnson C. Framing and politics of public health: an examination of competing health narratives in Honduras. Glob Public Health 2010; 5(1):1-14.

23. Jackson MC. Fifty years of systems thinking for management. J Opl Res Soc 2009; 60:S24-S32.

24. van de Water H, Schinkel M, Rozier R. Fields of application of SSM: categorization of publications. J Opl Res Soc 2007; 58:271-287.

25. McKinlay JB. Health promotion through healthy public policy: the contribution of complementary research methods. Can J Public Health 1992; 83 Suppl 1:S11-S19.

26. Macías-Chapula CA. Hacia un modelo de comunicación en salud pública en América Latina y el Caribe. Rev Panam Salud Pública 2005; 18(6): 427-438.

27. Freire P. Educación como práctica de la libertad. México: Siglo XXI, 1966.

28. Bourdieu P. Razones prácticas. Sobre la teoría de la acción. Barcelona: Anagrama, 1997.

29. Programa de Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo (PNUD). El PNUD en acción 2011: Desarrollo centrado en las personas. [monografía en internet] PNUD 2011 [consultado 2012 abril 12]. Disponible en http:// www.undp.org

30. Ospina EG, Reveiz-Herault L, Cardona AF. Uso de bases de datos bibliográficas por investigadores biomédicos latinoamericanos hispanoparlantes: estudio transversal. Rev Panam Salud Pública 2005; 17(4):226-232.