Catalogue Search | MBRL
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
{{itemTitle}}
1,836,460
result(s) for
"Health Research"
Sort by:
The Health of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender People
At a time when lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals-often referred to under the umbrella acronym LGBT-are becoming more visible in society and more socially acknowledged, clinicians and researchers are faced with incomplete information about their health status. While LGBT populations often are combined as a single entity for research and advocacy purposes, each is a distinct population group with its own specific health needs. Furthermore, the experiences of LGBT individuals are not uniform and are shaped by factors of race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, geographical location, and age, any of which can have an effect on health-related concerns and needs.
The Health of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender People assesses the state of science on the health status of LGBT populations, identifies research gaps and opportunities, and outlines a research agenda for the National Institute of Health. The report examines the health status of these populations in three life stages: childhood and adolescence, early/middle adulthood, and later adulthood. At each life stage, the committee studied mental health, physical health, risks and protective factors, health services, and contextual influences. To advance understanding of the health needs of all LGBT individuals, the report finds that researchers need more data about the demographics of these populations, improved methods for collecting and analyzing data, and an increased participation of sexual and gender minorities in research.
The Health of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender People is a valuable resource for policymakers, federal agencies including the National Institute of Health (NIH), LGBT advocacy groups, clinicians, and service providers.
eBook
Women's Health Research
Even though slightly over half of the U.S. population is female, medical research historically has neglected the health needs of women. However, over the past two decades, there have been major changes in government support of women's health research-in policies, regulations, and the organization of research efforts. To assess the impact of these changes, Congress directed the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to ask the IOM to examine what has been learned from that research and how well it has been put into practice as well as communicated to both providers and women.
Women's Health Research finds that women's health research has contributed to significant progress over the past 20 years in lessening the burden of disease and reducing deaths from some conditions, while other conditions have seen only moderate change or even little or no change. Gaps remain, both in research areas and in the application of results to benefit women in general and across multiple population groups. Given the many and significant roles women play in our society, maintaining support for women's health research and enhancing its impact are not only in the interest of women, they are in the interest of us all.
eBook
Research methods in physical activity and health
\"Physical activity is a vital tool in preventing disease and managing recovery at a population level, with governments and health authorities relying on high-quality, university research into the risks associated with sedentary behaviour, optimal exercise prescription and effective lifestyle change to set and administer guidelines. Research Methods in Physical Activity and Health is the first book to comprehensively present the issues associated with physical activity and health research and introduce students and researchers to the methods available\"-- Provided by publisher.
Book
Quantitative methods for health research
A practical introduction to epidemiology, biostatistics, and research methodology for the whole health care community
This comprehensive text, which has been extensively revised with new material and additional topics, utilizes a practical slant to introduce health professionals and students to epidemiology, biostatistics, and research methodology. It draws examples from a wide range of topics, covering all of the main contemporary health research methods, including survival analysis, Cox regression, and systematic reviews and meta-analysis—the explanation of which go beyond introductory concepts. This second edition of Quantitative Methods for Health Research: A Practical Interactive Guide to Epidemiology and Statistics also helps develop critical skills that will prepare students to move on to more advanced and specialized methods.
A clear distinction is made between knowledge and concepts that all students should ensure they understand, and those that can be pursued further by those who wish to do so. Self-assessment exercises throughout the text help students explore and reflect on their understanding. A program of practical exercises in SPSS (using a prepared data set) helps to consolidate the theory and develop skills and confidence in data handling, analysis, and interpretation. Highlights of the book include:
* Combining epidemiology and bio-statistics to demonstrate the relevance and strength of statistical methods
* Emphasis on the interpretation of statistics using examples from a variety of public health and health care situations to stress relevance and application
* Use of concepts related to examples of published research to show the application of methods and balance between ideals and the realities of research in practice
* Integration of practical data analysis exercises to develop skills and confidence
* Supplementation by a student companion website which provides guidance on data handling in SPSS and study data sets as referred to in the text
Quantitative Methods for Health Research, Second Edition is a practical learning resource for students, practitioners and researchers in public health, health care and related disciplines, providing both a course book and a useful introductory reference.
eBook
Lost in the shadows: reflections on the dark side of co-production
This article is a response to Oliver et al.’s Commentary ‘The dark side of coproduction: do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research?’ recently published in
Health Research Policy and Systems
(2019, 17:33). The original commentary raises some important questions about how and when to co-produce health research, including highlighting various professional costs to those involved. However, we identify four related limitations in their inquiry, as follows: (1) the adoption of a problematically expansive definition of co-production that fails to acknowledge key features that distinguish co-production from broader collaboration; (2) a strong focus on technocratic rationales for co-producing research and a relative neglect of democratic rationales; (3) the transposition of legitimate concerns relating to collaboration between researchers and practitioners onto work with patients, service users and marginalised citizens; and (4) the presentation of bad
practice
as an inherent flaw, or indeed ‘dark side’, of co-production without attending to the corrupting influence of
contextual
factors within academic research that facilitate and even promote such malpractice. The Commentary’s limitations can be seen to reflect the contemporary use of the term ‘co-production’ more broadly. We describe this phenomenon as ‘cobiquity’ – an apparent appetite for participatory research practice and increased emphasis on partnership working, in combination with the related emergence of a plethora of ‘co’ words, promoting a conflation of meanings and practices from different collaborative traditions. This phenomenon commonly leads to a misappropriation of the term ‘co-production’. Our main motivation is to address this imprecision and the detrimental impact it has on efforts to enable co-production with marginalised and disadvantaged groups. We conclude that Oliver et al. stray too close to ‘the problem’ of ‘co-production’ seeing only the dark side rather than what is casting the shadows. We warn against such a restricted view and argue for greater scrutiny of the structural factors that largely explain academia’s failure to accommodate and promote the egalitarian and utilitarian potential of co-produced research.
Journal Article
Achieving Research Impact Through Co-creation in Community-Based Health Services: Literature Review and Case Study
Context: Co-creation—collaborative knowledge generation by academics working alongside other stakeholders—reflects a \"Mode 2\" relationship (knowledge production rather than knowledge translation) between universities and society. Co-creation is widely believed to increase research impact. Methods: We undertook a narrative review of different models of co-creation relevant to community-based health services. We contrasted their diverse disciplinary roots and highlighted their common philosophical assumptions, principles of success, and explanations for failures. We applied these to an empirical case study of a community-based research-service partnership led by the Centre of Research Excellence in Quality and Safety in Integrated Primary-Secondary Care at the University of Queensland, Australia. Findings: Co-creation emerged independently in several fields, including business studies (\"value co-creation\"), design science (\"experience-based co-design\"), computer science (\"technology co-design\"), and community development (\"participatory research\"). These diverse models share some common features, which were also evident in the case study. Key success principles included (1) a systems perspective (assuming emergence, local adaptation, and nonlinearity); (2) the framing of research as a creative enterprise with human experience at its core; and (3) an emphasis on process (the framing of the program, the nature of relationships, and governance and facilitation arrangements, especially the style of leadership and how conflict is managed). In both the literature review and the case study, co-creation \"failures\" could often be tracked back to abandoning (or never adopting) these principles. All co-creation models made strong claims for significant and sustainable societal impacts as a result of the adaptive and developmental research process; these were illustrated in the case study. Conclusions: Co-creation models have high potential for societal impact but depend critically on key success principles. To capture the nonlinear chains of causation in the co-creation pathway, impact metrics must reflect the dynamic nature and complex interdependencies of health research systems and address processes as well as outcomes.
Journal Article