This doctoral thesis evolved around the issue of how to evaluate the
effectiveness of health promotion and prevention such that it matches
the criteria for sound scientific research and at the same time produces
knowledge that can more easily be embedded in routine medical practice.
In other words, this thesis concerned the issue of how to bridge the
science-practice gap in complex public health settings.
In this doctoral thesis one example of an evaluation methodology has
been analysed that tried to accomplish this. An ethnographic case study
has been performed of the Quattro Study: a pragmatic trial for
evaluating the effectiveness of multidisciplinary patient care teams for
the prevention of cardiovascular risk in primary health care practice
in deprived neighbourhoods in Rotterdam and The Hague in the
Netherlands. The ethnographic findings show how the pragmatic trial
methodology and its instruments help to overcome the dichotomy between
routine medical practice and scientific evaluation.
This doctoral thesis allows for a fundamental rethinking of the
pragmatic trial methodology not as a new mode of evaluating complex
interventions in prevention and health promotion, but as an
infrastructure for pragmatically embedding innovation(s) in primary
health care. Building on the performativity of the infrastructure that
is the pragmatic trial, such embedding of innovations can be more
fruitfully explored and tested. The problem with the pragmatic trial
methodology is not that it is pragmatic. The problem is that it is not
pragmatic enough!
http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/31742/volledige%20proefschrift%20Yvonne%20Jansen.pdf
http://repub.eur.nl/res/pub/31742/volledige%20proefschrift%20Yvonne%20Jansen.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment