| Abstrakt: |
Aims: Traditionally, evidence in public health has been founded in health sciences using the hierarchy of evidence. In this Commentary, we argue that we need a combination of evidence based on a broad range of scientific disciplines and methodologies to best translate research into improved public health. Methods: Using existing concepts of evidence such as the hierarchy of evidence and the evidence typology, we discuss their pitfalls in public health science and suggest a way forward. We use the case of the MAMAACT intervention to exemplify our claims. Results: Public health does not apply an either/or perspective, but an integrated, theoretically informed approach based on mixed and multiple methods to understand complex health problems and how to tackle them. Ideally, public health decisions should always incorporate scientific evidence, although we need to fully acknowledge that the quality of evidence is defined by more than just being placed highest in the hierarchy of evidence. No method or study design is superior in obtaining evidence, but we need the combined and supplemented contributions from a range of scientific approaches to form a whole. Thus, we propose an integrated, multidisciplinary concept of evidence in the form of cogwheels, where the public health problem followed by the research question(s) will guide the components to be studied and the use of method(s) in an interplay with the decisions of the scientific perspective(s) that include choice of theories. Conclusions: We cannot understand or solve public health challenges without multidisciplinary approaches in a complimentary formation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
