Search

Kapitel giver en indføring i læsning og vurdering af videnskabelige tekster om sundhedspædagogik, sundhedsfremme og forebyggelse. Videnskabelige tekster har i dag status som den ypperligste vidensformidling inden for forskning, og tekster publiceret i videnskabeligt anerkendte tidsskrifter anses for at repræsentere en troværdig og sandfærdig viden. Imidlertid hviler al forskningsformidling på forskning og undersøgelser, der er gennemført efter forskellige videnskabelige traditioner og metoder, hvilket igen har betydning for de resultater, som forskningen producerer. For at kunne vurdere udsigelseskraften i forskningens resultater er det vigtigt, at sundhedsprofessionelle har indsigt i de overordnede videnskabelige forskningstraditioner med henblik på at kunne gennemskue og reflektere over forskningsbaseret litteratur og den viden som den producerer. Refleksion vil i dette tilfælde sige at være bevidst om, at empirisk forskning er tolkende, og at dens argumenter konstruerer det, som forskeren ønsker at sige noget om.Målet med kapitlet er, at læseren bliver i stand til at reflektere over den forskningsbaserede litteratur, og kan evaluere dens tilgang/metode, samt hvordan man omsætter resultaterne til en sundhedspædagogisk praksis. Efter at have læst kapitlet kan læseren:•Skelne mellem forskellige videnskabelige metodetilgange og de paradigmer, som de bygger på•Vurdere videnskabelige tekster, forskningens resultater og dens udsigelseskraft•Reflektere over etiske problemstillinger, som forskellige forskningstraditioner rejser i relation til sundhedsfremme/-pædagogik

Udgivelsesdato: september 2009

Udgivelsesdato: August 2008

Introduction: Preventing different kinds of health risks is central to general practice, yet little is understood of the mechanisms people use in handling risk.Aim: To analyze how people handle risk in everyday life. Methods: A comparative study on risk in; earth pollution; radiation from mobile phones; chemicals in a nursery; elevated cholesterol was combined to analyse the concept of risk in everyday life. In-depth qualitative interviews with 46 people made it possible to analyse a general perception of risk in everyday life. Interviews were analysed using a phenomenological thematical content analysis.Results: Although risk is communicated in the media and by health personnel, and thus has a general presence in society, participants in everyday life place risk at the periphery of life. Risk is not part of their everyday reflections. When risk manifests itself in everyday life, it is reflected and actions taken. Risk is handled and returned to the periphery of life. Handling risk is a multilayered ongoing process fluctuating between and along contexts in everyday life. The process relates to specific benchmarks anchored in everyday life and biography. Markers used are sickness, bodily and familial experiences, situated in social and cultural values. In managing risk, patients protect or try to re-establish a normal everyday life and a stable biography.Conclusion: Ordinary persons' handling of risk in everyday life is multidimensional. GPs need to be aware that patients' perceptions and handling of risk is dynamic and relate to their daily lives - this should be discussed in the consultation.

Beslutningsprocesserne i forbindelse med oral reha-bilitering bygger ofte på »bløde« værdier, hvilket gørdiagnostikken usikker. Ved at bruge en mere struk-turel og individuel indgangsvinkel skulle det væremuligt at afdække den enkelte patients ønsker ogdermed optimere behandlingsvalget. »Schedule forthe Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life – DirectWeighting« (SEIQoL-DW) er en metode, der brugeret kvalitativt interview samt en vurdering og prio-ritering af oralt relaterede områder, som patientenangiver som vigtige til at give struktur i samtalenomkring den individuelle behandlingsplan. Metodenblev afprøvet på en gruppe med partielle proteser ogen gruppe partielt tandløse uden aftagelig erstatning.Det antages, at metoden kan give klinikeren et vær-difuldt indblik i den enkelte patients tanker og ønskerangående behandlingen. Den kan dermed bruges iden individuelle behandlingsplanlægning. Yderligereundersøgelser skal klarlægge validiteten af metodensenkelte komponenter samt vurdere metodens anven-delighed i undervisning og almindelig praksis.

Introduction: In EuroPEP patients evaluate their GP. A questionnaire with a few free-text answered questions is used. Aim: To analyse patients' written statements to two free-text answered questions: what do you appreciate with your GP and what could be improved?. Patients' statements were analysed and mailed to their GP whose reaction was investigated.Methods: 52 GPs participated, and 3077, or 75% of their participating patients wrote comments. These were subjected to a thematical content analysis, and results mailed to the GP, who answered a questionnaire on the experience of reading the patients' comments.Results: Patients wrote very precise comments. Patients value a GP who has time to listen, makes the patient feel central and makes the patient experience continuity in their relationship. The patients question neither the GP's professional skills nor their possible breach of professional secrecy. If the GP on the other hand, acts incompetently, the patient looses all confidence in him/her. Further, they write on accessibility to the practice, timekeeping and interior decoration and personnel. Analysing the comments of each GP was easy and provided a coherent picture of the patients' experiences and wishes. When the GPs received the comments from their patients they found them highly informative, concrete and inspiring. Several GPs made changes in order to accommodate patients' comments. They found them easy to understand.Conclusion: Patients' written comments pinpoint how they experience their GP and the GP's practice, and their values. GP's find the statements clear and directive for action. Words communicate more than numbers.

Udgivelsesdato: 9. februar