World Health Organization behavioral science research: Problems and prospects
The stated goals of World Health Organization-supported behavioral research are applied: to contribute to planning and policy decision-making, and to improve health care delivery methods. The evidence suggests the organization is getting less for its behavioral research dollar than it ought to: much research has been of poor quality, and researchers often appear more concerned with research design elegance than with practical application of results. Professional and structural factors explain this picture. Physician-dominated research committees that evaluate research applications assume that quantitative hypothesis-testing investigation is the only acceptable research model. Hence, in their grant applications behavioral scientists conform to the expectations of research committees, stressing quantitative methods and slighting the qualitative approaches that often are more productive in providing operational information. Research committee members also often fail to understand the scope of behavioral research possibilities: hoped-for results are limited to information on how to change community behavior more nearly to conform to the needs of health care delivery programs. Research on organization policies and programs is viewed as irrelevant and perhaps even threatening. To improve the quality and utility of WHO-sponsored behavioral research, the author suggests a workshop of organization personnel and short-term consultants and temporary advisors with prior experience, to evaluate past research, to identify its strengths and weaknesses, and to recommend modified research support procedures to produce higher quality, operationally-useful results.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 24 (1987)
Issue (Month): 9 (January)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description|
|Order Information:|| Postal: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/supportfaq.cws_home/regional|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:24:y:1987:i:9:p:709-717. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.