背景:这项研究的目标是确定现有的变化,为什么,作为实施科学项目的一部分,人类学实践由谁进行。作为受过博士学位训练的人类学家,我们试图描述“人种学”一词如何以及为什么在实施科学文献中被不同地应用,并描述了该领域内和整个领域的人类学实践。
方法:虽然我们遵循PRISMA-ScR清单,我们以叙述方式呈现工作,以准确反映我们的审查过程。卫生服务图书馆员使用以下数据库的主题标题和关键字制定了搜索策略:PubMed,Embase(Elsevier),CochraneCENTRAL(Wiley),CIHAHL(EBSCO),PsycINFO(EBSCO),WebofScience核心合集,和人类学加(EBSCO)。我们专注于在医疗保健环境中进行的实施研究中的人类学实践,在英语中,没有日期限制。如果研究在研究设计方面应用人类学方法的一个或几个要素,数据收集,和/或分析。
结果:删除重复项之后,数据库搜索产生了3450个结果,被添加到Rayyan进行两轮筛选的标题和摘要。全文筛选共纳入487篇文章。其中,227个被纳入并接受了我们记录的数据提取,并在三个主要领域进行了描述性统计分析:(1)人类学方法;(2)实施科学方法;(3)研究背景。我们发现,人种学和实地笔记等人类学特征工具的使用通常没有被系统地描述,而是经常被提及。Further,我们发现研究设计决策和妥协(例如,在现场的时间长度,利益相关者参与的物流,调和不同的第一手经验)通常会影响人类学方法,但没有系统地描述。
结论:人类学工作通常支持更大的,混合方法实施项目,但没有彻底报告。语境对人类学实践至关重要,对实施研究也是隐含的基础,然而,人类学的目标以及其实践如何为大型研究项目提供信息通常没有明确说明。
BACKGROUND: This study\'s goal is to identify the existing variation in how, why, and by whom anthropological practice is conducted as part of implementation science projects. As doctorally trained anthropologists, we sought to characterize how and why the term \"ethnography\" was variously applied in the implementation science literature and characterize the practice of
anthropology within and across the field.
METHODS: While we follow the PRISMA-ScR checklist, we present the work with a narrative approach to accurately reflect our
review process. A health services librarian developed a search strategy using subject headings and keywords for the following databases: PubMed, Embase (Elsevier), Cochrane CENTRAL (Wiley), CIHAHL (EBSCO), PsycINFO (EBSCO), Web of Science Core Collection, and Anthropology Plus (EBSCO). We focused on the practice of
anthropology in implementation research conducted in a healthcare setting, in English, with no date restrictions. Studies were included if they applied one or several elements of anthropological methods in terms of study design, data collection, and/or analysis.
RESULTS: The database searches produced 3450 results combined after duplicates were removed, which were added to Rayyan for two rounds of screening by title and abstract. A total of 487 articles were included in the full-text screening. Of these, 227 were included and received data extraction that we recorded and analyzed with descriptive statistics in three main domains: (1) anthropological methods; (2) implementation science methods; and (3) study context. We found the use of characteristic tools of
anthropology like ethnography and field notes are usually not systematically described but often mentioned. Further, we found that research design decisions and compromises (e.g., length of time in the field, logistics of stakeholder involvement, reconciling diverse firsthand experiences) that often impact anthropological approaches are not systematically described.
CONCLUSIONS: Anthropological work often supports larger, mixed-methods implementation projects without being thoroughly reported. Context is essential to anthropological practice and implicitly fundamental to implementation research, yet the goals of
anthropology and how its practice informs larger research projects are often not explicitly stated.