Advertisement

Canadian Journal of Public Health

, Volume 99, Issue 6, pp 466–471 | Cite as

Shifts in the Use of Population Health, Health Promotion, and Public Health

A Bibliometric Analysis
  • Andrea C. Tricco
  • Vivien Runnels
  • Margaret Sampson
  • Louise Bouchard
Article

Abstract

Objective

Bibliometric analysis can be used to objectively compare the usage of terms over time. The purpose of this research was to compare the use of population health, health promotion, and public health using bibliometric indicators of the published literature.

Methods

Bibliometric indicators, such as scientific productivity and the overlap between the terms, were analyzed in the Web of Science. Indexing of population health, health promotion, and public health was explored in MEDLINE, CINAHL, and EMBASE.

Results

The most productive country in population health was Canada, while the most productive country in health promotion and public health was the United States. The number of published articles using the public health term was surpassed by health promotion around 1990. Both were surpassed by population health around 2000. Population health was the only concept which lacked an index term in all three databases.

Discussion

There has been a shift in the usage of public health, health promotion, and population health concepts over time. Country analysis revealed that Canadian researchers are leaders in population health, while researchers based in the United States are leaders in public health and health promotion. This may indicate differences rooted in the social, historical and economic traditions. Although the publication rate of articles described as ‘population health’ research is increasing, it is lacking an index term across major electronic databases. We suggest that without timely acceptance of terms, new concepts that represent different ways of thinking about health may be limited, delayed or glossed over.

Keywords

Bibliometric analysis public health health promotion population health 

Résumé

Objectif

Les analyses bibliométriques sont utilisées pour comparer objectivement l’évolution de concepts au fil du temps. Nous avons voulu comparer l’utilisation des termes «santé des populations», «promotion de la santé» et «santé publique» dans la documentation en recourant à des indicateurs bibliométriques.

Méthode

Des indicateurs bibliométriques (la productivité scientifique, le chevauchement des termes) ont été analysés dans Web of Science. Le classement des termes «santé des populations», «promotion de la santé» et «santé publique» a été examiné dans les bases de données MEDLINE, CINAHL et EMBASE.

Résultats

Le Canada est le pays le plus productif dans le domaine de la santé des populations, tandis que les États-Unis le sont pour la promotion de la santé et la santé publique. Le nombre d’articles référant à la santé publique a été surpassé par la documentation sur la promotion de la santé au tournant des années 1990. Les deux concepts ont été distancés par la santé des populations au tournant des années 2000. La santé des populations est le seul concept qui ne soit pas indexé dans les trois bases.

Discussion

Il y a eu un changement dans l’usage des concepts de santé publique, de promotion de la santé et de santé des populations au fil du temps. L’analyse par pays montre que les chercheurs canadiens sont les chefs de file en santé des populations, tandis que les chercheurs des États-Unis dominent les champs de la santé publique et de la promotion de la santé. Ceci pourrait s’expliquer par des différences de traditions sociales, historiques et économiques. Le taux de publication des articles de recherche sur la «santé des populations» s’accroît, mais ce terme n’est pas indexé dans toutes les grandes bases de données. Selon nous, si l’on n’accepte pas rapidement les nouveaux termes, on risque de faire abstraction de nouvelles notions qui correspondent à différentes façons de réfléchir à la santé, ou encore de limiter ou de retarder l’adoption de ces notions.

Mots clés

analyses bibliométriques santé des populations promotion de la santé santé publique 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Dunn JR, Hayes MV. Toward a lexicon of population health. Can J Public Health 1999;90(Suppl 1):S7–S10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lalonde M. A New Perspective on the Health of Canadians. Ottawa, ON: Government of Canada, 1974.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    World Health Organization. Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. First International Conference on Health Promotion. Ottawa, 21 November 1986 — WHO/HPR/HEP/95.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Last LM. A Dictionary of Epidemiology, Fourth Edition. Toronto, ON: Oxford University Press, 2001.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Labonte R. Population health and health promotion: What do they have to say to each other? Can J Public Health 1995;86(3):165–68.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Raphael D, Bryant T. Public Health Concerns in Canada, the U.S., the U.K., and Sweden. Exploring the Gaps between Knowledge and Action in Promoting Population Health. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press Inc., 2007;347–72.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Frank JW. Why “population health”? Can J Public Health 1995;86(3):162–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Poland B, Coburn D, Robertson A, Eakin J. Wealth, equity and health care: A critique of a “population health” perspective on the determinants of health. Critical Social Science Group. Soc Sci Med 1998;46(7):785–98.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    https://doi.org/cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?query=bibliometrics&action=Search+OMD (Accessed May 1, 2007).
  10. 10.
    Hulme EW. Statistical Bibliography in Relation to the Growth of Modern Civilization. London: Grafton, 1923.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Okubo Y. STI Working Papers: Bibliometric indicators and analysis of research systems: Methods and examples. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Report #51765, Paris, 1997.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Katz S. Bibliometric Indicators and the Social Sciences. University of Sussex: SPRU, 1999.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Glanzel W. Bibliometrics as a research field: A course on theory and application of bibliometric indicators. Course Handouts, 2003. Available online at: https://doi.org/www.umu.se/inforsk/ (Accessed May 1, 2007).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Otte E, Rousseau R. Social network analysis: A powerful strategy, also for the information sciences. J Information Sci 2002;28:443–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Soteriades ES, Falagas ME. A bibliometric analysis in the fields of preventive medicine, occupational and environmental medicine, epidemiology, and public health. BMC Public Health 2006;6:301.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mela GS, Martinoli C, Poggi E, Derchi LE. Radiological research in Europe: A bibliometric study. Eur Radiol 2003;13:657–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Glover SW, Bowen SL. Bibliometric analysis of research published in Tropical Medicine and International Health 1996–2003. Trop Med Int Health 2004;9:1327–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Boulos MN. On geography and medical journalology: A study of the geographical distribution of articles published in a leading medical informatics journal between 1999 and 2004. Int J Health Geog 2005;4:7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tsay MY, Yang YH. Bibliometric analysis of the literature of randomized controlled trials. J Med Lib Assoc 2005;93:450–58.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    National Information Standards Organization. Guidelines for the Construction, Format, and Management of Monolingual Controlled Vocabularies. Available online at: https://doi.org/download.www.techstreet.com/cgi-bin/pdf/free/455225/Z39-19-2005.pdf (Accessed October 1, 2007).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kickbusch I. The contribution of the World Health Organization to a new public health and health promotion. Am J Public Health 2003;93(3):383–88.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Evans RG, Stoddart GL. Producing health, consuming health care. Soc Sci Med 1990;31:1347–63.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Health Canada. The Population Health template: Key elements and actions that define a Population Health approach. Ottawa: Health Canada, 2001.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    US Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2010, Second Edition Vol. I and II. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, 2000.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Smedley BD, Syme SL. Promoting Health — Intervention strategies from social and behavioral research. Washington: National Academy Press, 2000.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zoller HM. Women caught in the multi-causal web: A gendered analysis of Healthy People 2010. Communication Studies 2005;56:175–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Otsu K. A bibliometric study of Japanese science and social science publications. Library Information Sci 1983;21:19–27.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kobayashi S. Internationalisation of Japanese journals and their contribution to basic science. Daigaku Kenkyu 1987;1:57–76.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Canadian Public Health Association 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea C. Tricco
    • 1
  • Vivien Runnels
    • 1
  • Margaret Sampson
    • 2
    • 3
  • Louise Bouchard
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.Institute of Population Health, Children’s Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada
  2. 2.Chalmers Research GroupChildren’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research InstituteOttawaCanada
  3. 3.Department of Information StudiesUniversity of Wales, AberystwythWalesUK
  4. 4.Department of Sociology and AnthropologyUniversity of OttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations