Multidisciplinarity in health promotion: a bibliometric analysis of current research

Health promotion (HP) is a relatively recent field that stems from, notably, public health, sociology, political science, psychology and education. This multidisciplinarity has contributed to HP’s challenged institutionalization. Scholars have so far predominately explored HP’s multidisciplinarity u...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Health promotion international 2018-08, Vol.33 (4), p.610-621
Main Authors: Gagné, Thierry, Lapalme, Josée, McQueen, David V.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Bibliometrics
Biomedical Research - statistics & numerical data
Health Promotion
Humans
Interdisciplinary Studies
ORIGINAL ARTICLES
Publishing
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Health promotion (HP) is a relatively recent field that stems from, notably, public health, sociology, political science, psychology and education. This multidisciplinarity has contributed to HP’s challenged institutionalization. Scholars have so far predominately explored HP’s multidisciplinarity using anecdotal approaches, limiting our understanding of the breadth and interplay of the disciplines constituting HP research. The overall aim of this paper is to contribute to a better understanding of HP’s multidisciplinarity using a bibliometric approach. We developed a three-pronged approach: (i) we examined the most cited journals within Health Promotion International; (ii) we asked an international panel of HP scholars (n = 27) to vote on the journals most relevant to their work; (iii) we examined the most common words in article abstracts among journals which received the highest number of votes. We used multiple correspondence analyses to examine similarities between HPI references, scholars’ votes and abstracts’ words. We found evidence that HP research reached across numerous disciplines but segregated into distinct subgroups with conflicting perspectives. We found that HPI was the only journal that was identified as relevant by a majority (81% of participants). Multidisciplinarity is a key feature of HP. It can strengthen HP by enriching our understanding of health and social issues from a variety of perspectives, but it may also divide experts into disciplinary silos. This may ultimately weaken its institutional pathways and its contribution to public health. More academic venues and institutions should be developed to facilitate collaboration among HP scholars and practitioners.
ISSN:0957-4824
1460-2245
DOI:10.1093/heapro/dax002