Prioritizing health information for national health reporting - a Delphi study of the Joint Action on Health Information (InfAct).

BACKGROUND: Health information (HI) strategies exist in several EU Member States, however, they mainly focus on technical issues and improving governance rather than on content-related priority setting. There is also little research available about national prioritization processes underlying HI development for policy support in the EU. The aim of this study was to broaden the knowledge base on HI prioritization strategies and to encourage expert exchange towards good practice models. A specific focus was put on HI produced for national health reporting, this being a crucial tool for policy advice. METHODS: We conducted a literature search to identify published and grey literature on national HI prioritization. This was followed by a two-round Policy Delphi study, where we explored which processes and methods exist in EU Member States and associated countries for the prioritization of HI collection. In the first round, information about these processes was gathered in semi-structured questions; in the second round, participants were asked to rank the identified approaches for desirability and feasibility. The survey was conducted online; participants were recruited from the membership of the Joint Action on Health Information (InfAct - Information for Action). RESULTS: 119 experts were contacted, representing 40 InfAct partner institutions in 28 EU Member States and associated countries. Of these, 28 experts responded fully or partially to the first round, and six to the second round. In the first round, more than half of the respondents reported the existence of structured HI prioritization processes in their countries. To prioritize HI, a clear preference was given in the second round for a formal, horizontal process which includes different experts and stakeholders. National public health institutes were named desirable key stakeholders in this process, and also desirable and feasible coordinators for stakeholder coordination. CONCLUSION: Health information prioritization methods and procedures reflect the heterogeneity of national public health systems in European countries. Mapping, sharing and ranking prioritization methods and procedures for "good practices" provides a meaningful basis for expert knowledge exchange on HI development. We recommend to make this process part of a future sustainable EU health information system and to use the information gathered in this project to initiate the development of a guidance "Good Practice HI Prioritization" among EU Member States and associated countries.

EU health information progress: the harvest of policy supporting projects and networks.

BACKGROUND: The European Commission supports the initiation of health information related projects and networks serving comparative population health monitoring and health system performance assessment. Many of these projects and networks have produced relevant data, standards, methods, indicators and knowledge that may be lost as these networks become inactive. The aim of this project retrieval and review was to identify health information projects and networks and their produced output; and subsequently facilitate systematic access to this information for policy makers, researchers and interested others via a web-based repository. METHODS: The scope of this article covers 1. population health oriented topics and 2. health system/health services oriented topics. Out of scope are specific infectious diseases; individual rare diseases; and the occurrence and effects of specific medical treatments, interventions and diagnostics; cohort studies; or studies focusing on research methods. We searched bibliographic databases and EU project databases for policy supporting projects and networks and selected those fulfilling our inclusion criteria after more in-depth inspection. We searched for their outputs. In addition, we reviewed country participation in these projects and networks. RESULTS: We identified 36 projects and networks, 16 of which are population health oriented, 6 are health systems and services oriented and 14 cover both. Their total volume of output is not easily retrievable, as many project websites have been discontinued. Some networks and/or their outputs have found continuance within European agencies and/or national institutions. Others are struggling or have gone lost, despite their policy relevance. Participation in the projects was not evenly distributed across Europe. Project information was made available through the Health Information Portal. CONCLUSIONS: EU funded projects and networks have contributed greatly to the evidence-base for policy by providing comparative health information. However, more action is needed to evaluate and conserve their outputs and facilitate continued contribution to the field after project funding stops. The realization of a sustainable infrastructure for these projects and networks is urgent. The Health Information Portal can play an important role in conserving and reusing health information. Information inequalities may exist across Europe but need further investigating.

Overview of national health reporting in the EU and quality criteria for public health reports - results of the Joint Action InfAct.

BACKGROUND: Health reporting shall provide up-to-date health-related data to inform policy-makers, researchers and the public. To this end, health reporting formats should be tailored to the needs and competencies of the target groups and provide comparable and high-quality information. Within the Joint Action on Health Information 'InfAct', we aimed at gaining an overview of health reporting practices in the EU Member States and associated countries, and developed quality criteria for the preparation of public health reports. The results are intended to facilitate making health information adequately available while reducing inequalities in health reporting across the EU. METHODS: A web-based desk research was conducted among EU Member States and associated countries to generate an overview of different formats of national health reporting and their respective target groups. To identify possible quality criteria for public health reports, an exploratory literature review was performed and earlier projects were analysed. The final set of criteria was developed in exchange with experts from the InfAct consortium. RESULTS: The web-based desk research showed that public health reports are the most frequently used format across countries (94%), most often addressed to scientists and researchers (51%), politicians and decision-makers (41%). However, across all reporting formats, the general public is the most frequently addressed target group. With regards to quality criteria for public health reports, the literature review has yielded few results. Therefore, two earlier projects served as main sources: the 'Evaluation of National and Regional Public Health Reports' and the guideline 'Good Practice in Health Reporting'from Germany. In collaboration with experts, quality criteria were identified and grouped into eight categories, ranging from topic selection to presentation of results, and compiled in a checklist for easy reference. CONCLUSION: Health reporting practices in the EU are heterogeneous across Member States. The assembled quality criteria are intended to facilitate the preparation, dissemination and access to better comparable high-quality public health reports as a basis for evidence-based decision-making. A comprehensive conceptual and integrative approach that incorporates the policy perspective would be useful to investigate which dissemination strategies are the most suitable for specific requirements of the targeted groups.

Four normative perspectives on public health policy-making and their preferences for bodies of evidence.

Calls for evidence-informed public health policy-making often ignore that there are multiple, and often competing, bodies of potentially relevant evidence to which policy-makers have recourse in identifying policy priorities and taking decisions. In this paper, we illustrate how policy frames may favour the use of specific bodies of evidence. For the sixth Dutch Public Health Status and Foresight report (2014), possible future trends in population health and healthcare expenditure were used as a starting point for a deliberative dialogue with stakeholders to identify and formulate the most important societal challenges for the Dutch health system. Working with these stakeholders, we expanded these societal challenges into four normative perspectives on public health. These perspectives can be regarded as policy frames. In each of the perspectives, a specific body of evidence is favoured and other types of evidence are neglected. Crucial outcomes in one body may be regarded as irrelevant from other perspectives. Consequently, the results of research from a single body of evidence may not be helpful in the policy-making processes because policy-makers need to account for trade-offs between all competing interests and values. To support these policy processes, researchers need to combine qualitative and quantitative methodologies to address different outcomes from the start of their studies. We feel it is time for the research community to re-politicise the idea of evidence use and for policy-makers to demand research that helps them to account for all health-related policy goals. This is a prerequisite for real evidence-informed policy-making.

The Public Health Status and Foresight report 2014: Four normative perspectives on a healthier Netherlands in 2040.

Policy-oriented foresight reports aim to inform and advise decision-makers. In value-laden areas such as public health and healthcare, deliberative scenario methods are clearly needed. For the sixth Dutch Public Health Status and Forecasts-report (PHSF-2014), a new approach of co-creation was developed aiming to incorporate different societal norms and values in the description of possible future developments. The major future trends in the Netherlands were used as a starting point for a deliberative dialogue with stakeholders to identify the most important societal challenges for public health and healthcare. Four societal challenges were identified: 1) To keep people healthy as long as possible and cure illness promptly, 2) To support vulnerable people and enable social participation, 3) To promote individual autonomy and freedom of choice, and 4) To keep health care affordable. Working with stakeholders, we expanded these societal challenges into four corresponding normative scenarios. In a survey the normative scenarios were found to be recognizable and sufficiently distinctive. We organized meetings with experts to explore how engagement and policy strategies in each scenario would affect the other three societal challenges. Possible synergies and trade-offs between the four scenarios were identified. Public health foresight based on a business-as-usual scenario and normative scenarios is clearly practicable. The process and the outcomes support and elucidate a wide range of strategic discussions in public health.

Mind over matter. The impact of subjective social status on health outcomes and health behaviors.

Recent insights have shown subjective status to impact health and health behavior. It is however unclear how this exactly happens. In this study we explore two mechanisms: this of a direct, mediating effect of subjective status explaining the impact of material class on health outcomes and behavior and an indirect, moderating impact on the relationship between material class and health outcomes and behavior. To test this empirically we conduct two studies, focusing on Great-Britain, using survey-data from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (N: 2709-3448) and the Whitehall II-study (N: 6275-6467). Our linear and logistic regression analyses show subjective status has a mainly direct impact on health outcomes and has both a direct, mediating and indirect, moderating impact on health behavior. In the conclusion of our article we reflect on the theoretical reasons why subjective status has a direct impact in certain cases, while playing an indirect role in other cases.

European Core Health Indicators - status and perspectives.

BACKGROUND: The European Core Health Indicators (ECHI) are a key source of comparable health information for the European Union (EU) and its Member States (MS). The ECHI shortlist contains 88 indicators which were developed by experts from MS and international organisations. Most indicators are derived from data sources at the EU's statistical office (Eurostat), the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and are available for most MS. The remaining indicators on the shortlist are at different stages of conceptual and/or methodological development. The indicators have been reviewed in the past against scientific developments, changes in data collections and emerging policy needs, yet not as part of a systematic and sustainable procedure. There is also no regular inventory of problems met by the MS in collecting the necessary data. Work package 4 of the BRIDGE Health project aimed at updating and improving the existing ECHI-indicator knowledge and expertise and at strengthening the scientific base that supports the effective development and use of health indicators for health policy evaluation and prioritization by the EU and its MS. The aim of this paper is to present a first overview of its outcomes and to explore issues concerning the ECHI data availability, content and policy relevance, update process and accessibility to stakeholders, in light of working towards a sustainable future. METHODS: Two surveys were conducted within the framework of the BRIDGE Health project to reassess the status of the ECHI shortlist. The first survey focused on data availability in EU MS, candidate countries and European Free Trade Association (EFTA) countries. The second survey evaluated current needs and criteria with respect to content and policy relevance of the ECHI shortlist. Exploring potential new indicator topics was part of both surveys. All evaluations were supported by an advisory network of national and international experts. RESULTS: Of the 36 countries (EU MS, candidate and EFTA countries) contacted for the data availability mapping, 23 countries (63%) participated in the survey. Data availability from preferred data sources varied between chapters. Availability was highest for the chapter on demography and socio-economic situation, followed by the chapter on health status, where data were available for most indicators from more than 90% of the participating countries. Problems experienced by MS relating to the incorporation of ECHI into their health systems were also identified through the survey. Findings from the survey on policy relevance point at the need for strengthening the links with policy (priorities) and for exploring a possible format change of the list to accommodate actionability. It also showed support for embedding ECHI in a sustainable health information structure; this may practically be aided by a web-based single point of access to an information repository. CONCLUSION: Policy relevance is an essential but not systematically developed criterion for the inclusion of indicators into the ECHI shortlist. Data availability is crucial for the actual implementation of indicators and has considerably increased for ECHI in the last decade. The data availability mapping provides a structured overview of the current status of data availability for implemented indicators. The ECHI shortlist can contribute to the collection of comparable policy-relevant health data in Europe, foster evidence-based public health and contribute to Member States learning from each other. Flexible and systematic incorporation of policy relevance in the ECHI shortlist review and revision process may substantiate ECHI as a core component of a future sustainable European health information infrastructure.

Imagining class: A study into material social class position, subjective identification, and voting behavior across Europe.

The traditional approach to class voting has largely ignored the question whether material class positions coincide with subjective class identification. Following Sosnaud et al. (2013), this study evaluates party preferences when Europeans' material and subjective social class do not coincide. Seminal studies on voting behavior have suggested that members of lower classes are more likely to vote for the economic left and cultural right and that higher classes demonstrate the opposite pattern. Yet, these studies have on the one hand overlooked the possibility that there is a mismatch between the material class people can be classified in and the class they think they are part of, and on the other hand the consequences of this discordant class identification on voting behavior. Analyzing the 2009 wave of the European Elections Study, we find that the majority of the Europeans discordantly identify with the middle class, whereas only a minority of the lower and higher classes concordantly identify with their material social class. Further, material class only seems to predict economic voting behavior when it coincides with subjective class; for instance, individuals who have an inflated class identification are more likely to vote for the economic left, even when they materially can be classified as middle or high class. We conclude this paper with a discussion on scholarly debates concerning class and politics.

Knowing hydrogen and loving it too? Information provision, cultural predispositions, and support for hydrogen technology among the Dutch.

This research note studies experimentally how the public translates information about hydrogen technology into evaluations of the latter. It does so by means of a nationally representative factorial survey in the Netherlands (n = 1,012), in which respondents have been given seven randomly selected pieces of (negative, positive and/or neutral) information about this technology. Findings are consistent with framing theory. For those with high trust in science and technology, positive information increases support, while negative information detracts from it. For those with low trust in science and technology, however, information provision has no effect at all on the evaluation of hydrogen technology. Precisely among the most likely targets of science communication, i.e., those without much trust in science and technology, providing positive information fails to evoke a more favorable evaluation from the latter.

European community health monitoring: the EUPHIX-model.

AIMS: On 20 June 2008, the EUPHIX website (www.euphix.org) was officially launched. EUPHIX aims to provide policy relevant health information, data and knowledge for policy makers, public health experts and educated lay people in the European Union (EU). The project was carried out by a partnership of European health reporting experts. METHODS: The conceptual structure of EUPHIX resembles the one used for the ECHI-indicator framework, but adds health policies. EUPHIX includes texts (EUphacts) next to indicator data, as well as links to organizations, data and literature. Other contributions, called EUphocus, address broader agenda issues, such as mental health and health inequalities. Some EUphocus contributions contain summarized outcomes of EU projects. In this sense, EUPHIX has a European platform function as well. Behind the surface of the EUPHIX website lies a complex internet application, including databases, i.e. for indicator data, for internal and external web links and for references and definitions. This back-office contains a Content Management System that guides an editorial process allowing the differentiation of the roles of authors, reviewers and content editors. User oriented functionalities include different ways to interactively manipulate data for personal presentation needs. Some EUphacts are linked to the Health-EU Portal. RESULTS: EUPHIX is drawing increasing numbers of visitors and has the potential to become the nucleus of a health monitoring system for the EU. However, current financing practice puts serious limits to its sustainability. CONCLUSIONS: The conclusion is that the EUPHIX model launched in June 2008 is integrating data, information and knowledge into a new type of Health Information System. The EUPHIX model is proposed to be the future model for EU health reporting.