The InfAct proposal for a sustainable European health information infrastructure on population health: the Distributed Infrastructure on Population Health (DIPoH).

BACKGROUND: In Europe, data on population health is fragmented, difficult to access, project-based and prone to health information inequalities in terms of availability, accessibility and especially in quality between and within countries. This situation is further exacerbated and exposed by the recent COVID-19 pandemic. The Joint Action on Health Information (InfAct) that builds on previous works of the BRIDGE Health project, carried out collaborative action to set up a sustainable infrastructure for health information in the European Union (EU). The aim of this paper is to present InfAct's proposal for a sustainable research infrastructure, the Distributed Infrastructure on Population Health (DIPoH), which includes the setup of a Health Information Portal on population health to be maintained beyond InfAct's time span. METHODS: The strategy for the proposal was based on three components: scientific initiatives and proposals to improve Health Information Systems (HIS), exploration of technical acceptability and feasibility, and finally obtaining high-level political support.. The technical exploration (Technical Dialogues-TD) was assumed by technical experts proposed by the countries, and political guidance was provided by the Assembly of Members (AoM), which gathered representatives from Ministries of Health and Science of EU/EEA countries. The results from the AoM and the TD were integrated in the sustainability plan compiling all the major outputs of InfAct. RESULTS: The InfAct sustainability plan was organized in three main sections: a proposal of a new research infrastructure on population health (the DIPoH), new health information tools and innovative proposals for HIS, and a comprehensive capacity building programme. These activities were carried out in InfAct and are being further developed in the Population Health Information Research Infrastructure (PHIRI). PHIRI is a practical rollout of DIPoH facilitating and generating the best available evidence for research on health and wellbeing of populations as impacted by COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: The sustainability plan received wide support from Member States and was recognized to have an added value at EU level. Nevertheless, there were several aspects which still need to be considered for the near future such as: (i) a commitment of stable financial and political support by Member States (MSs), (ii) the availability of resources at regional, national and European level to deal with innovations, and (iii) a more direct involvement from EU and international institutions such as the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development OECD for providing support and sustainable contributions.

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.

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.

[Self-perceived oral health and associated factors among adults in Germany. Results from GEDA 2019/2020-EHIS]. / Selbstwahrgenommene Mundgesundheit und assoziierte Faktoren bei Erwachsenen in Deutschland. Ergebnisse aus GEDA 2019/2020-EHIS.

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE WORK: Information on the oral health of the population is important for the assessment of (preventable) disease burden, for the estimation and planning of health resources and costs, and for the evaluation of health inequalities. The aim of this work is to investigate for the first time self-perceived oral health, including associated factors, based on data from a nationally representative sample for the adult population in Germany. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The data basis is the nationwide German Health Update study (GEDA 2019/2020-EHIS, n = 22,708 aged 18 years and older). In the telephone interview, the participants were asked how they would describe the state of their teeth and gums - "very good," "good," "fair," "bad," or "very bad." Sociodemographic, behavioral, and dental characteristics are examined as associated factors. Prevalences and results of multivariate binary logistic regressions (odds ratios, OR) are reported. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Of the participants, 71.4% perceived their oral health as very good or good, 28.6% as fair to very bad. Difficulty in chewing and biting on hard foods (OR 4.0), unmet dental care needs (OR 2.3), male gender (OR 1.5), and not consuming fruits and vegetables daily (OR 1.2) were the most important associated factors for fair to very bad self-perceived oral health; for men, low education (OR 2,1), daily smoking (OR 1.6) and not receiving dental care annually (OR 1.4) were also important. From the results, starting points for promoting oral health can be derived.

Management of Germ Cell Tumours of the Testis in Adult Patients. German Clinical Practice Guideline Part I: Epidemiology, Classification, Diagnosis, Prognosis, Fertility Preservation, and Treatment Recommendations for Localized Stages.

INTRODUCTION: This is the first German evidence- and consensus-based clinical guideline on diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up on germ cell tumours (GCTs) of the testis in adult patients. We present the guideline content in two publications. Part I covers the topic's background, methods, epidemiology, classification systems, diagnostics, prognosis, and treatment recommendations for the localized stages. METHODS: An interdisciplinary panel of 42 experts including 1 patient representative developed the guideline content. Clinical recommendations and statements were based on scientific evidence and expert consensus. For this purpose, evidence tables for several review questions, which were based on systematic literature searches (last search was in March 2018) were provided. Thirty-one experts entitled to vote, rated the final clinical recommendations and statements. RESULTS: We provide 161 clinical recommendations and statements. We present information on the quality of cancer care and epidemiology and give recommendations for staging and classification as well as for diagnostic procedures. The diagnostic recommendations encompass measures for assessing the primary tumour as well as procedures for the detection of metastases. One chapter addresses prognostic factors. In part I, we separately present the treatment recommendations for germ cell neoplasia in situ, and the organ-confined stages (clinical stage I) of both seminoma and nonseminoma. CONCLUSION: Although GCT is a rare tumour entity with excellent survival rates for the localized stages, its management requires an interdisciplinary approach, including several clinical experts. Quality of care is highly related to institutional expertise and can be reassured by established online-based second-opinion boards. There are very few studies on diagnostics with good level of evidence. Treatment of metastatic GCTs must be tailored to the risk according to the International Germ Cell Cancer Collaboration Group classification after careful diagnostic evaluation. An interdisciplinary approach as well as the referral of selected patients to centres with proven experience can help achieve favourable clinical outcomes.

Promoting health literacy: What potential does nursing informatics offer to support older adults in the use of technology? A scoping review.

Digitalization is the future and, simultaneously, a challenge for nursing. In addition, health literacy is increasingly associated with the use of technology. Older adults are greatly underrepresented in the use of digital technology and regarded as a vulnerable group. Consequently, training programs for technological knowledge and improving technological competencies are indispensable to promote equal opportunities and health literacy. The researchers inquire what characterizes nursing informatics as an expanding field in relation to the roles and competencies of nurses in technical appropriation processes of older adults. We conducted a scoping review based on a systematic literature search. We identified 23 relevant studies and developed a modular system to characterize the potential of nursing informatics: nursing informatics as a profession, competencies of nurses and nursing informatics, assessments, and eHealth literacy. Nursing informatics is a new field in some countries, but competence profiles and role descriptions clearly show that nurses act as educators, supporters, advocates, and mediators.