[Reference evaluations for estimating prevalence, incidence, and mortality of public health relevant diseases based on routine data]. / Referenzauswertungen für die Schätzung von Prävalenz, Inzidenz und Mortalität Public-Health-relevanter Erkrankungen auf Basis von Routinedaten.

The routine data of all statutorily insured persons according to the Data Transparency Regulation (DaTraV data) represent a promising data source for the recurrent and timely surveillance of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) in Germany. Thereby, it has become apparent that there is a high demand for reference evaluations that enable quick and regularly repeatable analyses on important NCDs. Against this background, ReFern-01 was initiated, a joint project of the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) and the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM). In collaboration with experts from the field of secondary data analysis and healthcare research, reference evaluations for estimating prevalence, incidence, and mortality for important public health-relevant diseases were developed. First, 11 central NCDs were selected by means of an online survey, and initial case definitions were created in conjunction with a literature review. These were then discussed and agreed upon in a virtual workshop. The created reference evaluations (analysis scripts) allow a standardized estimation of the mentioned epidemiological figures, which are comparable over time and regionally. In addition to providing the results, the scripts will be available at the BfArM for further analysis. Provided that remote access to the analysis of the DaTraV data is available in the future, the results of the ReFern project can strengthen the surveillance of NCDs and support public health actors, for example, in the planning and implementation of health promotion and prevention measures at the federal, state, county, and local levels.

The Burden of Disease in Germany at the National and Regional Level.

BACKGROUND: .Summary measures such as disability-adjusted life years (DALY) are becoming increasingly important for the standardized assessment of the burden of disease due to death and disability. The BURDEN 2020 pilot project was designed as an independent burden-of-disease study for Germany, which was based on nationwide data, but which also yielded regional estimates. METHODS: DALY is defined as the sum of years of life lost due to death (YLL) and years lived with disability (YLD). YLL is the difference between the age at death due to disease and the remaining life expectancy at this age, while YLD quantifies the number of years individuals have spent with health impairments. Data are derived mainly from causes of death statistics, population health surveys, and claims data from health insurers. RESULTS: In 2017, there were approximately 12 million DALY in Germany, or 14 584 DALY per 100 000 inhabitants. Conditions which caused the greatest number of DALY were coronary heart disease (2321 DALY), low back pain (1735 DALY), and lung cancer (1197 DALY). Headache and dementia accounted for a greater disease burden in women than in men, while lung cancer and alcohol use disorders accounted for a greater disease burden in men than in women. Pain disorders and alcohol use disorders were the leading causes of DALY among young adults of both sexes. The disease burden rose with age for some diseases, including cardiovascular diseases, dementia, and diabetes mellitus. For some diseases and conditions, the disease burden varied by geographical region. CONCLUSION: The results indicate a need for age- and sex-specific prevention and for differing interventions according to geographic region. Burden of disease studies yield comprehensive population health surveillance data and are a useful aid to decision-making in health policy.

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.

Results and Strategies for a Diversity-Oriented Public Health Monitoring in Germany.

Germany is a country of immigration; 27% of the population are people with a migration background (PMB). As other countries, Germany faces difficulties in adequately including hard-to-survey populations like PMB into national public health monitoring. The IMIRA project was initiated to develop strategies to adequately include PMB into public health monitoring and to represent diversity in public health reporting. Here, we aim to synthesize the lessons learned for diversity-oriented public health monitoring and reporting in Germany. We also aim to derive recommendations for further research on migration and health. We conducted two feasibility studies (interview and examination surveys) to improve the inclusion of PMB. Study materials were developed in focus groups with PMB. A systematic review investigated the usability of the concept of acculturation. A scoping review was conducted on discrimination as a health determinant. Furthermore, core indicators were defined for public health reporting on PMB. The translated questionnaires were well accepted among the different migrant groups. Home visits increased the participation of hard-to-survey populations. In examination surveys, multilingual explanation videos and video-interpretation services were effective. Instead of using the concept of acculturation, we derived several dimensions to capture the effects of migration status on health, which were more differentiated. We also developed an instrument to measure subjectively perceived discrimination. For future public health reporting, a set of 25 core indicators was defined to report on the health of PMB. A diversity-oriented public health monitoring should include the following: (1) multilingual, diversity-sensitive materials, and tools; (2) different modes of administration; (3) diversity-sensitive concepts; (4) increase the participation of PMB; and (5) continuous public health reporting, including constant reflection and development of concepts and methods.

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.

Perceived Access to Health Care Services and Relevance of Telemedicine during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Germany.

During the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany, non-pharmaceutical interventions were imposed to contain the spread of the virus. Based on cross-sectional waves in March, July and December 2020 of the COVID-19 Snapshot Monitoring (COSMO), the present study investigated the impact of the introduced measures on the perceived access to health care. Additionally, for the wave in December, treatment occasion as well as utilization and satisfaction regarding telemedicine were analysed. For 18-74-year-old participants requiring medical care, descriptive and logistic regression analyses were performed. During the less strict second lockdown in December, participants reported more frequently ensured access to health care (91.2%) compared to the first lockdown in March (86.8%), but less frequently compared to July (94.2%) during a period with only mild restrictions. In December, main treatment occasions of required medical appointments were check-up visits at the general practitioner (55.2%) and dentist (36.2%), followed by acute treatments at the general practitioner (25.6%) and dentist (19.0%), treatments at the physio-, ergo- or speech therapist (13.1%), psychotherapist (11.9%), and scheduled hospital admissions or surgeries (10.0%). Of the participants, 20.0% indicated utilization of telemedical (15.4% telephone, 7.6% video) consultations. Of them, 43.7% were satisfied with the service. In conclusion, for the majority of participants, access to medical care was ensured during the COVID-19 pandemic; however, access slightly decreased during phases of lockdown. Telemedicine complemented the access to medical appointments.

The COVID-19 Disease Burden in Germany in 2020­Years of Life Lost to Death and Disease Over the Course of the Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic presented major challenges to the health sector in 2020. The burden of disease arising from COVID-19 can be expressed as the number of years of life lost to disease or death. For example, death at age 40 involves a loss of far more years of life than death at age 80. METHODS: The disability-adjusted life years (DALY) lost to COVID-19 were calculated as the sum of the years of life lost through death (YLL) and the number of years lived with disability (YLD), on the basis of laboratory-confirmed notifiable cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Germany in 2020 (documented as of 18 January 2021). The methodology was based on that used in the Global Burden of Disease Study. Pre-existing diseases do not enter into the determination of YLL; rather, the residual life expectancy that is applied in this calculation corresponds to a mean age-specific level of morbidity. RESULTS: 305 641 years of life were lost to COVID-19 in Germany in 2020. The percentage of DALY lost by persons under 70 was 34.8% in men and 21.0% in women. 99.3% of the COVID-19 disease burden was accounted for by death (YLL). The daily average years of life lost due to death was lower for COVID-19 than for the major non-communicable diseases. Persons who died of COVID-19 lost a mean of 9.6 years of life; those who were under 70 when they died lost a mean of 25.2 years of life. Men lost more years of life than women (11.0 vs. 8.1 years). CONCLUSION: The effects of COVID-19 on public health can be expressed through the burden of disease indicators. This method yields additional information that should be put to use early in the course of future outbreaks.

Excess mortality in adults with documented diabetes in Germany: routine data analysis of all insurance claims in Germany 2013-2014.

OBJECTIVES: Little is known about the age-specific excess mortality pattern of people with diagnosed diabetes in Germany. Thus, our goal was to determine the excess mortality in diagnosed diabetes overall and stratified by age and sex based on claims data. DESIGN: Routine data analysis using a claims dataset from all statutory health-insured persons in Germany in 2013, which accounts for about 90% of the population. PARTICIPANTS: We included persons who lived in Germany, were insured at least 360 days, were not self-paying any health services and were aged 30 years or older leading to a total number of 47.3 million insured persons for analyses. EXPOSURE: Diabetes was determined by the International Classification of Diseases-10 codes E10-E14, which were documented in 2013 in at least two-quarters on an outpatient setting or at least once on an inpatient setting. OUTCOME MEASURES: The vital status in the study population was drawn from the claims dataset for the year 2014. We derived the excess mortality estimated as an age-adjusted mortality rate ratio (MRR) by sex and for age groups using a Poisson model. MAIN RESULTS: We found age-adjusted MRRs (95% CI) for diabetes of 1.52 (1.51 to 1.52) for women and 1.56 (1.56 to 1.56) for men. These figures declined with increasing age and were highest for ages 30-34 years with 6.76 (4.99 to 9.15) for women and 6.87 (5.46 to 8.64) for men, and lowest for age 95 years and older with 1.13 (1.10 to 1.15) for women and 1.11 (1.05 to 1.17) for men. CONCLUSIONS: We derived deeply age-stratified figures on excess mortality in diabetes for Germany. Establishing a sustainable analysis of excess mortality is aimed at within the framework of diabetes surveillance.

[Estimating prevalent microvascular complications of diabetes mellitus in Germany. Analysis of statutory health insurance data in 2012 and 2013]. / Einschätzungen zur Prävalenz mikrovaskulärer Folgeerkrankungen bei Diabetes mellitus in Deutschland. Analyse von Versichertendaten aller gesetzlichen Krankenkassen für die Jahre 2012 und 2013.

BACKGROUND: Data sources for the systematic and ongoing analysis of prevalence of microvascular complications of diabetes mellitus are limited in Germany. For the first time, we estimated the complications prevalence based on claims data of all statutory health insurance (SHI) providers according to the Data Transparency Act. METHODS: Health claims data of the reporting years 2012 and 2013 were analyzed. The reference population was identified as insured persons with a diabetes diagnosis according to the international classification of disease. Diabetes was defined as documentation of at least two confirmed diabetes diagnoses in an outpatient setting or one diagnosis in an inpatient setting (ICD codes E10-E14). Complications were defined based on the following ICD codes: nephropathy (N08.3), retinopathy (H36.0), polyneuropathy (G63.2), diabetic foot syndrome (DFS; E10-14.74, E10-14.75), chronic kidney disease (N18.-), and treatment with dialysis (Z49.1, Z49.2, Z99.2). Results were compared to prevalence estimates based on routine data and registries in Germany and abroad. RESULTS: In 2013, diabetes was documented for 6.6 million persons with SHI (2012: 6.5 million). In 2013, chronic kidney disease (15.0%) was the most frequent complication, followed by diabetic polyneuropathy (13.5%), nephropathy (7.6%), retinopathy (7.0%), DFS (6.1%), and treatment with dialysis (0.56%). While results for diabetic retinopathy, nephropathy, and polyneuropathy are lower than prevalence estimates from other type 2 diabetes studies, they are comparable for chronic kidney disease, treatment with dialysis, and DFS. CONCLUSION: Continuous analysis of health claims data is highly valuable for the diabetes surveillance. However, detailed analyses are required for verification and harmonization of case definitions and documentation practice.

BURDEN 2020-Burden of disease in Germany at the national and regional level.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based policy measures need non-interest-guided information about the health status of a population and the diseases that affect the population the most. In such cases, a national burden of disease study can provide reliable insights at the regional level. AIM: This article presents the potential of the BURDEN 2020 project and its expected outcome for Germany at the national and regional level. METHODS: The BURDEN 2020 project uses several indicators including years of life lost (YLL) to cover the impact of mortality and years lived with disability (YLD) to cover morbidity. The sum of both is the measure of population health called disability adjusted life years (DALY). RESULTS: The study ranks individual diseases and risk factors based on their impact on population health. The burden of disease approach is assumed to be sensitive to subnational differences and may generate immediate benefits for regional planning. The BURDEN 2020 study will pilot a national burden of disease study for Germany that will later be transformed into a continuous data processing and visualization tool. This is done by using, modifying and supplementing the methodology employed by the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study to better fit the needs of health policy in Germany. This study is aimed at calculating the disease burden for up to 17 preselected diseases. Furthermore, the estimates of burden of disease are attributed to a selected set of risk factors. CONCLUSION: The Burden 2020 study will provide the results of a new, health-related data processing system to the public. This includes a noninterest-guided presentation of the burden of disease (DALY) in Germany at the national and regional level.

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.

[Surveillance and Monitoring - Results of the Working Group 10 of the Forum Future Public Health, Berlin 2016]. / Surveillance und Monitoring.

Evidence-based health policies and evidence-based measures need comprehensive information on the health of the population. The existing health surveillance system provides reliable answers to many health policy issues. Nonetheless, there are many information gaps not yet covered or are only covered via short-term project solutions. 1. We need to strengthen and expand existing health surveillance and monitoring to continuously collect information on the health status of all population groups, including those that are difficult to reach through the existing surveys and methods, such as people with a migration background, or socially disadvantaged. This information must be regularly available on the national, regional and also on the local level. 2. The use of existing data on health, for example from official statistics or social insurance, must be significantly expanded and strengthened. The infrastructure for scientific analyses of health data as well as the transfer of information to policy makers and the public must be strengthened. Through an expansion of the resources for scientific processing of health-relevant questions, Public Health can make an important contribution to effective health policies.

[What potential do geographic information systems have for population-wide health monitoring in Germany? : Perspectives and challenges for the health monitoring of the Robert Koch Institute]. / Welches Potenzial haben Geoinformationssysteme für das bevölkerungsweite Gesundheitsmonitoring in Deutschland? : Perspektiven und Herausforderungen für das Gesundheitsmonitoring am Robert Koch-Institut.

Geographic information systems (GISs) are computer-based systems with which geographical data can be recorded, stored, managed, analyzed, visualized and provided. In recent years, they have become an integral part of public health research. They offer a broad range of analysis tools, which enable innovative solutions for health-related research questions. An analysis of nationwide studies that applied geographic information systems underlines the potential this instrument bears for health monitoring in Germany. Geographic information systems provide up-to-date mapping and visualization options to be used for national health monitoring at the Robert Koch Institute (RKI). Furthermore, objective information on the residential environment as an influencing factor on population health and on health behavior can be gathered and linked to RKI survey data at different geographic scales. Besides using physical information, such as climate, vegetation or land use, as well as information on the built environment, the instrument can link socioeconomic and sociodemographic data as well as information on health care and environmental stress to the survey data and integrate them into concepts for analyses. Therefore, geographic information systems expand the potential of the RKI to present nationwide, representative and meaningful health-monitoring results. In doing so, data protection regulations must always be followed. To conclude, the development of a national spatial data infrastructure and the identification of important data sources can prospectively improve access to high quality data sets that are relevant for the health monitoring.

Data Resource Profile: German Health Update (GEDA)--the health interview survey for adults in Germany.

The German Health Update (GEDA) study is one component of the recently established nationwide health monitoring system administered by the Robert Koch Institute. The repeated cross-sectional GEDA surveys aim to provide current data on health and disease, health determinants and time trends in health and morbidity in the adult population in Germany. This forms the basis for planning requirements and recommendations for public health policy.Between 2008 and 2013, three GEDA waves were carried out, involving a total of 62,606 computer-assisted telephone interviews with adults in Germany, living in private household, and reachable via landline.A core set of indicators was used in all GEDA waves to gather information on subjective health and health-related quality of life, chronic diseases, injuries, impairment to health and disabilities, mental health, health behaviours, social determinants, use of health services and socio-demographic characteristics.The data from the GEDA surveys are provided for public use and epidemiological research. After submitting an application form, the data are accessible from: [http://www.rki.de/EN/Content/Health_Monitoring/Public_Use_Files/public_use_file_node.htm].