Comparing public-health research priorities in Europe.

BACKGROUND: Despite improving trends, countries in Europe continue to face public-health challenges. This study investigated the priorities of stakeholders for research to meet these challenges. METHODS: Public-health research includes population-level and health-system research, but not clinical or biomedical research. The study drew on data from three surveys undertaken through collaboration in SPHERE (Strengthening Public Health Research in Europe). There was participation of ministries in 18 of 28 (64% response) European countries, from 22 of 39 (56% response) member national associations of the European Public Health Association, and from 80 civil society health organisations (53% of members of the European Public Health Alliance) RESULTS: Public-health research fields included disease control, health promotion and health services. Ministries of health, rather than ministries of science or education, mostly took responsibility for public-health research: they reported varied but well-defined areas for research in relation to national health plans and programmes. National public health associations reported research priorities across most fields of public health, although with some European regional differences. Civil society health organisations prioritised health promotion research nationally, but also health services research internationally. There was less research reported on methods, such as modelling and economic analysis, wider determinants of health, and public-health interventions. CONCLUSION: Systematic collaboration between stakeholders across European countries would enhance knowledge and promote innovation to address contemporary public-health challenges.

Public health research priorities in Europe seen by non-governmental organizations.

BACKGROUND: Public health research is concerned with population health, determinants of health, health systems research, health promotion, environmental health, health protection, disease prevention and research in other fields of public health. During the last decades, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are more often entering the field of public health research. This paper presents results of work within SPHERE (Strengthening Public Health Research in Europe), a European Commission funded study aimed to gather information and produce knowledge on the state of public health research in Europe. METHODS: A questionnaire survey was developed and conducted among NGOs enrolled in a database held by the European Public Health Alliance (EPHA). There were 80 replies, and the response rate for NGOs that were members of EPHA was 53%. RESULTS: There were no significant statistical differences in the responses when analysed for three European groups ['old' member states (EU 15), accession members states in 2004 (EU 10) and EU-associated countries]. The NGOs reported a relatively large international experience, expressed by participation in international public health research, and more often practice work. The main research priorities reported were general public health, environmental health, ADHD, obesity, nutrition, tobacco control. NGOs showed low correlation between their work field and their proposed public health research priorities. CONCLUSION: There are growing numbers of NGOs in Europe concerned with public health. This survey indicates their interest also in public health research priorities.

Comparative community burden and severity of seasonal and pandemic influenza: results of the Flu Watch cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of the effect of influenza on populations, including risk of infection, illness if infected, illness severity, and consultation rates, is essential to inform future control and prevention. We aimed to compare the community burden and severity of seasonal and pandemic influenza across different age groups and study years and gain insight into the extent to which traditional surveillance underestimates this burden. METHODS: Using preseason and postseason serology, weekly illness reporting, and RT-PCR identification of influenza from nasal swabs, we tracked the course of seasonal and pandemic influenza over five successive cohorts (England 2006-11; 5448 person-seasons' follow-up). We compared burden and severity of seasonal and pandemic strains. We weighted analyses to the age and regional structure of England to give nationally representative estimates. We compared symptom profiles over the first week of illness for different strains of PCR-confirmed influenza and non-influenza viruses using ordinal logistic regression with symptom severity grade as the outcome variable. FINDINGS: Based on four-fold titre rises in strain-specific serology, on average influenza infected 18% (95% CI 16-22) of unvaccinated people each winter. Of those infected there were 69 respiratory illnesses per 100 person-influenza-seasons compared with 44 per 100 in those not infected with influenza. The age-adjusted attributable rate of illness if infected was 23 illnesses per 100 person-seasons (13-34), suggesting most influenza infections are asymptomatic. 25% (18-35) of all people with serologically confirmed infections had PCR-confirmed disease. 17% (10-26) of people with PCR-confirmed influenza had medically attended illness. These figures did not differ significantly when comparing pandemic with seasonal influenza. Of PCR-confirmed cases, people infected with the 2009 pandemic strain had markedly less severe symptoms than those infected with seasonal H3N2. INTERPRETATION: Seasonal influenza and the 2009 pandemic strain were characterised by similar high rates of mainly asymptomatic infection with most symptomatic cases self-managing without medical consultation. In the community the 2009 pandemic strain caused milder symptoms than seasonal H3N2. FUNDING: Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust.