Assessing European national health information systems in peer review format: lessons learnt.

BACKGROUND: Systematic assessments of a country's health information system (HIS) help identify strengths and weaknesses and may stimulate actions for improvement. They represent a capacity-building process for the country assessed as well as for the assessor. The joint action on HISs (InfAct) developed a peer-to-peer assessment methodology adapting an established WHO support tool. The aim of this study is to identify lessons learnt and the added value of the InfAct peer assessment for the assessors. METHODS: A qualitative evaluation of the peer HIS assessment was performed based on 12 semi-structured interviews: nine interviews were carried out with assessors from nine participating countries, and three with an observer (present during assessments). The interviews were carried out between May 2019 and January 2020. Interviews were analysed using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: The interviews revealed the experiences of the assessors mainly occurred in five areas: assessors strengthened their understanding of what a population-based HIS is; they strengthened their understanding of how a HIS operates in different countries; they learnt how to carry out a HIS assessment; they strengthened their organization, communication, negotiation and reporting skills and they strengthened the networks in health information within and between countries. CONCLUSION: Since the assessors are key personnel in their respective national health systems, the impact of the assessment is not limited to the assessor alone but may extend to stakeholders in their country. The deployment of the InfAct HIS peer assessment, anchored in systematic HIS capacity building across European countries, is recommended.

The WHO Prison Health Framework: a framework for assessment of prison health system performance.

BACKGROUND: The Health in Prisons European Database (HIPED) aims to periodically collect data on prison health systems, services and health outcomes to inform equivalence of care for people living in prison. Recognized as the United Nations hub for health data in prisons, HIPED lacked an established framework to define its domains and indicators to measure progress. Therefore, the objectives of developing this framework were to inform surveillance systems at prison, local, regional, national and international level and to use it to guide improvement of prison health systems and cross-country comparison. METHODS: The framework was conceptualized through identification of policy priorities and existing frameworks, notably the WHO Health System Framework. A consultation with a range of WHO stakeholders was conducted evaluating the components of existing frameworks and their relevance to the prison health context, as well as identifying areas needing further emphasis. The final stage identified the structure of the framework. RESULTS: The framework consists of three main building blocks. The first captures the system-level aspects of prison health care (or inputs) whilst the second captures delivery aspects of prison health care (or outputs). These building blocks are in turn modified by two influencing factors. Ultimately, all these elements impact on the third building block, health outcomes. In addition, two cross-cutting principles associated with all these building blocks and influencing factors are included. CONCLUSIONS: A new framework for assessing prison health system performance is now available, crucial to support informed decision-making for policy design and implementation for prisons and other places of detention.

Capacity building in European health information systems: the InfAct peer assessment methodology.

BACKGROUND: A Health Information System (HIS) assessment is an evaluation of the functioning of the main elements that compose a national HIS. Assessors from nine countries performed peer assessments of each other's national HIS in the Joint Action on Health Information (InfAct). The aim of this study is to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of the InfAct peer assessment methodology as well as the different steps involved in this assessment process. METHODS: Each peer assessment included a preparatory desk report, a country visit with semi-structured interviews with local stakeholders, a final report and a follow-up stakeholder meeting. A qualitative content analysis of the peer HIS assessment was performed based on 12 semi-structured interviews. RESULTS: The main advantage of the assessments is its informal atmosphere, high degree of objectiveness and its networking opportunities. Disadvantages are its informal request format and setting for recommendation uptake. The peer assessment helped the assessors to broaden their understanding of the assessed and their own HISs, to gain knowledge on how to carry out an HIS assessment and to practice their organization, communication, reporting and negotiation skills. All steps of the HIS assessment are essential and each contributes to the enriching experience of the participants. CONCLUSION: The InfAct peer HIS assessment methodology strengthened capacity in national HISs by building up the knowledge and expertise in participating countries and as such addressed health information inequalities. This study confirms the value and relatively easy to implement methodology, and therefore recommends its wide and more systematic application across Europe.

Identifying common enablers and barriers in European health information systems.

European countries possess unique health information systems (HISs) and face similar health system challenges. Investigating common enablers and barriers across Europe pinpoint where HISs need improvements to address these challenges. This study aims to identify common enablers and barriers for optimal functioning of HISs across the European Union and associated countries, and to interpret what this means for the further development of HISs in Europe. A qualitative thematic analysis was carried out based on nine countries HISs assessments. Two main observations are made. Firstly, regardless of the differences between HISs, each HIS had its strengths and weaknesses and often the same barriers and enablers arose. Secondly, barriers were identified in all HIS areas. The five most important barriers are (i) fragmentation of data sources, limited accessibility, use and re-use of data, (ii) barriers in the implementation of EHR-systems, (iii) governance issues related to unclear responsibilities, discontinuous financing and weak intra- and inter-sectorial collaboration, (iv) legal gaps and General Data Protection Regulation (mis)interpretation, and (v) limited skilled staff. The enablers identified in this study lead to potential solutions to address these. Solutions can be implemented by national initiatives, but there is considerable added value in a joint European approach. Several international initiatives provide opportunities to improve HISs, but these need to be strengthened and better geared towards tackling the identified barriers.

Data and Digital Solutions to Support Surveillance Strategies in the Context of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background: In order to prevent spread and improve control of infectious diseases, public health experts need to closely monitor human and animal populations. Infectious disease surveillance is an established, routine data collection process essential for early warning, rapid response, and disease control. The quantity of data potentially useful for early warning and surveillance has increased exponentially due to social media and other big data streams. Digital epidemiology is a novel discipline that includes harvesting, analysing, and interpreting data that were not initially collected for healthcare needs to enhance traditional surveillance. During the current COVID-19 pandemic, the importance of digital epidemiology complementing traditional public health approaches has been highlighted. Objective: The aim of this paper is to provide a comprehensive overview for the application of data and digital solutions to support surveillance strategies and draw implications for surveillance in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. Methods: A search was conducted in PubMed databases. Articles published between January 2005 and May 2020 on the use of digital solutions to support surveillance strategies in pandemic settings and health emergencies were evaluated. Results: In this paper, we provide a comprehensive overview of digital epidemiology, available data sources, and components of 21st-century digital surveillance, early warning and response, outbreak management and control, and digital interventions. Conclusions: Our main purpose was to highlight the plausible use of new surveillance strategies, with implications for the COVID-19 pandemic strategies and then to identify opportunities and challenges for the successful development and implementation of digital solutions during non-emergency times of routine surveillance, with readiness for early-warning and response for future pandemics. The enhancement of traditional surveillance systems with novel digital surveillance methods opens a direction for the most effective framework for preparedness and response to future pandemics.

Population health monitoring: an essential public health field in motion.

BACKGROUND: Population health monitoring, the regular and institutionalized production and dissemination of information and knowledge about the health status of a population, is an essential element of public health. Nevertheless, while epidemiology and biostatistics, for example, are well-recognized disciplines, this does not (yet) apply to population health monitoring. Over the past decade, however, it has matured as a distinct field of expertise. OBJECTIVES: This paper presents a comprehensive model for population health monitoring and describes its current status as a field of expertise. It concludes with an overview of the most important developments that are likely to shape the health information systems and population health monitoring practices of the future. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Combining the information pyramid (an application of the data-information-knowledge-wisdom hierarchy), describing outputs, and a so-called monitoring chain, describing activities, results in a comprehensive model for population health monitoring. The steps of the activity chain can be viewed as a stairway by which the information pyramid is climbed, reaching evidence-informed policymaking at the top. Population health monitoring has several inherent strengths, such as its high societal relevance; its integrative, comprehensive, and structured approach; and the fact that it makes use of routinely collected data. In practice, however, secondary use of routine data is often hampered by technical, motivational, economic, political, ethical, and legal barriers. Important developments that will shape health information systems and population health monitoring practices of the future include digitalization and data-driven technology, citizen science, and the growing need for intersectoral approaches. Population health monitoring practice will need to adapt in order to counteract the risks and reap the benefits that these developments hold.

The Dutch Public Health Foresight Study 2018: an example of a comprehensive foresight exercise.

BACKGROUND: The use of foresight studies is common in some policy fields, but not in public health. Interest in such studies is growing. This paper gives a general overview of the Dutch Public Health Foresight Study (PHFS) 2018, providing insight into what performing a broad scenario exercise in the field of public health entails and its societal impacts. METHODS: The aim of the PHFS-2018 was: (a) to show how public health and healthcare in the Netherlands will develop over the next 25 years if we pursue our current course and detect 'new' developments; (b) to give options for dealing with the major future societal challenges. Part a was addressed by means of a quantitative business-as-usual scenario exercise complemented with qualitative thematic studies, and part b by elaborating courses of action for three key challenges, based on stakeholder consultation. Typical aspects of the PHFS methods are a multidisciplinary, participatory and conceptual approach and using a broad definition of health. RESULTS: The PHFS-2018 is the basis for the upcoming National Health Policy Memorandum and the Trend Scenario is the baseline for the National Prevention Agreement. Unexpectedly, the findings about increasing mental pressure in young people received most attention. There still is room for expanding use of the study to its full potential. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term thinking could be stimulated by using back casting techniques and stronger involvement of policy-makers in the elaboration of options for action. Lessons learned from developing intersectoral policy at the local level could be applied at the national level.

Towards an overarching European health information system.

A European health information system (HIS) supports mutual learning between member states through international comparisons. In addition, it informs international policy agendas. Collaboration between the major stakeholders, most importantly the World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe (WHO-Euro), the European Commission and OECD, is important for member states, as this will contribute to better and more efficiently produced health intelligence. This paper focuses on this 'supra-international' collaboration. Although progress has been made, most notably in relation to joint data collections on monetary and non-monetary healthcare statistics, there is still room for improvement, both in relation to the harmonization of indicators and their underlying data collections, and the better coordination of reporting and research and development work. The working environment is complex, and differences between the (scope of the) health information activities of the three international organizations must be accepted. Yet there is enough common ground to build on. In addition, important barriers hampering further progress are the current semantic confusion about what constitutes a(n international) HIS, and inadequate coordination of national positions across various technical and political platforms of the international organizations. A pragmatic, bottom-up approach, instead of technically and strategically complex and comprehensive solutions, seems the best way forward. The current momentum created by EU-level developments and networks like the European Health Information Initiative of WHO-Euro provide an opportunity for taking the overarching European HIS to a next level.

Health assessments for health governance-concepts and methodologies.

Background: For better supporting the science-governance interface, the potential of health assessments appears underrated. Aims: To identify what various types of health assessment have in common; how they differ; which assessment(s) to apply for which purpose; and what needs and options there are for future joint development. Methods: This review is based on five types of health assessment: monitoring/surveillance/reporting, assessment of health impact, of health technology, of health systems performance, health-related economic assessment. The approach is exploratory and includes: applying an agreed set of comparative criteria; circulating and supplementing synoptic tables; and interpreting the results. Results: Two of the assessments deal with the question 'Where do we stand?', two others with variants of 'What if' questions. Economic Assessment can take place in combination with any of the others. The assessments involve both overall 'procedures' and a variety of 'methods' which inescapably reflect some subjective assumptions and decisions, e.g. on issue framing. Resources and assistance exist for all these assessments. The paper indicates which type of assessment is appropriate for what purpose. Conclusions: Although scientific soundness of health assessments is not trivial to secure, existing types of health assessment can be interpreted as a useful 'toolkit' for supporting governance. If current traces of 'silo' thinking can be overcome, the attainability of a more unified culture of health assessments increases and such assessments might more widely be recognized as a prime, 'tried and tested' way to voice Public Health knowledge and to support rational governance and policy-making.

Implementing the European Core Health Indicators (ECHI) in the Netherlands: an overview of data availability.

BACKGROUND: The European Commission, together with the European Union (EU) Member States, developed a core set of indicators for monitoring public health in the EU, the European Core Health Indicators (ECHI) shortlist. From 2009 to 2012 developmental work on the ECHI indicators continued within the framework of the Joint Action for European Community Health Indicators and Monitoring (ECHIM). In this article, we give the current state of affairs on the availability of data for the ECHI indicators in the Netherlands and show what progress has been made over the past 5 years. The information provided serves as an illustration of the challenges encountered in a European country when working on harmonising national data collections with international data delivery requirements. METHODS: To assess data availability, we consulted Dutch data experts and relevant websites and reports on health monitoring activities. We compared the available Dutch data with the definitions, preferred data sources and relevant dimensions as requested by ECHI. RESULTS: The Netherlands can provide data for 66 of the 75 ECHI indicators for which availability could be assessed: for all of the 48 ECHI indicators that can be extracted from international databases and for 18 of the 27 indicators not available from international databases. Breakdowns by socio-economic status and region are not possible for 23 (35%) of the total of 66 indicators for which data are available and for 21 (32%) of these 66 indicators the definition is not exactly the same as requested by ECHIM. Since 2009, better estimates have become available for low birth weight, practising physicians and practising nurses. Moreover, several European initiatives to improve harmonised data collection are expected to have a positive effect on data availability for the Netherlands. Such initiatives should become sustainable in order to provide possibilities for monitoring trends. The scattered data ownership in the Netherlands complicates the coordination work for international data deliveries. CONCLUSION: Data availability in the Netherlands is good. Since 2009, several Dutch and European developments in harmonising data collection have contributed or will significantly contribute to improvements in the data situation for the ECHI indicators in the Netherlands.