Population health management in Belgium: a call-to-action and case study.

BACKGROUND: Although there are already success stories, population health management in Belgium is still in its infancy. A health system transformation approach such as population health management may be suited to address the public health issue of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, as this is one of the main causes of mortality in Belgium. This article aims to raise awareness about population health management in Belgium by: (a) eliciting barriers and recommendations for its implementation as perceived by local stakeholders; (b) developing a population health management approach to secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease; and (c) providing a roadmap to introduce population health management in Belgium. METHODS: Two virtual focus group discussions were organized with 11 high-level decision makers in medicine, policy and science between October and December 2021. A semi-structured guide based on a literature review was used to anchor discussions. These qualitative data were studied by means of an inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Seven inter-related barriers and recommendations towards the development of population health management in Belgium were identified. These related to responsibilities of different layers of government, shared responsibility for the health of the population, a learning health system, payment models, data and knowledge infrastructure, collaborative relationships and community involvement. The introduction of a population health management approach to secondary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease may act as a proof-of-concept with a view to roll out population health management in Belgium. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need to instill a sense of urgency among all stakeholders to develop a joint population-oriented vision in Belgium. This call-to-action requires the support and active involvement of all Belgian stakeholders, both at the national and regional level.

Prevalence and Determinants of Vaccine Hesitancy and Vaccines Recommendation Discrepancies among General Practitioners in French-Speaking Parts of Belgium.

General practitioners (GPs) play a critical role in patient acceptance of vaccination. Vaccine hesitancy (VH) is a growing phenomenon in the general population but also affects GPs. Few data exist on VH among GPs. The objectives of this analysis of a population of GPs in the Belgian Wallonia-Brussels Federation (WBF) were to: (1) determine the prevalence and the features of VH, (2) identify the correlates, and (3) estimate the discrepancy in vaccination's behaviors between the GPs' children and the recommendations made to their patients. An online survey was carried out among the population of general practitioners practicing in the WBF between 7 January and 18 March 2020. A hierarchical cluster analysis was carried out based on various dimensions of vaccine hesitancy: perception of the risks and the usefulness of vaccines as well as vaccine recommendations for their patients. A total of 251 GPs answered the survey. The average percentage of moderate to high vaccine hesitancy was 50.6%. Three factors were independently associated with increased risk of vaccine hesitancy: an age <50 years old, having no children, and having no contact with selected vaccine-preventable disease (measles, complicated influenza, chronic hepatitis B (HBV), bacterial meningitis, or cervical cancer) in the past 5 years. VH was associated with controversies on vaccines' safety. GPs who had vaccinated their children against six diseases (MMR, meningococcus C (MenC), HBV, and HPV) tended not to recommend the same vaccines to their patients. Among GPs with all children vaccinated against HBV, only 37.5% recommended catch-up HBV immunization to their patients. In this small cohort of GP, moderate to high VH was associated with controversies on vaccines' safety and with specific personal characteristics (age <50, no children, and no recent experience with a serious VPD). As previously reported, GPs have different vaccine prescription attitude toward their patients and children. These findings should be confirmed in larger cohorts.