Home Versus Hospital Rehabilitation of Older Adults Following Hip Fracture Yields Similar Patient-Reported Outcome Measures.

The increase in hip fractures (HF) due to aging of the population and the rise in attractiveness of services provided at home following the COVID-19 pandemic, emphasize the need to compare outcomes of home versus hospital HF rehabilitation. To date, studies comparing the 2 services have focused primarily on clinical outcomes rather than patient-reported outcomes (PROs). This longitudinal observational study evaluated PROs of older adults with HF in the 2 settings. The SF36 questionnaire was used to measure PROs 3 times after surgery. The first PRO was retrospective and reflected pre-fracture health status. Descriptive statistics and mixed-effect logistic regression were used. Of 86 patients participating in the study, 41 had home rehabilitation and 45 had hospital rehabilitation. In both groups, the mental and physical scores plummeted 2 weeks after the HF, compared to pre-fracture status. The difference in improvement from pre-fracture status to recovery in both groups, were not significantly (P < .05) different, except for the pain domain. PROs of home versus hospital rehabilitation were similar, suggesting that rehabilitation at home can be as effective as hospital rehabilitation for suitable patients. This knowledge can improve quality of care in an aging global population.

Utilising patient-reported outcomes for goal-directed therapy of hip fracture patients: a sequential controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Hip fracture patients (HFPs) frequently have multiple underlying conditions, necessitating that agreed-upon goals take these complications into consideration. Communication regarding goals between medical-personnel and patients is not always effective. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can outline personal goals and help promote quality health care in HFPs. Few studies have been published on this topic. The study's aim was to outline the process of using PROs for goal-directed therapy among HFPs. METHODS: This sequential controlled trial was conducted among HFPs from two medical centres. The control and the intervention group received integrative rehabilitation. PROs were measured in both groups using the SF36 questionnaire three times postsurgery: 24-48 hours, 2 weeks and 3 months. During the first round of questioning, only the intervention group was asked 'what matters most to you?' during the rehabilitative process. Accordingly, agreed-upon goals that were determined by the SF36's eight topics and were incorporated into the HFP's rehabilitative process. A Likert scale of 1-5, '1' indicating no-achievement and '5' full-achievement, was used to assess the goal achievement 4-6 months post-fracture. RESULTS: 84 HFPs participated in the study: 40 and 44 in the intervention and control group, respectively. In both groups, PROs declined after the HF, then improved somewhat 3 months later, but did not return to prefracture scores. Among the intervention group, 39% reached their specific goals (Likert level 5). Patients who achieved their goals had better PROs in comparison to others. The intervention group indicated PROs helped them articulate their desires and introduced them to new areas of care. CONCLUSIONS: Shifting from asking 'what's the matter?' to 'what matters most to you?' can improve the understanding of HFPs' own priorities, promote quality outcomes and enhance patient-centred care. Using PROs as a guide for goal-directed therapy can create a more inclusive process that includes the patients' most important health determinants and needs.

Perception of Goals and Expected Outcomes in Older Hip Fracture Patients and Their Medical Staff: A Cross Sectional Study.

Background: Goal-oriented patientcare is a key element in qualityhealthcare. Medical-caregiver's (MC) are expected to generate a shared decision-making process with patients regarding goals and expected health-outcomes. Hip-fracture patients (HFP) are usually older-adults with multiple health-conditions, necessitating that agreed-upon goals regarding the rehabilitation process, take these conditions into consideration. This topic has yet to be investigated by pairing and comparing the perception of expected outcomes and therapeutic goals of multidisciplinary MCs and their HF patient's. Our aim was to assess in a quantitative method whether HFPs and their multidisciplinary MCs agree upon target health-outcomes and their most important goals as they are reflected in the SF12 questionnaire. Methods: This was a cross-sectional, multi-center, study of HFPs and their MCs. Patients and MCs were asked to rate their top three most important goals for rehabilitation from the SF12 eight subscales: physical functioning, physical role limitation, bodily pain, general health, vitality, social functioning, emotional role limitation and mental health, and indicate their expected outcome. Descriptive statistics and mixed effect logistic-regression were used to compare concordance of the ratings. Agreement between patients and MCs was assessed using interclass coefficients (ICCs). Results: A total of 378 ratings were collected from 52 patients, 12 nurses, 12 physicians and 6 paramedical personnel. Each patient had between 3 and 9 raters. Patients considered physical functioning and physical role limitation more important than did MCs. Physicians and nurses emphasized the importance of bodily pain while patients referred to it as relatively less significant. The total ICC was low (2%) indicating poor agreement between MCs and patients. With the exception of physical-functioning, MCs predicted a less optimistic outcome in all of the SF12's subscales in comparison to HFPs. Conclusion: Effective intervention in HFPs requires constructive communication between MCs and patients. The study suggests that caregivers have an insufficient understanding of the expectations of HFPs. More effective communication channels are required in order to better understand HFPs' needs and expectations.

To charge or not to charge: reducing patient no-show.

BACKGROUND: In order to reduce patient no-show, the Israeli government is promoting legislation that will allow Health Plans to require a co-payment from patients when reserving an appointment. It is hoped that this will create an incentive for patients to cancel in advance rather than simply not show up. The goal of this policy is to improve patient access to medical care and ensure that healthcare resources are utilized effectively. We explore this phenomenon to support evidence-based decision making on this issue, and to determine whether the proposed legislation is aligned with the findings of previous studies. MAIN BODY: No-show rates vary across countries and healthcare services, with several strategies in place to mitigate the phenomenon. There are three key stakeholders involved: (1) patients, (2) medical staff, and (3) insurers/managed care organizations, each of which is affected differently by no-shows and faces a different set of incentives. The decision whether to impose financial penalties for no-shows should take a number of considerations into account, such as the fine amount, service type, the establishment of an effective fine collection system, the patient's socioeconomic status, and the potential for exacerbating disparities in healthcare access. The limited research on the impact of fines on no-show rates has produced mixed results. Further investigation is necessary to understand the influence of fine amounts on no-show rates across various healthcare services. Additionally, it is important to evaluate the implications of this proposed legislation on patient behavior, access to healthcare, and potential disparities in access. CONCLUSION: It is anticipated that the proposed legislation will have minimal impact on attendance rates. To achieve meaningful change, efforts should focus on enhancing medical service availability and improving the ease with which appointments can be cancelled or alternatively substantial fines should be imposed. Further research is imperative for determining the most effective way to address the issue of patient no-show and to enhance healthcare system efficiency.

The Suitability of Measuring Patient-Reported Outcomes in Older Adults Following a Hip Fracture Using the Short-Form 36 Questionnaire: A Qualitative Description Approach.

Hip-fractures (HF) in older adults are associated with poor outcomes and high costs. Measuring quality-of-care of HF patients has focused on clinical definitions rather than on measuring outcomes that are meaningful to the patient. Healthcare systems worldwide are increasingly interested in patient-reported outcome measures (PROs). The Short-form (SF36) questionnaire is a recommended measure among older adults however it's comprehensiveness and uniqueness for specific patients after a HF is not clear. The aims of this study were to: understand the perspective of the older adults experience following HF, to assess the suitability of the SF36 as a PRO for HF and to determine the best timing for questioning. A qualitative description approach was used. This took place in 2 large academic medical-centers in Israel. The inquiry was done in 2 parts by semi-structured interview. A total 15 HF patients were interviewed. Categories and themes emerging from their responses were similar to the 8 domains of the SF36 questionnaire, but the participants added clarity regarding their own needs for setting goals. In the second part, participants agreed that the SF36 reflected common issues and served as an adequate measure for personal-goal setting. The study encourages patient-centered care in older adults recovering from HF, providing evidence that the SF36 is a suitable tool for measuring PROs in HF patients. Healthcare systems focus on clinical-outcome indicators and do not reflect how the patient views his outcomes. This study provides evidence that care should be customized for each person.

The role of Israeli researchers in the scientific literature regarding COVID-19 vaccines.

BACKGROUND: The accurate and timely publication of scientific findings is a key component of the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This article explores the role of Israeli researchers in the scientific literature regarding COVID-19 vaccines. METHODS: Content and bibliometric analysis of articles included in the Web of Science database regarding COVID-19 vaccines, that were published between January 2020 and June 2022. RESULTS: The Web of Science includes 18,596 articles regarding COVID-19 vaccines that were published between January 2020 and June 2022. 536 (3%) of those articles had at least one Israeli author. These "Israeli articles" accounted for 11% of the NEJM articles on COVID-19 vaccines, 9% of such articles in Nature Medicine, and 4% of such articles in the Lancet. 80 of the 536 Israeli articles (15%) were recognized as "Highly Cited Papers" (articles that rank in the top 1% by citations for field and publication year). Most of the Israeli Highly Cited Papers (HCPs) analyzed the safety and/or efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine developed by Pfizer and BioNTech (BNT162b2). Most of the Israeli HCPs made use of detailed and comprehensive individual data available from Israel's health plans, hospitals, or Ministry of Health. The 15% HCP rate (i.e., the number of HCPs divided by the number of all articles) for the Israeli articles was triple the HCP rate for all articles on COVID-19 vaccines (5%). A key factor contributing to Israel's prominent role in rapid publication of vaccination impact studies was Israel's being a world leader in the initial vaccination rollout, the administration of boosters, and the vaccination of pregnant women. Other contributing factors include Israeli researchers' access to well-developed electronic health record systems linking vaccinations and outcomes, the analytic strengths of leading Israeli researchers and research institutions, collaborations with leading research institutions in other countries, and the ability to quickly identify emerging research opportunities and mobilize accordingly. Recent developments in the priorities and selection criteria of leading journals have also played a role; these include an increased openness to well-designed observational studies and to manuscripts from outside of Europe and North America. CONCLUSIONS: Israeli researchers, Israeli research institutions, and the Israeli government can, and should, take concrete steps to build upon lessons learned in the course of the recent surge of high-quality publications related to COVID-19 vaccines (such as the value of linking data across organizations). These lessons can be applied to a wide range of fields, including fields that go well beyond vaccines and pandemic responses.

Addressing vaccine hesitancy and access barriers to achieve persistent progress in Israel's COVID-19 vaccination program.

As of March 31, 2021, Israel had administered 116 doses of vaccine for COVID-19 per 100 population (of any age) - far more than any other OECD country. It was also ahead of other OECD countries in terms of the share of the population that had received at least one vaccination (61%) and the share that had been fully vaccinated (55%). Among Israelis aged 16 and over, the comparable figures were 81 and 74%, respectively. In light of this, the objectives of this article are: 1. To describe and analyze the vaccination uptake through the end of March 2021 2. To identify behavioral and other barriers that likely affected desire or ability to be vaccinated 3. To describe the efforts undertaken to overcome those barriers Israel's vaccination campaign was launched on December 20, and within 2.5 weeks, 20% of Israelis had received their first dose. Afterwards, the pace slowed. It took an additional 4 weeks to increase from 20 to 40% and yet another 6 weeks to increase from 40 to 60%. Initially, uptake was low among young adults, and two religious/cultural minority groups - ultra-Orthodox Jews and Israeli Arabs, but their uptake increased markedly over time.In the first quarter of 2021, Israel had to enhance access to the vaccine, address a moderate amount of vaccine hesitancy in its general population, and also address more intense pockets of vaccine hesitancy among young adults and religious/cultural minority groups. A continued high rate of infection during the months of February and March, despite broad vaccination coverage at the time, created confusion about vaccine effectiveness, which in turn contributed to vaccine hesitancy. Among Israeli Arabs, some residents of smaller villages encountered difficulties in reaching vaccination sites, and that also slowed the rate of vaccination.The challenges were addressed via a mix of messaging, incentives, extensions to the initial vaccine delivery system, and other measures. Many of the measures addressed the general population, while others were targeted at subgroups with below-average vaccination rates. Once the early adopters had been vaccinated, it took hard, creative work to increase population coverage from 40 to 60% and beyond.Significantly, some of the capacities and strategies that helped Israel address vaccine hesitancy and geographic access barriers are different from those that enabled it to procure, distribute and administer the vaccines. Some of these strategies are likely to be relevant to other countries as they progress from the challenges of securing an adequate vaccine supply and streamlining distribution to the challenge of encouraging vaccine uptake.

Israel's rapid rollout of vaccinations for COVID-19.

As of the end of 2020, the State of Israel, with a population of 9.3 million, had administered more COVID-19 vaccine doses than all countries aside from China, the US, and the UK. Moreover, Israel had administered almost 11.0 doses per 100 population, while the next highest rates were 3.5 (in Bahrain) and 1.4 (in the United Kingdom). All other countries had administered less than 1 dose per 100 population.While Israel's rollout of COVID-19 vaccinations was not problem-free, its initial phase had clearly been rapid and effective. A large number of factors contributed to this early success, and they can be divided into three major groups.The first group of factors consists of long-standing characteristics of Israel which are extrinsic to health care. They include: Israel's small size (in terms of both area and population), a relatively young population, relatively warm weather in December 2020, a centralized national system of government, and well-developed infrastructure for implementing prompt responses to large-scale national emergencies.The second group of factors are also long-standing, but they are health-system specific. They include: the organizational, IT and logistical capacities of Israel's community-based health care providers, the availability of a cadre of well-trained, salaried, community-based nurses who are directly employed by those providers, a tradition of effective cooperation between government, health plans, hospitals, and emergency care providers - particularly during national emergencies; and support tools and decisionmaking frameworks to support vaccination campaigns.The third group consists of factors that are more recent and are specific to the COVID-19 vaccination effort. They include: the mobilization of special government funding for vaccine purchase and distribution, timely contracting for a large amount of vaccines relative to Israel's population, the use of simple, clear and easily implementable criteria for determining who had priority for receiving vaccines in the early phases of the distribution process, a creative technical response that addressed the demanding cold storage requirements of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, and well-tailored outreach efforts to encourage Israelis to sign up for vaccinations and then show up to get vaccinated.While many of these facilitating factors are not unique to Israel, part of what made the Israeli rollout successful was its combination of facilitating factors (as opposed to each factor being unique separately) and the synergies it created among them. Moreover, some high-income countries (including the US, the UK, and Canada) are lacking several of these facilitating factors, apparently contributing to the slower pace of the rollout in those countries.

National study: Most elderly patients benefit from earlier hip fracture surgery despite co-morbidity.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the potential influence of pre-operative patient condition on the benefit of earlier hip fracture surgery for elderly patients. BACKGROUND: Many studies emphasize the benefit of earlier hip fracture surgery for patient survival. However less is known regarding how this relationship is influenced by clinical factors which could serve as potential contra-indicators for earlier surgery. Rushed surgery of patients with contra-indications may even compromise their survival. METHODS: A retrospective study of patients aged 65 and above with an isolated hip fracture following trauma, based on data from 19 hospitals of the national trauma registry available for the years 2015-2016. Registry data was crossed with data on co-morbidities and medication intake from the biggest health insurance agency in the country, serving more than 50% of the country's population. Mediation analysis was performed on a wide list of co-morbidities, medications and clinical test results in order to establish the mediation of their relationship with inhospital mortality by earlier hip fracture surgery. Factors found significant in the mediation analysis were utilized to adjust a logistic regression for predicting inhospital mortality by function of waiting time to surgery and patient's sex and age. RESULTS: Anti-coagulant and anti-platelet intake; test results pointing to decreased kidney function and being diagnosed with diabetes or Ischemic Heart Disease were found to be significantly mediated in their influence on inhospital mortality by hip fracture surgery. Despite anti-platelet intake and kidney function having a significant impact on mortality in the multi-variate analysis, the positive effect of earlier hip surgery on survival remained unchanged after adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: Earlier hip fracture surgery was found to be beneficial for elderly patients even when their co-morbidities and medication intake are taken into account.

Opportunities for diversifying and enriching our article mix.

As 2020 comes to a close, the Israel Journal of Health Policy Research (IJHPR) will soon be starting its tenth year of publication. This editorial compares data from 2012 (the journal's first year of publication) and 2019 (the journal's most recent full year of publication), regarding the journal's mix of article types, topics, data sources and methods, with further drill-downs regarding 2019.The analysis revealed several encouraging findings, including a broad and changing mix of topics covered. However, the analysis also revealed several findings that are less encouraging, including the limited number of articles which assessed national policy changes, examined changes over time, and/or made secondary use of large-scale survey data. These findings apparently reflect, to some extent, the mix of studies being carried out by Israeli health services researchers.As the senior editors of the IJHPR we are interested in working with funders, academic institutions, the owners and principal users of relevant administrative databases, and individual scholars to further understand the factors influencing the mix of research being carried out, and subsequently published, by Israel's health services research community. This deeper understanding could then be used to develop a joint plan to diversify and enrich health services research and health policy analysis in Israel. The plan should include a policy of ensuring improved access to data, to properly support information-based research.

Innovation and The Israel Journal of Health Policy Research.

The Israel Journal of Health Policy Research (IJHPR) is a peer-reviewed, on-line, open access journal, sponsored by Israel's National Institute for Health Policy Research. We believe that it is both an innovative platform and a platform for innovation. Within just 2 years of its launch in 2012, the IJHPR was accepted into the prestigious Web of Science - primarily because of its innovative positioning as a journal that is simultaneously national and international. This positioning has contributed to annual growth of over 20% in both submissions and publications and to the IJHPR being ranked among the top half of public health journals, just 6 years after its launch date.The IJHPR has also served as a platform for numerous innovations, including: Sharing with the international community information about Israeli innovations in public health, health policy, health care delivery, and more.Enhancing the impact of empirical studies by Israeli scholars via commentaries by leading scholars from abroad - including 18 commentaries from scholars based at Harvard and one commentary by a Nobel laureate in economics.Developing a new genre of articles for Israel, namely, broad policy analyses focused on major challenges facing Israeli health care.Creating dynamic, constantly growing, article collections in such fields as digital health, pharmaceutical policy and health care equity, to highlight areas of excellence as well as important issues in Israeli health care and health policy.Disseminating to a wide audience the essence of major Israeli health policy workshops and conferences.We feel that the IJHPR has significant potential to contribute more, and in new ways, in the years ahead. We look forward to your suggestions for innovative enhancements of the IJHPR.

Timeliness and completeness of routine childhood vaccinations in young children residing in a district with recurrent vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks, Jerusalem, Israel.

BackgroundChildhood vaccination schedules recommend vaccine doses at predefined ages.AimWe evaluated vaccination completeness and timeliness in Jerusalem, a district with recurrent vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks.MethodsVaccination coverage was monitored by the up-to-date method (vaccination completeness at age 2 years). Timeliness of vaccination was assessed in children (n = 3,098, born in 2009, followed to age 48 months, re-evaluated at age 7 years) by the age-appropriate method (vaccine dose timeliness according to recommended schedule). Vaccines included: hepatitis B (HBV: birth, 1 month and 6 months); diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis, polio, Haemophilus influenzae b (DTaP-IPV-Hib: 2, 4, 6 and 12 months); pneumococcal conjugate (PCV: 2, 4 and 12 months); measles-mumps-rubella/measles-mumps-rubella-varicella (MMR/MMRV: 12 months) and hepatitis A (HAV: 18 and 24 months).ResultsOverall vaccination coverage (2014 cohort evaluated at age 2 years) was 95% and 86% for MMR/MMRV and DTaP-IPV-Hib4, respectively. Most children (94%, 91%, 79%, 95%, 92% and 82%) were up-to-date for HBV3, DTaP-IPV-Hib4, PCV3, MMR/MMRV1, HAV1 and HAV2 vaccines at 48 months, but only 32%, 28%, 38%, 58%, 49% and 20% were vaccinated timely (age-appropriate). At age 7 years, the median increase in vaccination coverage was 2.4%. Vaccination delay was associated with: high birth order, ethnicity (higher among Jews vs Arabs), birth in winter, delayed acceptance of first dose of DTaP-IPV-Hib and multiple-dose vaccines (vs MMR/MMRV). Jewish ultra-Orthodox communities had low vaccination coverage.ConclusionsConsiderable vaccination delay should be addressed within the vaccine hesitancy spectrum. Delays may induce susceptibility to vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks; tailored programmes to improve timeliness are required.

Increasing Perceived Emergency Preparedness by Participatory Policy-Making (Think-Tanks).

OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to examine impact of think-tanks designed to create policies for emerging threats on medical teams' perceptions of individual and systemic emergency preparedness. METHODS: Multi-professional think-tanks were established to design policies for potential attacks on civilian communities. In total, 59 multi-sector health care managers participated in think-tanks focused on: (a) primary care services in risk zones; (b) hospital care; (c) casualty evacuation policies; (d) medical services to special-needs populations; and (e) services in a "temporary military-closed zone." Participants rotated systematically between think-tanks. Perceived individual and systemic emergency preparedness was reviewed pre-post participation in think-tanks. RESULTS: A significant increase in perceived emergency preparedness pre-post-think-tanks was found in 8/10 elements including in perceived individual role proficiency (3.71±0.67 vs 4.60±0.53, respectively; P<0.001) and confidence in colleagues' proficiency during crisis (3.56±0.75 vs 4.37±0.61, respectively; P<0.001). Individual preparedness and role perception correlates with systemic preparedness and proficiency in risk assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Participation in policy-making impacts on individuals' perceptions of empowerment including trust in colleagues' capacities, but does not increase confidence in a system's preparedness. Field and managerial officials should be involved in policy-making processes, as a means to empower health care managers and improve interfaces and self-efficacy that are relevant to preparedness and response for crises. (Disaster Med Public Health Prepardness. 2019;13:152-157).

The IJHPR's growing scientific impact.

The Israel Journal of Health Policy Research (IJHPR) was launched in 2012, with a mission that included fostering intensive intellectual interactions among health policy scholars in Israel and abroad. Now, as the journal approaches the end of its seventh year of publication, we can all be proud that this component of our mission is increasingly being realized.As of the end of November 2018, the Web of Science included 404 articles published by the IJHPR. These IJHPR articles had generated 1023 citations via 847 citing articles. Just over 70% of those citing articles were in journals other than the IJHPR, with the vast majority of those being in non-Israeli journals. The authors of the citing articles were most often based in institutions in the US (35%), Israel (33%), England (9%) or Canada (7%).Looking to the future, we hope that the IJHPR will receive even more submissions from authors based in Israel or other countries that are well-designed data-based studies; thoughtful, comprehensive policy analyses; or important integrations of a body of knowledge. In all instances, these should be relevant to Israeli health policy and health care. We hope that many, ideally most, will also be relevant to scholars, policymakers and professionals in other countries.

[HADASSAH MEDICAL ORGANIZATION - A PIONEER IN POPULATION HEALTH].

INTRODUCTION: Population health is a term encompassing "the health outcomes of a group of individuals, including the distribution of such outcomes within the group." Only recently have hospitals viewed themselves as focal points for promoting health in a community, involving themselves with population health. Hadassah Medical Organization (HMO), however, has been in the business of population health since its founding. Its early programs, promoting and delivering nutritional support, maternal-child health and other services to the Yishuv's inhabitants, showed that the HMO defined its community broadly. Hospital care came later. The HMO was established together with the Hebrew University Israel's first School of Public Health and Community Medicine in the 1960's, contributing >1200 Israeli alumni, and exposing thousands of medical students to population health. The School's founders developed Community-Oriented Primary Care, aimed at assessing and addressing health determinants and outcomes at the community level implemented in many centers worldwide. Reaching beyond Israel's borders, the School has trained a global public health workforce through its International Masters in Public Health with >820 graduates from 92 countries. HMO's researchers have made important contributions in the fields of epidemiology, health economics and policy and population health methodology as well as hospital and community quality of care. This article reviews HMO's contribution to population health at local, municipal, national and international levels. We will demonstrate the unique circumstances in Hadassah, Jerusalem and Israel which have enabled world-class research and training in population health, identifying important contributions to policy and service provision, as well as addressing future population health challenges.

Updates and reflections about the IJHPR, on the eve of its seventh year.

The Israel Journal of Health Policy Research (IJHPR) will soon be completing 6 years of publication. During this period, it has published well over 300 articles and has become a stable and vital part of Israeli health care. The number of IJHPR articles published annually has increased significantly over time, and the number of submissions has increased even more significantly. The journal is regularly drawing submissions from a very broad range of Israeli universities, hospitals, health plans, and other institutions, and from leading institutions abroad. The journal's articles cover a wide spectrum of subjects related to health policy, as reflected in the diversity of the article collections that the journal has launched to date. True to its mission statement, the IJHPR is promoting "intensive intellectual interactions among scholars and practitioners from Israel and other countries regarding all aspects of health policy".The journal has been indexed in all of the leading international academic databases and its current impact factor (1.36) puts it in the third quartile in two key Web of Science subject categories. Several IJHPR articles have been accessed over 10,000 times and the IJHPR has become the predominant vehicle in which Israeli scholars are publishing articles with a health policy orientation. IJHPR articles are also figuring prominently in many course syllabi in Israel, and Israeli universities have incorporated IJHPR publications into assessments of faculty members for promotion. The journal's success and progress are a part of a larger trend of greater reliance on data and analysis in health policymaking in Israel and the increasing prominence of health in the Israeli policy agenda and public discourse.During the journal's seventh year, its editors will be carrying out a serious assessment of the challenges and opportunities ahead and developing an updated plan for the journal's development. In doing so, they will draw on data presented in this editorial as well as on in-depth discussions with those who have contributed to the journal's success to date: it publisher, sponsor, and editorial board members, as well as a sample of authors, reviewers and readers. The expectation is that, by working together, it will be possible to take the journal to new heights.