scholarly journals Developing recommendations for good practice in national health reporting

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Thißen ◽  
S Seeling ◽  
P Achterberg ◽  
A Fehr ◽  
R Haneef ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Information ◽  
Good Practice ◽  
Guidance Document ◽  
Health Reporting ◽  
Target Groups ◽  
Member States ◽  
Reporting Practices ◽  
Desk Research ◽  
The Eu

Abstract Background Health reporting should deliver up-to-date data and information on the population's health status, its determinants and on national (or regional) healthcare services. Establishing an information or discussion base for health policy is an important objective ('data for action'), but health reporting also addresses other target groups like scientists, the media or the general public. Depending on the needs and competencies of the respective target groups, requirements for health reporting formats will differ. At the same time, heterogeneity of health reporting practices in Member States causes, next to occasional language barriers, difficulties in facilitating access to EU-comparable information. To allow for alignment and identification of good practices, our study aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the health reporting formats in the EU. Methods A web-based desk research of health reporting formats and their target groups was conducted among EU Member States and associated InfAct partner countries. Good practice examples were identified on the basis of quality criteria derived from 'Good Practice in Health Reporting' for Germany and the Eva PHR (Evaluation of National and Regional Public Health Reports) project. Based on the findings of the desk research, a guidance document for health reports will be drafted in close cooperation with InfAct partner countries. Results The guidance should accommodate the heterogeneity of reporting practices at EU level while defining desirable and feasible good practice standards. Although the focus is on public health reports, recommendations for other formats of health reporting will also be included. It will facilitate the preparation, dissemination and access to EU-comparable and high-quality health information. Conclusions The guidance is expected to be a useful tool for making health information adequately available to the targeted groups while reducing inequalities in health reporting across the EU.

scholarly journals Overview of national health reporting in the EU and quality criteria for public health reports – results of the Joint Action InfAct

2021 ◽  
Vol 79 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Thissen ◽  
Stefanie Seeling ◽  
Peter Achterberg ◽  
Angela Fehr ◽  
Luigi Palmieri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
Health Reporting ◽  
Target Groups ◽  
Member States ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Reporting Practices ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Desk Research ◽  
The Eu

Abstract 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.

scholarly journals Overview of National Health Reporting in the EU and Quality Criteria for Public Health Reports – Results of the Joint Action InfAct

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Thissen ◽  
Stefanie Seeling ◽  
Peter Achterberg ◽  
Angela Fehr ◽  
Luigi Palmieri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
Health Reporting ◽  
Target Groups ◽  
Member States ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Reporting Practices ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Desk Research ◽  
The Eu

Abstract 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.

scholarly journals Prioritizing health information for national health reporting - a Delphi study of the Joint Action on Health Information (InfAct)

2022 ◽  
Vol 80 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Angela Fehr ◽  
Stefanie Seeling ◽  
Anselm Hornbacher ◽  
Martin Thißen ◽  
Petronille Bogaert ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Information ◽  
National Health ◽  
Delphi Study ◽  
Joint Action ◽  
Good Practice ◽  
Health Reporting ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
National Public Health

Abstract 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.

scholarly journals Leviathan, or the Rudder of Public Health

2017 ◽  
Vol 2 (Suppl. 1) ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Denis Horgan ◽  
Walter Ricciardi
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Big Data ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Personalised Medicine ◽  
Member States ◽  
Reform Agenda ◽  
The World ◽  
The Face ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Do So

In the world of modern health, despite the fact that we've been blessed with amazing advances of late - the advent of personalised medicine is just one example - “change” for most citizens seems slow. There are clear discrepancies in availability of the best care for all, the divisions in access from country to country, wealthy to poor, are large. There are even discrepancies between regions of the larger countries, where access often varies alarmingly. Too many Member States (with their competence for healthcare) appear to be clinging stubbornly to the concept of “one-size-fits-all” in healthcare and often stifle advances possible through personalised medicine. Meanwhile, the legislative arena encompassing health has grown big and unwieldy in many respects. And bigger is not always better. The health advances spoken of above, an increased knowledge on the part of patients, the emergence of Big Data and more, are quickly changing the face of healthcare in Europe. But healthcare thinking across the EU isn't changing fast enough. The new technologies will certainly speak for themselves, but only if allowed to do so. Acknowledging that, this article highlights a positive reform agenda, while explaining that new avenues need to be explored.

European Union Rights and Values in Human Health

2019 ◽  
pp. 16-51
Author(s):  
Anniek de Ruijter
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
European Union ◽  
National Policy ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Eu Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Eu

This book looks at the impact of the expanding power of the EU in terms of fundamental rights and values. The current chapter lays down the framework for this analysis. Law did not always have a central role to play in the context of medicine and health. The role of law grew after the Second Word War and the Nuremberg Doctors Trials (1947), in which preventing the repetition of atrocities that were committed in the name of medicine became a guidepost for future law regarding patients’ rights and bioethics. In the period after the War, across the EU Member States, health law developed as a legal discipline in which a balance was struck in medicine and public health between law, bioethics, and fundamental rights. The role of EU fundamental rights protections in the context of public health and health care developed in relation with the growth of multilevel governance and litigation (national, international, Council of Europe, and European Union). For the analysis here, this chapter develops an EU rights and values framework that goes beyond the strictly legal and allows for a ‘normative language’ that takes into consideration fundamental rights as an expression of important shared values in the context of the European Union. The perspective of EU fundamental rights and values can demonstrate possible tensions caused by EU health policy: implications in terms of fundamental rights can show how highly sensitive national policy issues may be affected by the Member States’ participation in EU policymaking activities.

scholarly journals Protection of Dairy Cattle in the EU: State of Play and Directions for Policymaking from a Legal and Animal Advocacy Perspective

Animals ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (12) ◽  
pp. 1066 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elena Nalon ◽  
Peter Stevenson
Keyword(s):  
Dairy Cattle ◽  
Dairy Cows ◽  
Good Practice ◽  
Farm Animals ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Critical Areas ◽  
Species Specific ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Take All

With the exception of a detailed Directive for calves, the welfare of dairy cattle is not regulated by species-specific legislation in the European Union. Their basic protection falls under the provisions of Directive 98/58/EC, also known as the “General Farm Animals Directive”. Article 3 of this Directive states: “Member States shall make provision to ensure that the owners or keepers take all reasonable steps to ensure the welfare of animals under their care and to ensure that those animals are not caused any unnecessary pain, suffering or injury”. However, recent reports show that the welfare of dairy cows in the EU is not sufficiently monitored and that serious problems persist. Lameness, mastitis, cubicle design, flooring, cleanliness, and permanent tethering remain critical areas. We argue that, to demonstrate compliance with Article 3 of Directive 98/58, farmers and Member States should urgently address these issues. The increasing proportion of cows that are never allowed to graze and high milk yields are also reasons for concern and will need to be addressed as a matter of priority in future EU guides to good practice and, eventually, legislation.

scholarly journals EU ASYLUM SYSTEM IN AND AFTER THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC: DISCLOSING THE WEAKNESSES OF THE CURRENT RULES AND ASSESSING THE PROSPECTS OF THE NEW PACT ON MIGRATION AND ASYLUM

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bojana Čučković
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Current Phase ◽  
Member States ◽  
International Protection ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Emergency Situations ◽  
Human Rights Standards ◽  
The Eu

The paper analyses the influence that the Covid-19 pandemic has had on the functioning of the European asylum system. The analysis is divided into three parts and addresses problematic issues associated with different stages of the pandemic. In the first part of the paper, the author outlines the asylum practices of EU Member States in the initial stage of the Covid-19 pandemic during which the pandemic was perceived as a state of emergency. By exploring the legal possibilities to derogate both from the EU asylum rules and international human rights standards, the author offers conclusions as regards limits of derogations and the legality of Member States’ practices, especially their failure to differentiate between rules that are susceptive of being derogated in emergency situations and those that are not. The second part of the paper analyses the current phase of the pandemic in which it is perceived as a 'new normal' and focuses on making the EU asylum system immune to Covid-19 influence to the greatest extent possible and in line with relevant EU and human rights rules. The author insists on the vulnerability as an inherent feature of persons in need of international protection and researches upon the relationship between the two competing interests involved – protection of asylum seekers and ensuring public health as a legitimate reason for restricting certain asylum seekers’ rights. The final part of the paper analyses the prospects of the future EU asylum system, as announced by the New Pact on Migration and Asylum in September 2020, to adapt to the exigencies of both the current Covid-19 crisis and pandemics that are yet to come. With an exclusive focus on referral to Covid-19 and provisions relevant for the current and future pandemics, the author criticizes several solutions included in the instruments that make up the Pact. It is concluded that the Pact failed to offer solutions for problems experienced during the Covid-19 pandemic and that, under the pretext of public health, it prioritizes the interests of Member States over the interests of applicants for international protection.

scholarly journals The European Union competence in the public health field

2021 ◽  
pp. 87-92
Author(s):  
V. O. Tyumentsev
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
European Union ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Health Protection ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
The Public ◽  
Legal Provisions ◽  
Health Field ◽  
The Eu

The subject of this article is the competence of the European Union (EU) in the public health field within the territory of the Member States of this organization. The purpose of this article is to analyze how the EU's competence is distributed in relation to the competence of the member states using the primary treaty of the organization as a source. The article examines the powers of the EU organization within both the main and additional competence and analyzes how the EU interacts with the member states in the framework of health protection in accordance with the legal provisions of the primary source. The main and additional competence of the EU is considered separately, and there is also an analysis of the features and possible prospects of the legal regulation of health protection within the relevant branch of the law of the European Union.

Balkan public distrust will endanger vaccine take-up

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Survey Data ◽  
Member States ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Relative Safety ◽  
Balkan Countries ◽  
To Come ◽  
Clear Majority ◽  
The Eu

Significance Non-EU Balkan countries are lagging behind EU member states in securing access to vaccines. However, survey data show that a clear majority of citizens would refuse to accept a government-sanctioned vaccine, representing a possible risk to public health for years to come. Impacts Russia and China will try to boost their influence by offering their own vaccines more quickly and in quantity. The relative safety of Russian and Western vaccines will be an issue in Russian disinformation campaigns. The EU will lose ground in the geopolitical contest, with doses not available via the WHO-GAVI COVAX scheme until April.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document