7.I. Round table: To lead or not to lead: the added value of women leaders in public health

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (suppl_4) ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Y Charpak

Abstract While it is hard to predict what will have happened by the time of the conference, this round table will be tightly templated and coordinated. Each speaker will briefly address the challenges experienced by that country and the actions taken, and focus on explaining why those actions happened in order to draw comparative lessons about public health politics and governance.


2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  

Abstract Countries have a wide range of lifestyles, environmental exposures and different health(care) systems providing a large natural experiment to be investigated. Through pan-European comparative studies, underlying determinants of population health can be explored and provide rich new insights into the dynamics of population health and care such as the safety, quality, effectiveness and costs of interventions. Additionally, in the big data era, secondary use of data has become one of the major cornerstones of digital transformation for health systems improvement. Several countries are reviewing governance models and regulatory framework for data reuse. Precision medicine and public health intelligence share the same population-based approach, as such, aligning secondary use of data initiatives will increase cost-efficiency of the data conversion value chain by ensuring that different stakeholders needs are accounted for since the beginning. At EU level, the European Commission has been raising awareness of the need to create adequate data ecosystems for innovative use of big data for health, specially ensuring responsible development and deployment of data science and artificial intelligence technologies in the medical and public health sectors. To this end, the Joint Action on Health Information (InfAct) is setting up the Distributed Infrastructure on Population Health (DIPoH). DIPoH provides a framework for international and multi-sectoral collaborations in health information. More specifically, DIPoH facilitates the sharing of research methods, data and results through participation of countries and already existing research networks. DIPoH's efforts include harmonization and interoperability, strengthening of the research capacity in MSs and providing European and worldwide perspectives to national data. In order to be embedded in the health information landscape, DIPoH aims to interact with existing (inter)national initiatives to identify common interfaces, to avoid duplication of the work and establish a sustainable long-term health information research infrastructure. In this workshop, InfAct lays down DIPoH's core elements in coherence with national and European initiatives and actors i.e. To-Reach, eHAction, the French Health Data Hub and ECHO. Pitch presentations on DIPoH and its national nodes will set the scene. In the format of a round table, possible collaborations with existing initiatives at (inter)national level will be debated with the audience. Synergies will be sought, reflections on community needs will be made and expectations on services will be discussed. The workshop will increase the knowledge of delegates around the latest health information infrastructure and initiatives that strive for better public health and health systems in countries. The workshop also serves as a capacity building activity to promote cooperation between initiatives and actors in the field. Key messages DIPoH an infrastructure aiming to interact with existing (inter)national initiatives to identify common interfaces, avoid duplication and enable a long-term health information research infrastructure. National nodes can improve coordination, communication and cooperation between health information stakeholders in a country, potentially reducing overlap and duplication of research and field-work.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (12) ◽  
pp. e0244531
Author(s):  
Leah C. Windsor ◽  
Gina Yannitell Reinhardt ◽  
Alistair J. Windsor ◽  
Robert Ostergard ◽  
Susan Allen ◽  
...  

In this paper we explore whether countries led by women have fared better during the COVID-19 pandemic than those led by men. Media and public health officials have lauded the perceived gender-related influence on policies and strategies for reducing the deleterious effects of the pandemic. We examine this proposition by analyzing COVID-19-related deaths globally across countries led by men and women. While we find some limited support for lower reported fatality rates in countries led by women, they are not statistically significant. Country cultural values offer more substantive explanation for COVID-19 outcomes. We offer several potential explanations for the pervasive perception that countries led by women have fared better during the pandemic, including data selection bias and Western media bias that amplified the successes of women leaders in OECD countries.


2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (Supplement_4) ◽  
Author(s):  

Abstract Many concepts that are key to public health policy-making are conceptual and often values-based. How such concepts can be implemented by Member States, and how the effectiveness of this implementation can be measured and reported, remains an critical challenge that all major monitoring frameworks are faced with, from Health 2020 (WHO’s European policy framework for health and well-being), to the Sustainable Development Goals for Agenda 2030. In 2016, WHO established a project to interrogate how four key values-based public health concepts can be better measured and reported on, to increase the accountability of Member States towards these concepts. Based on the priority areas of Health 2020, the concepts which were chosen are: resilience;empowerment;life-course approach; andwhole of society approach. Four Health Evidence Network (HEN) synthesis reports were commissioned from leading experts and have now been published, synthesizing the best available evidence and grey literature on these concepts, and proposing a variety of quantitative and qualitative approaches to measuring them. The workshop will be organized as round table workshop. It will bring together the authors of all four reports to provide an overarching thematic discussion on how to enhance the monitoring and reporting of values-based public health concepts. In addition, it will also present an opportunity to discuss the findings of the reports, in particular how qualitative evidence can be deployed to make up for the shortcomings of quantitative indicators. The role of culture in informing these values-based concepts will also be discussed. The session will be chaired by Nick Fahy, who will set the scene and provide some background to the WHO Europe project on enhancing monitoring and reporting. Jane South will then give overview of the HEN synthesis report on measuring resilience, followed Glenn Laverack, who will talk about the HEN report on measuring empowerment. Mark Hanson and Scott Greer will review their respective HEN reports on measuring the life-course approach and whole-of-society approach implementation. Each speaker will be asked to illustrate their presentation with a case study which demonstrates how qualitative evidence can enhance the monitoring and/or reporting of the various concepts. During the discussion, a number of key questions will be discussed by the panel with input from the audience. How can actionable measurement strategies be derived from existing research regarding values based concepts?How can meaningful, country-level reporting mechanisms be expanded to include quantitative and qualitative health information and indicators?What is the role of cultural contexts in mediating these (and other) values-based concepts? Key messages Many key public health concepts are inherently values-based. However, this is often not acknowledged, making it challenging to monitor and report on them. Qualitative evidence can be key to designing more effective ways to measure the implementation of values-based public health concepts. Jane South Contact: [email protected] Glenn Laverack Contact: [email protected] Mark Hanson Contact: [email protected] Scott Greer Contact: [email protected]


2019 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mirjam Kretzschmar

AbstractPublic health policymakers face increasingly complex questions and decisions and need to deal with an increasing quantity of data and information. For policy advisors to make use of scientific evidence and to assess available intervention options effectively and therefore indirectly for those deciding on and implementing public health policies, mathematical modeling has proven to be a useful tool. In some areas, the use of mathematical modeling for public health policy support has become standard practice at various levels of decision-making. To make use of this tool effectively within public health organizations, it is necessary to provide good infrastructure and ensure close collaboration between modelers and policymakers. Based on experience from a national public health institute, we discuss the strategic requirements for good modeling practice for public health. For modeling to be of maximal value for a public health institute, the organization and budgeting of mathematical modeling should be transparent, and a long-term strategy for how to position and develop mathematical modeling should be in place.


2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (Supplement_4) ◽  
Author(s):  

Abstract Health inequalities - systematically higher rates of morbidity and mortality among people with a lower socioeconomic position - have been on the public health agenda for decades now. However, despite massive research efforts (and somewhat less massive policy efforts) health inequalities have not narrowed - on the contrary, relative inequalities have widened considerably. It is therefore time for a re-think: after decades of research we need to step back and ask ourselves: what went wrong? Johan Mackenbach argues, in a book published by Oxford University Press (2019), that the main problem is that public health researchers and policy-makers have misunderstood the nature of health inequalities. They have too often ignored insights from other disciplines, such as economics (which has a stricter attitude to issues of causality) and sociology (which has a subtler understanding the nature of social inequality). They have also failed to integrate contradictory research findings into mainstream thinking. This workshop will focus on three such contradictions, and will discuss whether it is possible to re-think health inequalities in a way that will allow more effective policy approaches. (1) It has been surprisingly difficult to find convincing scientific evidence for a causal effect of socioeconomic disadvantage on health. Should public health reconsider its idea that health inequalities are caused by social inequalities, and widen their scope to give more room to social selection, genetic factors and other non-causal pathways in their analysis? (2) There is not a single country in Europe where over the past decades health inequalities, as measured on a relative scale, have narrowed. This is due to the fact that all groups have improved their health, but higher socioeconomic groups have improved more. This is even true in the only European country (i.e., England) in which the government has pursued a large-scale policy program to reduce health inequalities. Should public health accept that reducing relative inequalities in health is impossible, and focus on reducing absolute health inequalities instead? (3) The Nordic countries, which have been more successful than other European countries in reducing inequalities in material living conditions, do not have smaller health inequalities. It is as if inequalities in other factors, such as psychosocial and behavioural factors, in these countries have filled the gap left by reduced inequalities in material living conditions. Should public health reconsider its idea that material living conditions are the foundation for health, and re-focus on psychological, cultural and other less tangible factors instead? In this round table Johan Mackenbach will present and illustrate these contradictions and propose his answers to these contentious issues. Then, the four panelists will present their view-points, followed by a general discussion between panelists and the audience. Key messages After four decades of research into health inequalities, it is necessary to step back and ask ourselves why it has so far been impossible to reduce health inequalities. More effective policies to tackle health inequalities will only be possible when public health has come to grips with contradictory research findings. Johan Mackenbach Contact: [email protected] Johannes Siegrist Contact: [email protected] Alastair Leyland Contact: [email protected] Olle Lundberg Contact: [email protected] Ramune Kalediene Contact: [email protected]


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document