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

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.

Bumerang Kerjasama EU-Turkey Joint Action Plan Terkait Penanganan Krisis Pengungsi Terhadap Turki

Tulisan ini menganalisis tentang tata kelola pengungsi Suriah di Turki dan hubungan kerja sama antara Uni Eropa dan Turki tentang penanganan krisis pengungsi. Migrasi massal dari Suriah telah menjadi titik balik utama dalam hubungan Uni Eropa dan Turki. Melalui migrasi massal Suriah pada tahun 2011, Turki menerapkan open door policy guna menangani masalah tersebut. Pada tahun 2013, Uni Eropa mulai menawarkan bantuan untuk berbagi beban bersama menangani krisis pengungsi tersebut yang dilanjutkan dengan action plan. Melalui action plan tersebut, Turki mulai menggunakan pengungsi sebagai alat kebijakan luar negeri yang memaksa yang digunakan untuk menentang persyaratan Uni Eropa. Turki mulai bertindak sebagai penekan oportunistik dengan menggunakan masalah krisis pengungsi untuk mendapat “keuntungan” dari action plan tersebut. Namun, alih-alih mendapat keuntungan, Turki harus menanggung “beban” pengungsi sendirian untuk menampung dan memberikan bantuan.

Perception and Action in a Social Context

Even the simplest social interactions require us to gather, integrate, and act upon, multiple streams of information about others and our surroundings. In this Element, we discuss how perceptual processes provide us with an accurate account of action-relevant information in social contexts. We overview contemporary theories and research that explores how: (1) individuals perceive others' mental states and actions, (2) individuals perceive affordances for themselves, others, and the dyad, and (3) how social contexts guide our attention to modulate what we perceive. Finally, we review work on the cognitive mechanisms that make joint action possible and discuss their links to perception.

When is ostensive communication used for joint action?

Joint actions typically require that information relevant for performing a task together is available to the interaction partners. In some situations, such information is perceptually retrievable and salient enough for co-actors to simply use it. In other situations, the relevant information needs to be actively shared among co-actors, e.g., by making it more perceptually salient or indicating it by means of a conventional signal. Here we consider a third case, where the information is not perceptually available and cannot be communicated by conventional means. How do joint action partners coordinate in such situations? We propose that co-actors resort to ostensive communication, that is, they draw attention to the fact that they intend to communicate some specific information. Two experiments tested the proposed role of ostensive communication for joint action. In a non-verbal joint building task, the category membership of different objects was known to only one person in a dyad, who needed to inform the partner which object type to use. In line with our hypothesis, most participants highlighted a particular object category with an ostensive gesture (characterized by containing more submovements than a natural placing movement) to resolve perceptual ambiguity. We conclude that ostensive communication is especially useful for joint action in situations where task-relevant information is not available to all co-actors and where it cannot be perceptually highlighted or conventionally communicated.