No Cover Image

Journal article 505 views 112 downloads

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

Angela Fehr, Stefanie Seeling, Anselm Hornbacher, Martin Thißen, Petronille Bogaert, Marie Delnord, Ronan Lyons, Mariken J. Tijhuis, Peter Achterberg, Thomas Ziese

Archives of Public Health, Volume: 80, Issue: 1, Start page: 25

Swansea University Author: Ronan Lyons

  • 59164.pdf

    PDF | Version of Record

    © The Author(s). 2022 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

    Download (2.24MB)

Check full text

DOI (Published version): 10.1186/s13690-021-00760-8

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 dev...

Full description

Published in: Archives of Public Health
ISSN: 2049-3258
Published: Springer Science and Business Media LLC 2022
Online Access: Check full text

URI: https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa59164
first_indexed 2022-01-12T15:26:05Z
last_indexed 2022-01-13T04:29:30Z
id cronfa59164
recordtype SURis
fullrecord <?xml version="1.0"?><rfc1807><datestamp>2022-01-12T15:28:58.3138218</datestamp><bib-version>v2</bib-version><id>59164</id><entry>2022-01-12</entry><title>Prioritizing health information for national health reporting - a Delphi study of the Joint Action on Health Information (InfAct)</title><swanseaauthors><author><sid>83efcf2a9dfcf8b55586999d3d152ac6</sid><firstname>Ronan</firstname><surname>Lyons</surname><name>Ronan Lyons</name><active>true</active><ethesisStudent>false</ethesisStudent></author></swanseaauthors><date>2022-01-12</date><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 &#x2013; 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 &#x201C;good practices&#x201D; 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 &#x201C;Good Practice HI Prioritization&#x201D; among EU Member States and associated countries.</abstract><type>Journal Article</type><journal>Archives of Public Health</journal><volume>80</volume><journalNumber>1</journalNumber><paginationStart>25</paginationStart><paginationEnd/><publisher>Springer Science and Business Media LLC</publisher><placeOfPublication/><isbnPrint/><isbnElectronic/><issnPrint/><issnElectronic>2049-3258</issnElectronic><keywords>Health information; Health information inequalities; Health information systems; Strategy; Prioritization; Delphi</keywords><publishedDay>11</publishedDay><publishedMonth>1</publishedMonth><publishedYear>2022</publishedYear><publishedDate>2022-01-11</publishedDate><doi>10.1186/s13690-021-00760-8</doi><url/><notes/><college>COLLEGE NANME</college><CollegeCode>COLLEGE CODE</CollegeCode><institution>Swansea University</institution><apcterm/><funders>This publication was funded by the European Union&#x2019;s Health Programme (2014&#x2013;2020).</funders><lastEdited>2022-01-12T15:28:58.3138218</lastEdited><Created>2022-01-12T15:22:41.6405125</Created><path><level id="1">Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences</level><level id="2">Swansea University Medical School - Medicine</level></path><authors><author><firstname>Angela</firstname><surname>Fehr</surname><order>1</order></author><author><firstname>Stefanie</firstname><surname>Seeling</surname><order>2</order></author><author><firstname>Anselm</firstname><surname>Hornbacher</surname><order>3</order></author><author><firstname>Martin</firstname><surname>Thi&#xDF;en</surname><order>4</order></author><author><firstname>Petronille</firstname><surname>Bogaert</surname><order>5</order></author><author><firstname>Marie</firstname><surname>Delnord</surname><order>6</order></author><author><firstname>Ronan</firstname><surname>Lyons</surname><order>7</order></author><author><firstname>Mariken J.</firstname><surname>Tijhuis</surname><order>8</order></author><author><firstname>Peter</firstname><surname>Achterberg</surname><order>9</order></author><author><firstname>Thomas</firstname><surname>Ziese</surname><order>10</order></author></authors><documents><document><filename>59164__22131__0cd7ab9ded084af9a86f47e6a20179ec.pdf</filename><originalFilename>59164.pdf</originalFilename><uploaded>2022-01-12T15:25:30.5187279</uploaded><type>Output</type><contentLength>2353076</contentLength><contentType>application/pdf</contentType><version>Version of Record</version><cronfaStatus>true</cronfaStatus><documentNotes>&#xA9; The Author(s). 2022 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License</documentNotes><copyrightCorrect>true</copyrightCorrect><language>eng</language><licence>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</licence></document></documents><OutputDurs/></rfc1807>
spelling 2022-01-12T15:28:58.3138218 v2 59164 2022-01-12 Prioritizing health information for national health reporting - a Delphi study of the Joint Action on Health Information (InfAct) 83efcf2a9dfcf8b55586999d3d152ac6 Ronan Lyons Ronan Lyons true false 2022-01-12 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. Journal Article Archives of Public Health 80 1 25 Springer Science and Business Media LLC 2049-3258 Health information; Health information inequalities; Health information systems; Strategy; Prioritization; Delphi 11 1 2022 2022-01-11 10.1186/s13690-021-00760-8 COLLEGE NANME COLLEGE CODE Swansea University This publication was funded by the European Union’s Health Programme (2014–2020). 2022-01-12T15:28:58.3138218 2022-01-12T15:22:41.6405125 Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences Swansea University Medical School - Medicine Angela Fehr 1 Stefanie Seeling 2 Anselm Hornbacher 3 Martin Thißen 4 Petronille Bogaert 5 Marie Delnord 6 Ronan Lyons 7 Mariken J. Tijhuis 8 Peter Achterberg 9 Thomas Ziese 10 59164__22131__0cd7ab9ded084af9a86f47e6a20179ec.pdf 59164.pdf 2022-01-12T15:25:30.5187279 Output 2353076 application/pdf Version of Record true © The Author(s). 2022 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License true eng http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
title Prioritizing health information for national health reporting - a Delphi study of the Joint Action on Health Information (InfAct)
spellingShingle Prioritizing health information for national health reporting - a Delphi study of the Joint Action on Health Information (InfAct)
Ronan Lyons
title_short Prioritizing health information for national health reporting - a Delphi study of the Joint Action on Health Information (InfAct)
title_full Prioritizing health information for national health reporting - a Delphi study of the Joint Action on Health Information (InfAct)
title_fullStr Prioritizing health information for national health reporting - a Delphi study of the Joint Action on Health Information (InfAct)
title_full_unstemmed Prioritizing health information for national health reporting - a Delphi study of the Joint Action on Health Information (InfAct)
title_sort Prioritizing health information for national health reporting - a Delphi study of the Joint Action on Health Information (InfAct)
author_id_str_mv 83efcf2a9dfcf8b55586999d3d152ac6
author_id_fullname_str_mv 83efcf2a9dfcf8b55586999d3d152ac6_***_Ronan Lyons
author Ronan Lyons
author2 Angela Fehr
Stefanie Seeling
Anselm Hornbacher
Martin Thißen
Petronille Bogaert
Marie Delnord
Ronan Lyons
Mariken J. Tijhuis
Peter Achterberg
Thomas Ziese
format Journal article
container_title Archives of Public Health
container_volume 80
container_issue 1
container_start_page 25
publishDate 2022
institution Swansea University
issn 2049-3258
doi_str_mv 10.1186/s13690-021-00760-8
publisher Springer Science and Business Media LLC
college_str Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences
hierarchytype
hierarchy_top_id facultyofmedicinehealthandlifesciences
hierarchy_top_title Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences
hierarchy_parent_id facultyofmedicinehealthandlifesciences
hierarchy_parent_title Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences
department_str Swansea University Medical School - Medicine{{{_:::_}}}Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences{{{_:::_}}}Swansea University Medical School - Medicine
document_store_str 1
active_str 0
description 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.
published_date 2022-01-11T04:56:25Z
_version_ 1851730046059806720
score 11.089864

Similar Items