Stockmann S, Kuhn J, Zirngibl A, Mansmann U
Institut für Medizinische Informationsverarbeitung, Biometrie und Epidemiologie der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München.
Gesundheitswesen. 2008 Nov;70(11):679-83. doi: 10.1055/s-0028-1100402. Epub 2008 Nov 27.
There is a lack of empirical research on communal health reporting in Germany. The aim of the "Munich Health Reporting Study" was to provide an overview of the spread, topics and data sources of communal health reporting as well as its integration into political decision making processes.
A questionnaire survey was carried out on all German health authorities. The data were transferred into an SAS data set and examined by uni- and bivariate analyses. 223 of 416 health authorities participated in the survey (response 54%). 195 questionnaires could be included in the analysis (analysable response 47%). 79 health authorities took part in the non-responder analysis.
Three-quarters of health authorities undertook health reporting in the past 5 years, half of authorities published at least one report per year. In nearly half of the surveyed authorities health reporting is integrated into multi-institutional planning processes [in two-thirds of cases this takes place in a so-called "Gesundheitskonferenz" (health round table)]. In two-thirds of health authorities health reporting supports the delivery of routine work, in particular the planning of health promotion and prevention campaigns. The main data sources for health reporting are those data routinely available to health authorities. This is reflected in the range of issues covered with child health, immunisations and communicable diseases being the most common topics. The political impact as well as the current role of health reporting is seen sceptically by the majority, whilst its future importance is judged more positive. In their efforts to undertake high quality health reporting, three-quarters of health authorities consider a lack of funding and staff the biggest problems.
These results show that the majority of health authorities ascribe a strategic function to health reporting, which, however, is not yet sufficiently translated into practice. More attention should be paid to the prerequisites and mechanisms of its effective application. Beyond that, the political process into which health reporting is to be integrated, should be modelled more explicitly.
德国缺乏关于社区健康报告的实证研究。“慕尼黑健康报告研究”的目的是概述社区健康报告的传播情况、主题、数据来源及其在政治决策过程中的整合情况。
对德国所有卫生当局进行了问卷调查。数据被录入SAS数据集，并通过单变量和双变量分析进行检验。416个卫生当局中有223个参与了调查（回复率54%）。195份问卷可纳入分析（可分析回复率47%）。79个卫生当局参与了无回复者分析。
四分之三的卫生当局在过去5年中进行了健康报告，一半的当局每年至少发布一份报告。在近一半的被调查当局中，健康报告被纳入多机构规划过程[在三分之二的情况下，这发生在所谓的“健康圆桌会议”（Gesundheitskonferenz）中]。在三分之二的卫生当局中，健康报告支持日常工作的开展，特别是健康促进和预防活动的规划。健康报告的主要数据来源是卫生当局常规可获得的数据。这反映在涵盖的问题范围上，儿童健康、免疫接种和传染病是最常见的主题。大多数人对健康报告的政治影响以及当前作用持怀疑态度，而对其未来重要性的评价则更为积极。在努力进行高质量健康报告的过程中，四分之三的卫生当局认为资金和人员短缺是最大的问题。
这些结果表明，大多数卫生当局将健康报告视为一项战略功能，然而，这一功能尚未充分转化为实际行动。应更加关注其有效应用的前提条件和机制。除此之外，应更明确地构建健康报告要融入的政治进程。
