Public Health Innovation and Research in Europe: introduction to the supplement.

BACKGROUND

PHIRE (Public Health Innovation and Research in Europe) was developed for the national member associations and individual researchers of the European Public Health Association (EUPHA) to engage collectively with the health research agenda in Europe. It was co-funded by the European Commission's Directorate for Health and Consumers within the EU Health Programme. It was coordinated by EUPHA in a partnership of eight organizations. This article introduces the Supplement in the European Journal of Public Health presenting the results of PHIRE.

METHODS

PHIRE used mixed methods to collect data across 30 European countries (European Union 27 plus Iceland, Norway and Switzerland). Seven thematic Sections of EUPHA identified eight cross-national public health innovation projects, and Country Informants to report on national uptake and impact of these innovations. Public health was considered broadly--health determinants and interventions, health services and practice. Through EUPHA's member national public health associations, and by direct country contacts, PHIRE described country public health research strategies and structures, reviewed calls and programmes for research in 1 year and organized stakeholder workshops. PHIRE was reported to the European Commission, and the component reports placed on the EUPHA web page. A draft of the Final Summary Report was sent by email for commentary by selected experts.

RESULTS

PHIRE data from the work packages were organized into eight themes for the Supplement. Through the EUPHA thematic Sections, experts described the uptake and impact of eight innovation projects from the EU Health Programme. National reports indicated a positive impact of the innovations in public health 'markets'. Through national public health associations, 75 programmes and calls for public health research were found for 2010, but systems are not comparable and nor is information exchanged or coordinated. Only a few countries have public health research strategies. Having competitive research funding through Ministries of Health is potentially beneficial. There is limited contact between national and European public health research programmes and calls. Experts who were sent the draft PHIRE Summary Report gave generally positive responses on the validity and usefulness of the results. Dissemination has been achieved through meetings during the study and by electronic means thereafter.

CONCLUSION

PHIRE has increased knowledge about public health innovation at national and European levels. Strengthening the public health research system, and demonstrating innovation in public health markets will maximize benefits to Europe's citizens.