Fehr Angela, Seeling Stefanie, Hornbacher Anselm, Thißen Martin, Bogaert Petronille, Delnord Marie, Lyons Ronan A, Tijhuis Mariken J, Achterberg Peter, Ziese Thomas
ZIG 1 - Information Centre for International Health Protection (INIG), Centre for International Health Protection (ZIG), Robert Koch Institute, Nordufer 20, 13353, Berlin, Germany.
Unit 24 - Health Reporting, Department of Epidemiology and Health Monitoring, Robert Koch Institute, General-Pape-Str. 62-66, 12101, Berlin, Germany.
Arch Public Health. 2022 Jan 11;80(1):25. doi: 10.1186/s13690-021-00760-8.
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.
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).
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.
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.
欧盟多个成员国都有健康信息（HI）战略，然而，这些战略主要侧重于技术问题和改善治理，而非与内容相关的优先级设定。关于欧盟国家健康信息发展背后的国家优先级确定过程，以支持政策制定的研究也很少。本研究的目的是拓宽健康信息优先级战略的知识基础，并鼓励专家交流以形成良好实践模式。特别关注了为国家健康报告生成的健康信息，这是政策建议的关键工具。
我们进行了文献检索，以识别关于国家健康信息优先级的已发表和灰色文献。随后开展了两轮政策德尔菲研究，探讨欧盟成员国及相关国家在确定健康信息收集优先级方面存在哪些流程和方法。第一轮，通过半结构化问题收集有关这些流程的信息；第二轮，要求参与者对已确定的方法在可取性和可行性方面进行排序。调查通过在线方式进行；参与者从健康信息联合行动（InfAct - 行动信息）的成员中招募。
共联系了119名专家，代表28个欧盟成员国及相关国家的40个InfAct合作伙伴机构。其中，28名专家对第一轮调查做出了全部或部分回应，6名专家对第二轮调查做出了回应。在第一轮中，超过一半的受访者表示其所在国家存在结构化的健康信息优先级确定流程。在第二轮中，对于确定健康信息优先级，明显倾向于采用正式的横向流程，该流程包括不同的专家和利益相关者。国家公共卫生机构被认为是这一过程中理想的关键利益相关者，也是利益相关者协调的理想且可行的协调者。
健康信息优先级确定方法和程序反映了欧洲国家国家公共卫生系统的异质性。绘制、分享和排列“良好实践”的优先级确定方法和程序，为健康信息发展方面的专家知识交流提供了有意义的基础。我们建议将这一过程纳入未来可持续的欧盟健康信息系统，并利用本项目收集的信息，在欧盟成员国及相关国家启动“健康信息优先级确定良好实践”指南的制定。
