Update Policy Impact Assessment of Public Health Reporting ...ec.europa.eu/health/ph_information/implement/wp/systems/docs/ev... · Project Update, 8. HSWP meeting in Luxemburg, 12.06.07

Project Update, 8. HSWP meeting in Luxemburg, 12.06.07

Policy Impact Assessment of Public Health Reporting (PIA PHR)

Dr Kai MichelsenInstitute of Public Health North Rhine-Westphalia

(Bielefeld, Germany)

for the PIA PHR project group


Background

• Health Information Systems:To provide data, information and knowledge …– to develop health indicators– to ensure comparability– ECHI national reports– ISARE regional reports– to generate knowledge

… to support decision makingat the European, national, regional and local level.

Supply

Demand? PIA PHR


Background

There seems to be a gapbetween thedesign of PH reports and the needs and expectations of users.

interviewed „users“: n = 17national reports: n = 57

EU project „Evaluation of National and Regional Public Health Reports“ (Eva PHR):


PIA PHR: Aimes / Objectives

• “to find ways to enhance the impact of PHR on different audiences“, (particularly politicians and policy makers, butalso scientists, health service organizations, citizens …)

• “to develop a methodology for health reporting in Europe, which considers the most appropriate and effective ways of disseminating information to the various user groups“

“to understand decision making processes of different usergroups on the national, regional and local level“, theirneeds and expectations

(Grant Agreement 2004109: 29 f.)


PIA PHR: Project Design

“desktop research“

development of a methodology / health information tool box for thosepreparing public health reports

pilot test of the methodology

survey, group / in-depths interviewswith users and “reporters“

factors / problems concerning the utilization of PHR

discussion of the results / revision of the methodology


PIA PHR: Time Schedule

WP 1: Instrument development

WP 2: Conduct of interviews

WP 3: Analysis of interviews

WP 4: Pilot test of application

Month 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32

Month 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32

36

36

June 2007

June 2007


Preliminary Results

1. Desktop research: Related areas of interest

(scientific / expert) knowledge and decision / policy making

political sciences, policy analysis

health system research

utilization of knowledge

research impact assessment

policy consultancy

…


Preliminary Results

Audiences• Policy Making

Political PartiesMinistriesHealth InsurancesHealth ProfessionalsCharity OrganisationsSelf Help Groups etc.

• Administration / Management• Research• PHR producers

Countries• France• Germany• Hungary• Ireland• Malta• United Kingdom

Levels• National• Regional (Federal States)• Local (Communities)

2. Surveys / Interviews


Preliminary Results

• Delphi survey (online)– First round: Statements about PHR: to assess the „as-is“-

state and importance in principle– Second round: differences between „as-is“ state and

„importance in principle“ were presented; people wereasked to set priorities for the further development of PHR

– Third round: It was planned to present ranked priority listsand to ask interviewees to comment these results

• From the 194 persons of the first round only 55 participatedin the second. Therefore a third round was canceled.

2. Surveys / Interviews


Preliminary Results

27418122042150

HUNMLTIRLUKFRAGERTotal

Questions:Satisfaction with the supply of PHR (different levels)?Utilization of PHR resources? (Which? How?)Examples for a high / low policy impact?Factors influencing the impact?PHR and policy cycle?Priorities for the further development of PHR?Possibilities to support people active in PHR?

Number of interviewees (incl. planned until now)

2. Surveys / Interviews: Group and in-depth interviews


• PHR should be conceptualized as a) a system and b) a process.

• There are• different meanings of „utilization“ and „impact“• differences between countries, levels, actors, issues• different „philosophies“ and kinds of PHR activities• interface problems

• It is useful to construct „ideal types“.• Maybe it is possible to construct the methodology / tool

box in two or three dimensions.

Preliminary Results

3. Hypotheses


Ideas for the Methodology / Tool Box

Process (?)

Idea

l Typ

es:

Func

tion/

Cont

ext (

?)

Leve

l (?)

EU

national

regional

local

decisions over policies

decisions within policies

information / ideas

„pure“ monitoring

prep

aration

prod

uctio

ndis

semina

tion

evalu

ation


Presentations / Publications

PresentationsSummer Academy Magdeburg-Stendahl, Aug. 2006, Germany: „How Can

Political Parties Support Health Promotion?“ (Kai Michelsen)EPHZ-Meeting, Nov. 2006, Düsseldorf/Germany: „PIA PHR“ (Kai Michelsen)Annual EUPHA Conference, Nov. 2006, Montreaux/Siwtzerland: „PIA PHR –

First Results of a Delphi Survey“ (Kai Michelsen)Ministry of Health, Nov. 2006, Malta: „PIA PHR“ (Amanda Salib)Studentische Fachtagung Pflegewissenschaft, Nov. 2006, Fulda/Germany:

„Policy Counselling and Health Policy“ (Kai Michelsen)ÖGD-Conference, 26.-28.4.2007, Bad Lausick/Germany: „Public Health

Reporting as Policy Counselling?“ (Helmut Brand)ISARE-Conference, April 2007, Prag/Czech Republic: „PIA PHR“ (Kai

Michelsen)Planned:Annual EUPHA Conference, Oct. 2007, Helsinki/Finland: Workshop „Public

Health Reporting – The Challange to Realize a Policy Impact“ (Helmut Brand, John Wilkinson)


Presentations / Publications

PublicationsMichelsen, Kai (2006): Policy Impact Assessment of Public Health Reporting

(PIA PHR). European Journal of Public Health Vol. 16 Supplement 1. 14th EUPHA Conference. Abstract Supplement

Michelsen, Kai/Brand, Helmut (2007): Gesundheitsberichterstattung und Politik (Public Health Reporting and Policy Making). In: Reintjes, Ralf/Klein, Silvia (Hrsg.) (2007): Gesundheitsberichterstattung und Surveillance. Messen, Entscheiden, Handeln. Bern: Verlag Hans Huber, 28-41

Michelsen, Kai (2007): Political Parties acting as a transmisson belt for a participative policy of sustainable health promotion? Prävention und Gesundheitsförderung 2007 2: 112-117

planned:Brand, Helmut/Michelsen, Kai (2007): Public Health Reporting as Policy

Counselling? Das Gesundheitswesen 2007 No. 11Abstracts EUPHA workshop and articels from the presentations at the

workshop


The pilot to test the application of themethodology


Ideas for the pilot test

Work package n° 4 – Pilot to test application of methodology

„The information […] will be used to develop a methodology for future health reporting in Europe, whichconsiders the most appropriate and most effective ways of disseminating information to the various user groups. Itwill be tested in a pilot about a main health issue chosen bythe European Commission to a selected user group and then presented to authors and users at national, regional and local level at a European Conference.“


Ideas for the pilot test

Choosing an issue- The main ressources of the project should be used to

develop a methodology / tool box.- There should be enough information / indicators about the

issue.- It should be possible to learn from existing experiences.- It should be possible to demonstrate the methodology /

tools.Our idea

- Child obesity to demonstrate the methodology / tools- The use of ICT in health to discuss how the methodology

and tools could / should be used


New Challenges for PHR?

- Another possibility (?):Reformed cohesion policy 2007-2013– European Regional Development Fund

• Art. 4 Convergence: amongst others: investments in health (and: information society, environment, prevention of risks)

• Art. 6 European Territorial Cooperation: joint use of infrastructures (amongst others: health)

– European Social Fund• Art. 3 Scope of Assistance: work organisation,

including health and safety at work



• Regional Policy 2007-2013– Community Strategic Guidelines on Cohesion– National Strategic Reference Framework– Operational Programmes

• Need for PHR:Priority setting, recomendations for actionAnalysis of the social and economic situation in thenational, European and worldwide contextReasons for chosen strategiesContribution to Lisbon objectivesEvaluation, Reports



• Regional Policy 2007-2013: ChallengesTo support the utilization of the funds in nation states and regionsTo support PHR activities and their policy impact to stimulate the utilization of the funds for investments in health

Is it useful to link the development of a methodology and tool box with the cohesionpolicy 2007 – 2013 to support investments in health?


PIA PHR: Project Group

Thank You!• Helmut Brand, Alfons Hollederer, Kai Michelsen (Institute of

Public Health North Rhine-Westphalia; Germany)• Peter Achterberg (RIVM; The Netherlands)• Angela Brand, Nicole Rosenkötter (University of Supplied

Sciences Bielefeld, Germany)• Csilla Kaposvári (TÁRKI Social Research Institute Inc.,

Hungary)• Bernard Ledésert (Fédération Nationale des Observatoires

Regionaux de la Santé, France) • Amanda Salib (Ministry of Health, the Elderly and Community

Care / Department of Health Communication, Malta)• Anthony Staines (University College Dublin/School of Public

Health and Population Sciences, Ireland)• John Wilkinson (North East Public Health Observatory, United

Kingdom) • Matthias Wismar (European Observatory of Health Systems

and Policies, Belgium)

Sponsored by the European Commission; Period: 9/2005 – 10/2008

www.pia-phr.nrw.de


Reserve


Preliminary Results

• For each item about PHR: “as-is“-state / “importance in principle“.• Difference = deficit• Item-Batteries: products, contents, structuring and methods,

functions, addressees, use, process, roles of those preparingpublic health reports

• 194 participants• Responses per item: 127-163 (without „do not know“)

2. Surveys / Interviews: Delphi survey (online), 1st round


Preliminary Results

• The results from the first round were presented.• The participants were asked about their priorities concerning the

further development of PHR.• The rate of return was low: Only 57 persons from 194 participated.

2. Surveys / Interviews: Delphi survey (online), 1st round

This paper was produced for a meeting organized by Health & Consumer Protection DG and represents the views of its author on thesubject. These views have not been adopted or in any way approved by the Commission and should not be relied upon as a statement of the Commission's or Health & Consumer Protection DG's views. The European Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the dataincluded in this paper, nor does it accept responsibility for any use made thereof.

Update Policy Impact Assessment of Public Health Reporting ...ec.europa.eu/health/ph_information/implement/wp/systems/docs/ev... · Project Update, 8. HSWP meeting in Luxemburg, 12.06.07

Documents