Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
Project Update, 8. HSWP meeting in Luxemburg, 12.06.07
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
Project Update, 8. HSWP meeting in Luxemburg, 12.06.07
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):
Project Update, 8. HSWP meeting in Luxemburg, 12.06.07
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.)
Project Update, 8. HSWP meeting in Luxemburg, 12.06.07
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
Project Update, 8. HSWP meeting in Luxemburg, 12.06.07
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
Project Update, 8. HSWP meeting in Luxemburg, 12.06.07
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
…
Project Update, 8. HSWP meeting in Luxemburg, 12.06.07
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
Project Update, 8. HSWP meeting in Luxemburg, 12.06.07
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
Project Update, 8. HSWP meeting in Luxemburg, 12.06.07
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
Project Update, 8. HSWP meeting in Luxemburg, 12.06.07
• 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
Project Update, 8. HSWP meeting in Luxemburg, 12.06.07
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
Project Update, 8. HSWP meeting in Luxemburg, 12.06.07
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)
Project Update, 8. HSWP meeting in Luxemburg, 12.06.07
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
Project Update, 8. HSWP meeting in Luxemburg, 12.06.07
The pilot to test the application of themethodology
Project Update, 8. HSWP meeting in Luxemburg, 12.06.07
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.“
Project Update, 8. HSWP meeting in Luxemburg, 12.06.07
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
Project Update, 8. HSWP meeting in Luxemburg, 12.06.07
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
Project Update, 8. HSWP meeting in Luxemburg, 12.06.07
New Challenges for PHR?
• 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
Project Update, 8. HSWP meeting in Luxemburg, 12.06.07
New Challenges for PHR?
• 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?
Project Update, 8. HSWP meeting in Luxemburg, 12.06.07
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
Project Update, 8. HSWP meeting in Luxemburg, 12.06.07
Reserve
Project Update, 8. HSWP meeting in Luxemburg, 12.06.07
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
Project Update, 8. HSWP meeting in Luxemburg, 12.06.07
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.