Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35012653›Full record

ArticleArchives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique2022

Prioritizing health information for national health reporting - a Delphi study of the Joint Action on Health Information (InfAct).

Angela Fehr, Stefanie Seeling, Anselm Hornbacher, Martin Thißen, Petronille Bogaert, Marie Delnord, Ronan A Lyons, Mariken J Tijhuis, Peter Achterberg, Thomas Ziese

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Angela FehrZIG 1 - Information Centre for International Health Protection (INIG), Centre for International Health Protection (ZIG), Robert Koch Institute, Nordufer 20, 13353, Berlin, Germany. fehra@rki.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3825-5642
Stefanie SeelingUnit 24 - Health Reporting, Department of Epidemiology and Health Monitoring, Robert Koch Institute, General-Pape-Str. 62-66, 12101, Berlin, Germany.
Anselm HornbacherUnit 24 - Health Reporting, Department of Epidemiology and Health Monitoring, Robert Koch Institute, General-Pape-Str. 62-66, 12101, Berlin, Germany.
Martin ThißenUnit 24 - Health Reporting, Department of Epidemiology and Health Monitoring, Robert Koch Institute, General-Pape-Str. 62-66, 12101, Berlin, Germany.
Petronille BogaertDepartement of Epidemiology and Public Health, Sciensano, Rue Juliette Wytsmanstraat 14, 1050, Brussels, Belgium.
Marie DelnordDepartement of Epidemiology and Public Health, Sciensano, Rue Juliette Wytsmanstraat 14, 1050, Brussels, Belgium.
Ronan A LyonsPopulation Data Science, Swansea University, Singleton Park, Swansea, SA2 8PP, UK.
Mariken J TijhuisCentre for Health Knowledge Integration, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Antonie van Leeuwenhoeklaan 9, 3721, MA, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Peter AchterbergCentre for Health Knowledge Integration, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Antonie van Leeuwenhoeklaan 9, 3721, MA, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Thomas ZieseUnit 24 - Health Reporting, Department of Epidemiology and Health Monitoring, Robert Koch Institute, General-Pape-Str. 62-66, 12101, Berlin, Germany.
Robert Koch Institute · DENational Institute for Public Health and the Environment · NLSciensano (Belgium) · BESwansea University · GB

Funding

bundesministerium für gesundheit ZMVI1-2518FSB400european commission 801553Medical Research Council MC_PC_13043Medical Research Council MR/K006525/1Medical Research Council MR/V028367/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth 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.

methodsWe 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).

results119 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.

conclusionHealth 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.

Indexed as

DelphiHealth informationHealth information inequalitiesHealth information systemsPrioritizationStrategy

Identifiers

PMID35012653
PMCPMC8747997
OpenAlexW4205876251

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.