Dataset Information

Towards quality criteria for regional public health reporting: concept mapping with Dutch experts.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In the Netherlands, municipal health assessments are carried out by 28 Regional Health Services, serving 418 municipalities. In the absence of guidelines, regional public health reports were developed in two pilot regions on the basis of the model and experience of national health reporting. Though they were well received and positively evaluated, it was not clear which specific characteristics determined 'good public health reporting'. Therefore, this study was set up to develop a theoretical framework for the quality of regional public health reporting in The Netherlands.

Methods

Using concept mapping as a standardized tool for conceptualization, 35 relevant reporting experts formulated short statements in two different brainstorming sessions, describing specific quality criteria of regional public health reports. After the removal of duplicates, the list was supplemented with international criteria, and the statements were sent to each participant for rating and sorting. The results were processed statistically and represented graphically. The output was discussed and interpreted, leading to the final concept map.

Results

The final concept map consisted of 97 criteria, grouped into 13 clusters, and plotted in two dimensions: a 'product' dimension, ranging from 'production' to 'content', and a 'context' dimension, ranging from 'science' to 'policy'. The three most important clusters were: (i) 'solution orientation', (ii) 'policy relevance' and (iii) 'policy impact'.

Conclusion

This study provided a theoretical framework for the quality of regional public health reporting, indicating relevant domains and criteria. Further work should translate domains and criteria into operational indicators for evaluating regional public health reports.

SUBMITTER: van Bon-Martens MJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3358630 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Towards quality criteria for regional public health reporting: concept mapping with Dutch experts.

van Bon-Martens Marja J H MJ Achterberg Peter W PW van de Goor Ien A M IA van Oers Hans A M HA

European journal of public health 20110312 3

<h4>Background</h4>In the Netherlands, municipal health assessments are carried out by 28 Regional Health Services, serving 418 municipalities. In the absence of guidelines, regional public health reports were developed in two pilot regions on the basis of the model and experience of national health reporting. Though they were well received and positively evaluated, it was not clear which specific characteristics determined 'good public health reporting'. Therefore, this study was set up to deve ...[more]

PMID: 21398660

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEuropean Member States, the European Commission and its agencies work together to enhance preparedness and response for serious cross-border threats to health such as Ebola. Yet, common understanding of public health emergency preparedness across EU/EEA countries is challenging, because preparedness is a relatively new field of activity and is inherently fraught with uncertainty. A set of practical, widely accepted and easy to use recommendations for generic preparedness that bundles the activities described in separate guidance documents supports countries in preparing for any possible health threat. The aim of this consensus procedure was to identify and seek consensus from national-level preparedness experts from EU/EEA countries on key recommendations of public health emergency preparedness.MethodsTo identify key recommendations and to prioritize the recommendations we started with a literature consensus procedure, followed by a modified Delphi method for consultation of public health emergency preparedness leaders of EU/EEA countries. This consisted of six consecutive steps: a questionnaire to achieve consensus on a core set of recommendations, a face-to-face consultation, preselection of prioritized recommendations, a questionnaire to achieve consensus on the prioritized set and a face-to-face consensus meeting to further prioritize recommendations.ResultsAs a result, EU/EEA experts selected 149 recommendations as core preparedness principles and prioritized 42. The recommendations were grouped in the seven domains: governance (57), capacity building and maintenance (11), surveillance (19), risk-assessment (16), risk- and crisis management (35), post-event evaluation (6) and implementation of lessons learned (5).ConclusionsThis prioritised set of consensus principles can provide a foundation for countries aiming to evaluate and improve their preparedness for public health emergencies. The recommendations are practical, support generic preparedness planning, and can be used by all countries irrespective of their current level of preparedness.

Project description:ImportanceDespite billions spent in public investment, electronic health records (EHRs) have not delivered on the promise of large quality and safety improvement. Simultaneously, there is debate on whether public quality reporting is a useful tool to incentivize quality improvement.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether publicly reported feedback was associated with hospital improvement in an evaluation of medication-related clinical decision support (CDS) safety performance.Design, settings, and participantsThis nonrandomized controlled trial included US hospitals that participated in the Computerized Provider Order Entry (CPOE) Evaluation Tool in the Leapfrog Hospital Survey, a national quality reporting program that evaluates safety performance of hospital CDS using simulated orders and patients, in 2017 to 2018. A sharp regression discontinuity design was used to identify the association of receiving negative feedback with hospital performance improvement in the subsequent year. Data were analyzed from January through September 2020.ExposuresPublicly reported quality feedback.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcome was improvement from 2017 to 2018 on the Leapfrog CPOE Evaluation Tool, using regression discontinuity model estimates of the association of receiving negative publicly reported feedback with quality improvement.ResultsA total of 1183 hospitals were included, with a mean (SD) CPOE score of 59.3% (16.3%) at baseline. Hospitals receiving negative feedback improved 8.44 (95% CI, 0.09 to 16.80) percentage points more in the subsequent year compared with hospitals that received positive feedback on the same evaluation. This change was driven by differences in improvement in basic CDS capabilities (β = 8.71 [95%CI, 1.67 to 18.73]) rather than advanced CDS (β = 6.15 [95% CI, -9.11 to 26.83]).Conclusions and relevanceIn this nonrandomized controlled trial, publicly reported feedback was associated with quality improvement, suggesting targeted measurement and reporting of process quality may be an effective policy lever to encourage improvement in specific areas. Clinical decision support represents an important tool in ensuring patient safety and decreasing adverse drug events, especially for complex patients and those with multiple chronic conditions who often receive several different drugs during an episode of care.

Project description:BackgroundNovel, less-invasive technologies to screen for Barrett's esophagus (BE) may enable a paradigm shift in early detection strategies for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Understanding professionals' perspectives on screening is important to determine how to proceed. We aimed to explore and compare professionals' perceptions of screening for BE and EAC screening in three countries.MethodsIn this study, 29 Dutch, 20 British and 18 American health care professionals (clinicians, researchers and policy makers) participated in concept mapping: a mixed-methods consensus building methodology. Statements on perceived barriers, facilitators, advantages, disadvantages, implications or worries associated with screening for BE and EAC were collected in asynchronous digital brainstorm sessions. Subsequently, participants sorted the statements into groups according to thematic similarity and assessed the relevance of each statement in evaluating the acceptability of BE and EAC screening. Multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis were used to map the associations between generated statements.ResultsProfessionals across three countries identified eight consistent themes that relate to their perceptions of screening for BE and EAC: (1) Benefits, (2) Harms, (3) Clinical effectiveness concerns, (4) Screening population, (5) Screening modality, (6) Resources, (7) Ownership, and (8) Public communication. Dutch and American professionals prioritized the potential health benefits of screening but also questioned clinical impact. In contrast, British participants prioritized identification of the screening population and suitable test.ConclusionsMost professionals see potential in less-invasive screening tests for BE and EAC but underline the need to define the target screening population and determine benefits and harms before widely employing them. Successful implementation will require thoughtful consideration of the involvement of general practitioners, readiness of endoscopy and pathology services, balanced public communication, and country-specific regulations.

Dataset Information

Towards quality criteria for regional public health reporting: concept mapping with Dutch experts.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Towards quality criteria for regional public health reporting: concept mapping with Dutch experts.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets