Dataset Information

A review of the use of health examination data from the Health Survey for England in government policy development and implementation.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Information is needed at all stages of the policy making process. The Health Survey for England (HSE) is an annual cross-sectional health examination survey of the non-institutionalised general population in England. It was originally set up to inform national policy making and monitoring by the Department of Health. This paper examines how the nurse collected physical and biological measurement data from the HSE have been essential or useful for identification of a health issue amenable to policy intervention; initiation, development or implementation of a strategy; choice and monitoring of targets; or assessment and evaluation of policies.

Methods

Specific examples of use of HSE data were identified through interviews with senior members of staff at the Department of Health and the Health and Social Care Information Centre. Policy documents mentioned by interviewees were retrieved for review, and reference lists of associated policy documents checked. Systematic searches of Chief Medical Officer Reports, Government 'Command Papers', and clinical guidance documents were also undertaken.

Results

HSE examination data have been used at all stages of the policy making process. Data have been used to identify an issue amenable to policy-intervention (e.g. quantifying prevalence of undiagnosed chronic kidney disease), in strategy development (in models to inform chronic respiratory disease policy), for target setting and monitoring (the 1992 blood pressure target) and in evaluation of health policy (the effect of the smoking ban on second hand smoke exposure).

Conclusions

A health examination survey is a useful part of a national health information system.

SUBMITTER: Oyebode O

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4128608 | biostudies-literature | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A review of the use of health examination data from the Health Survey for England in government policy development and implementation.

Oyebode Oyinlola O Mindell Jennifer S JS

Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique 20140715 1

<h4>Background</h4>Information is needed at all stages of the policy making process. The Health Survey for England (HSE) is an annual cross-sectional health examination survey of the non-institutionalised general population in England. It was originally set up to inform national policy making and monitoring by the Department of Health. This paper examines how the nurse collected physical and biological measurement data from the HSE have been essential or useful for identification of a health iss ...[more]

PMID: 25114791

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe use of government health data for secondary purposes, such as monitoring the quality of hospital services, researching the health needs of populations, and testing how well new treatments work, is increasing. This increase in the secondary uses of health data has led to increased interest in what the public thinks about data sharing, in particular, the possibilities of sharing with the private sector for research and development. Although international evidence demonstrates broad public support for the secondary use of health data, this support does not extend to sharing health data with the private sector. If governments intend to share health data with the private sector, knowing what the public thinks will be important. This paper reports a national survey to explore public attitudes in Australia toward sharing health data with private companies for research on and development of therapeutic drugs and medical devices.ObjectiveThis study aims to explore public attitudes in Australia toward sharing government health data with the private sector.MethodsA web-based survey tool was developed to assess attitudes about sharing government health data with the private sector. A market research company was employed to administer the web-based survey in June 2019.ResultsThe survey was completed by 2537 individuals residing in Australia. Between 51.8% and 57.98% of all participants were willing to share their data, with slightly fewer in favor of sharing to improve health services (51.99%) and a slightly higher proportion in favor of sharing for research and development (57.98%). There was a preference for opt-in consent (53.44%) and broad support for placing conditions on sharing health information with private companies (62% to 91.99%). Wide variability was also observed in participants' views about the extent to which the private sector could be trusted and how well they would behave if entrusted with people's health information. In their qualitative responses, the participants noted concerns about private sector corporate interests, corruption, and profit making and expressed doubt about the Australian government's capacity to manage data sharing safely. The percentages presented are adjusted against the Australian population.ConclusionsThis nationally representative survey provides preliminary evidence that Australians are uncertain about sharing their health data with the private sector. Although just over half of all the respondents supported sharing health data with the private sector, there was also strong support for strict conditions on sharing data and for opt-in consent and significant concerns about how well the private sector would manage government health data. Addressing public concern about sharing government health data with the private sector will require more and better engagement to build community understanding about how agencies can collect, share, protect, and use their personal data.

Project description:BACKGROUND:In the last 20 years governments have sought to introduce policy that improves the quality of care provided in hospitals, yet little research has been done to understand how these policies are implemented, factors that affect the implementation process or what should be considered by decision-makers during policy development or implementation planning. Experts with real-life experience in the introduction and implementation of policy are best placed to provide valuable insight into practical issues that affect implementation and the associated outcomes of these policies. METHODS:A modified Delphi study of experts in hospital policy development and implementation was undertaken to investigate factors influencing the implementation of government-directed policy in the hospital setting. This study built on the findings of two previous studies - a qualitative study of clinician perspectives of policy implementation and a systematic review and meta-synthesis, in which common contextual factors and policy characteristics associated with policy implementation were ascertained. International experts with extensive experience in government-directed policy implementation at global, national, corporate, jurisdictional and organisational levels were asked to provide opinions on predetermined factors and the feasibility of considering these in policy development and implementation planning. Survey design and analysis was guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. RESULTS:Eleven experts from four countries and with different health system perspectives participated in the study. Consensus was reached on the importance of all predetermined factors in the first survey round with additional factors for investigation highlighted by participants for examination in subsequent rounds. On study completion, expert consensus was reached on 24 factors of importance; only 20 of these factors reached consensus for feasibility. CONCLUSIONS:Study findings indicated that, whilst there are multiple factors of importance in policy implementation across all Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research domains, some factors, such as establishment of roles and responsibilities for implementation and organisational lines of accountability, are feasible for consideration at a hospital level only. In addition, four factors did not reach consensus in terms of feasibility, indicating that it may not be practical to consider all factors of importance when implementing policy; this has important implications for implementation planning and resource allocation.

Project description:Policy Points This analysis finds that government obesity policies in England have largely been proposed in a way that does not readily lead to implementation; that governments rarely commission evaluations of previous government strategies or learn from policy failures; that governments have tended to adopt less interventionist policy approaches; and that policies largely make high demands on individual agency, meaning they rely on individuals to make behavior changes rather than shaping external influences and are thus less likely to be effective or equitable. These findings may help explain why after 30 years of proposed government obesity policies, obesity prevalence and health inequities still have not been successfully reduced. If policymakers address the issues identified in this analysis, population obesity could be tackled more successfully, which has added urgency given the COVID-19 pandemic.ContextIn England, the majority of adults, and more than a quarter of children aged 2 to 15 years live with obesity or excess weight. From 1992 to 2020, even though the government published 14 obesity strategies in England, the prevalence of obesity has not been reduced. We aimed to determine whether such government strategies and policies have been fit for purpose regarding their strategic focus, nature, basis in theory and evidence, and implementation viability.MethodWe undertook a mixed-methods study, involving a document review and analysis of government strategies either wholly or partially dedicated to tackling obesity in England. We developed a theory-based analytical framework, using content analysis and applied thematic analysis (ATA) to code all policies. Our interpretation drew on quantitative findings and thematic analysis.FindingsWe identified and analyzed 14 government strategies published from 1992 to 2020 containing 689 wide-ranging policies. Policies were largely proposed in a way that would be unlikely to lead to implementation; the majority were not interventionist and made high demands on individual agency, meaning that they relied on individuals to make behavior changes rather than shaping external influences, and are thus less likely to be effective or to reduce health inequalities.ConclusionsThe government obesity strategies' failure to reduce the prevalence of obesity in England for almost 30 years may be due to weaknesses in the policies' design, leading to a lack of effectiveness, but they may also be due to failures of implementation and evaluation. These failures appear to have led to insufficient or no policy learning and governments proposing similar or identical policies repeatedly over many years. Governments should learn from their earlier policy failures. They should prioritize policies that make minimal demands on individuals and have the potential for population-wide reach so as to maximize their potential for equitable impacts. Policies should be proposed in ways that readily lead to implementation and evaluation.

Dataset Information

A review of the use of health examination data from the Health Survey for England in government policy development and implementation.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

A review of the use of health examination data from the Health Survey for England in government policy development and implementation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets