Dataset Information

Statistics in Dutch policy debates on health and healthcare.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The notion of 'fact-free politics' is debated in Europe and the United States of America and has particular relevance for the use of evidence to underpin health and healthcare policies. To better understand how evidence on health and healthcare is used in the national policy-making process in the Netherlands, we explore how different statistics are used in various policy debates on health and healthcare in the Dutch government and parliament.

Methods

We chose eight ongoing policy debates as case studies representing the subject categories of morbidity, lifestyle, healthcare expenditure and healthcare outcomes, including (1) breast cancer screening rates, prevalence and incidence, (2) dementia prevalence and incidence, (3) prevalence of alcohol use by pregnant women, (4) mobility and school sports participation in children, (5) costs of smoking, (6) Dutch national healthcare expenditure, (7) hospital mortality rates, and (8) bedsore prevalence. Using selected keywords for each policy debate case, we performed a document search to identify documentation of the debates (2014-2016) on the websites of the Dutch government and parliament. We retrieved 163 documents and examined the policy debate cases through a content analyses approach.

Results

Sources of the statistics used in policy debates were primarily government funded. We identified two distinct functions, i.e. rhetorical and managerial use of statistics. The function of the debate is rhetorical when the specific statistic is used for agenda-setting or to convince the reader of the importance of a topic. The function of the debate is managerial when statistics determine planning, monitoring or evaluation of policy. When evaluating a specific policy, applied statistics were mostly the result of routine or standardised data collection. When policy-makers use statistics for a managerial function, the policy debate mirrors terms derived from scientific debates.

Conclusion

While statistics used for rhetorical functions do not seem to invite critical reflection, when the function of the debate is managerial, i.e. to plan, monitor or evaluate healthcare, their construction does receive attention. Considering the current role of statistics in rhetorical and managerial debates, there is a need to be cautious of too much leniency towards the technocratic process in exchange for the democratic debate.

SUBMITTER: Gerrits RG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6547579 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Statistics in Dutch policy debates on health and healthcare.

Gerrits Reinie G RG van den Berg Michael J MJ Klazinga Niek S NS Kringos Dionne S DS

Health research policy and systems 20190603 1

<h4>Background</h4>The notion of 'fact-free politics' is debated in Europe and the United States of America and has particular relevance for the use of evidence to underpin health and healthcare policies. To better understand how evidence on health and healthcare is used in the national policy-making process in the Netherlands, we explore how different statistics are used in various policy debates on health and healthcare in the Dutch government and parliament.<h4>Methods</h4>We chose eight ongo ...[more]

PMID: 31159828

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSleep disorders are highly prevalent in children with neurodisabilities, yet they seem under-recognized in paediatric rehabilitation settings. The aim of this study was to assess among two groups of healthcare professionals (HCPs) working in paediatric rehabilitation: (1) sleep health practices and (2) knowledge about sleep physiology, sleep disorders and sleep hygiene.MethodsWe performed a cross-sectional sleep survey among medical and non-medical HCPs and the general population. Participants (30 rehabilitation physicians [RPs], 54 allied health professionals [AHPs] and 63 controls) received an anonymous 30-item survey consisting of three domains: (1) general information, (2) application of sleep health practices and (3) sleep knowledge.ResultsRPs address sleep issues more frequently in clinical practice than AHPs. Sleep interventions mostly consist of giving advice about healthy sleep practices and are given by the majority of HCPs. While RPs demonstrated the highest scores on all knowledge domains, total sleep knowledge scores did not exceed 50% correct across groups, with AHPs and controls showing equal scores. Sleep hygiene rules closest to bedtime and related to the sleep environment were best known, whereas those related to daytime practices were rarely mentioned across all groups. A small minority of HCPs (RPs 20%; AHPs 15%) believed to possess sufficient sleep knowledge to address sleep in clinical practice. No association was found between self-perceived knowledge and sleep knowledge scores among HCPs.ConclusionsSleep should become a standard item for review during routine health assessments in paediatric rehabilitation settings. HCPs' limited exposure to sleep education may result in feelings of incompetence and inadequate sleep knowledge levels, affecting their sleep health practices. Appropriate sleep training programs should be implemented to empower HCPs with knowledge, skills and confidence, needed to recognize and treat sleep disorders in children with neurodisabilities, as well as to be able to guide parents.

Project description:BackgroundCommunication between health authorities and healthcare providers is an essential element of the response to public health emergencies. Although call centers can facilitate such communication, no published reports describing their outcomes exist. In advance of the expected COVID-19 outbreak in Israel, the Israel Center for Disease Control established a call center dedicated to queries from healthcare professionals.MethodsThe call center operated from February 5, 2020 (week 6) to May 14, 2020 (week 20). Data on calls received, including date and time, caller characteristics, questions and responses were recorded in a database designed for this purpose. The volume, sources and content of queries were analyzed.ResultsIn 15 weeks of operation, the call center responded to 6623 calls. The daily number of calls ranged from 1 to 371 (mean 79.8, median 40), peaking on week 12, 2 weeks prior to a peak in new COVID-19 cases. Callers were predominantly physicians (62.4%), nurses (18.7%) and administrators (4.4%). Most worked in primary care clinics (74.2%) or hospitals (8.7%). Among physicians, 42.3% were family physicians or internists, and 10.0% were pediatricians. The issues most commonly addressed were home quarantine (21.6%), criteria for suspected cases (20.6%), and SARS-CoV2 testing (14.1%). Twenty-five percent of questions involved requests for clarifications of MOH guidelines regarding travel restrictions, clinic management, triage of symptomatic patients, routine medical and dental care, recommended precautions for health care workers with preexisting medical conditions, and other matters. A total of 119 queries were not resolved on the basis of existing guidelines and were referred to MOH headquarters.ConclusionsThis is the first report of a call center established to serve the needs of healthcare providers seeking guidance on COVID-19 management, and to facilitate communication of providers' concerns to the central health authority. Our work indicates that a central call center for healthcare providers can facilitate the development, implementation and amendment of guidelines and should be an integral element of the early response to public health emergencies. Real-time analysis of the call data may reveal important trends requiring prompt attention.

Project description:Background: It is unavoidable for learners undergoing health professions training to encounter different complex clinical scenarios related to diagnoses, treatment and ethical dilemmas. The lack of standard answers to such clinical challenges can cause uncertainty in the process of teaching, learning and assessment as learners grapple with the need to critically appraise the specific context, past practices and extant literature to arrive at a thoughtful decision. In this aspect, debate can be a useful pedagogical tool to consider multiple, different perspectives regarding these issues. As the use of debate within the health professions education has not been reviewed, we conducted a systematic review of the current literature on the adoption of debate as a pedagogical tool to clarify the specific context of use as well as its effectiveness in the learning of skills and content within the health professions education. Methods: A systematic review was conducted on relevant published literature in English within journal databases until September 2018 that employed debate as a pedagogical tool within health professions education. Results: Out of 626 screened articles, 12 studies were finally included based on inclusion/exclusion criteria. The 12 studies (9 undergraduate, 3 postgraduate) covered a diverse range of disciplines and debate in health professions education was adopted for acquisition of skills (such as critical thinking, communication skills, teamwork), or learning of specific topics (such as patient safety, ethical issues, teaching of new topics) as well as to examine evidence based practice. In the majority of studies (10 of 12 studies, 83.3%), debate has been deemed by the learners to be effective in facilitating the learning of new content and skills such as communication and critical thinking, which are related to processes aligned with adult learning, motivational, reflective and social learning theories. Conclusion: Overall, sparse studies to date with relatively low risk of bias found debate to be effective in enabling the learning of skills and content within health professions education. Future studies may want to incorporate more objective measures of the learning outcomes of learners following the adoption of debate as a teaching tool as well as to examine the combinatorial use of debate with other pedagogical tools and their longitudinal impact on learners and learning.

Dataset Information

Statistics in Dutch policy debates on health and healthcare.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Statistics in Dutch policy debates on health and healthcare.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure