Dataset Information

[Supra-regional public health actors in Germany-an overview and categorization].

ABSTRACT:

Background

Public health actors contribute significantly to health protection, promotion, and prevention at the population level. An overview of the public health landscape can facilitate collaboration among the stakeholders and increase transparency of career paths for young professionals.

Objectives

This study aims to develop an overview and category system of supra-regional public health actors in Germany.

Methods

Based on a list of institutional actors that participated in the national conference Future Forum Public Health ("Zukunftsforum Public Health") and a targeted online search by the authors, supra-regional institutions and organizations with a public health focus were identified. All actors were screened independently by ≥ 2 authors. Community-level actors as well as those without a direct public health focus were excluded. Additional actors were identified via a snowballing process. In order to cluster the actors thematically, a category system was formed inductively.

Results

Out of a total of 645 screened actors, 307 (47.6%) were included and subsequently assigned to 12 main and 30 subcategories. Professional associations (n = 60) made up the largest category, followed by civil society (n = 49) and state actors (n = 40). In addition to a tabular and graphical overview, an interactive visualization of the actors was created ( www.noeg.org ).

Conclusions

This study provides a comprehensive overview of supra-regional institutional public health actors in Germany and highlights the breadth of the German public health landscape. The results of this work offer new opportunities for collaboration and can support young professionals in their career paths. Building on this work, further research on public health actors is recommended.

SUBMITTER: Hommes F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8641290 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Worldwide, there are competing norms driving health system changes and reorganisation. One such norm is that of health systems' responsibilities for population health as distinct from a focus on clinical services. In this paper we report on a case study of population health planning in Australian primary health care (PHC) organisations (Medicare Locals, 2011-2015). Drawing on institutional theory, we describe how institutional forces, ideas and actors shaped such planning. METHODS:We reviewed the planning documents of the 61 Medicare Locals and rated population health activities in each Medicare Local. We also conducted an online survey and 50 interviews with Medicare Local senior staff, and an interview and focus group with Federal Department of Health staff. RESULTS:Despite policy emphasis on population health, Medicare Locals reported higher levels of effort and capacity in providing clinical services. Health promotion and social determinants of health activities were undertaken on an ad hoc basis. Regulatory conditions imposed by the federal government including funding priorities and time schedules, were the predominant forces constraining population health planning. In some Medicare Locals, this was in conflict with the normative values and what Medicare Locals felt ought to be done. The alignment between the governmental and the cultural-cognitive forces of a narrow biomedical approach privileged clinical practice and ascribed less legitimacy to action on social determinants of health. Our study also shed light on the range of PHC actors and how their agency influenced Medicare Locals' performance in population health. The presence of senior staff or community boards with a strong commitment to population health were important in directing action towards population health and equity. CONCLUSIONS:There are numerous institutional, normative and cultural factors influencing population health planning. The experience of Australian Medicare Locals highlights the difficulties of planning in such a way that the impact of the social determinants on health and health equity are taken into account. The policy environment favours a focus on clinical services to the detriment of health promotion informed by a social determinants focus.

Project description:For Germany, regional differences for various health indicators, which are also associated with socioeconomic factors, have been documented. This article aims to develop a regional socioeconomic deprivation index for Germany that (1) can be used to analyse regional socioeconomic inequalities in health and (2) provides a basis for explaining regional health differences in Germany. The core data stem from the INKAR (indicators and maps on spatial and urban development in Germany and Europe) database compiled by Germany's Federal Institute for Research on Building, Urban Affairs and Spatial Development. Factor analysis is used for indexing and the weighting of indicators for the three dimensions of education, occupation and income. The German Index of Socioeconomic Deprivation (GISD) is generated at the levels of associations of municipalities, administrative districts and administrative regions for the years 1998, 2003, 2008 and 2012. Aggregate data and individual data from the German Health Update 2014/2015-EHIS (GEDA 2014/2015-EHIS) study are used to analyse associations between the index and selected health indicators. For around two thirds of the causes of death, the German Index of Socioeconomic Deprivation reveals significant socioeconomic inequalities at the level of Germany's administrative regions. At district level, life expectancy in the bottom fifth of districts presenting the highest levels of deprivation is, depending on the observation period, 1.3 years lower for women and 2.6 years lower for men in comparison to the upper fifth of districts presenting the lowest levels of deprivation. The index can explain 45.5% and 62.2% of regional differences in life expectancy for women and men, respectively. Moreover, the population in regions characterised by high levels of deprivation has significantly higher rates of smokers, engages less frequently in leisure-time physical activities and is more often obese. The German Index of Socioeconomic Deprivation illustrates regional socioeconomic differences at different spatial levels and contributes to explaining regional health differences. This index is intended for use in research as well as by federal and federal state health reporting systems and should enable access to new sources of data for investigating the links between social inequalities and health in Germany.

Project description:BackgroundResearch priority setting (RPS) studies are necessary to close the significant gap between the scientific evidence produced and the evidence stakeholders need. Their findings can make resource allocation in research more efficient. However, no general framework for conducting an RPS study among public health stakeholders exists. RPS studies in public health are rare and no such study has been previously conducted and published in Germany. Therefore, we aimed to investigate which research topics in public health are prioritised by relevant stakeholders in Germany.MethodsOur RPS study consisted of a scoping stage and a Delphi stage each split into two rounds. Firstly, we invited members of the German Public Health Association to gather expert insights during two initial workshops. Next, we defined the relevant stakeholder groups and recruited respondents. Thereafter, we collected research topics and assessment criteria with the respondents in the first Delphi round and aggregated the responses through content analysis. Finally, we asked the respondents to rate the research topics with the assessment criteria in the second Delphi round.ResultsIn total, 94 out of the 140 invited public health organisations nominated 230 respondents for the Delphi study of whom almost 90% participated in both Delphi rounds. We compiled a comprehensive list of 76 research topics that were rated and ranked by several assessment criteria. We split the research topics into two types, substantive research topics and methodological-theoretical research topics respectively, to ensure the comparability among the research topics. In both types of research topics-substantive research topics and methodological-theoretical research topics-the respective top five ranked research topics hardly differed between public health researchers and public health practitioners. However, clear differences exist in the priority ranking of many (non-top priority) research topics between the stakeholder groups.ConclusionsThis research demonstrates that it is possible, with limited resources, to prioritise research topics for public health at the national level involving a wide range of pertinent stakeholders. The results can be used by research funding institutions to initiate calls for research projects with an increased relevance for health and/or scientific progress.

Project description:Objective: The digitalization of the healthcare system poses new challenges for physicians. Thus, the relevance of learning digital competencies (DiCo), such as dealing with data sets, apply telemedicine or using apps, is already growing in medical education. DiCo should be clearly separated from digitized teaching formats, which have been increasingly used since the COVID 19 pandemic. This article outlines the faculties in Germany where DiCo are already integrated into medical education. Methods: Courses with DiCo as teaching content were collected by a literature research on Pubmed and Google as well as by contacting all dean's offices and other persons responsible for teaching at German medical faculties. The courses were summarized in a table. Results: In a first survey, 16 universities were identified that offer courses on DiCo. In the elective area at the universities, 17 courses and in the compulsory area eight courses could be identified. The scope and content of the courses diverged between compulsory curricula, integrated courses of different lengths, and elective courses that are one-time or longitudinally integrated. The topics taught are heterogeneous and include fundamentals of medical informatics such as data management on the one hand and a collection of e.g. ethics, law, apps, artificial intelligence, telemedicine and robotics on the other hand. Conclusion: Currently, only some German medical faculties offer courses on DiCo. These courses vary in scope and design. They are frequently part of the elective curriculum and only reach some of the students. The possibility of embedding DiCo in the already existing cross-sectional area appears limited. In view of the ongoing digitalization of healthcare, it is necessary to make future courses on DiCo accessible to all medical students. In order to drive this expansion forward, the implementation of the new learning objectives catalogue, in which DiCo are integrated, a network formation, a teaching qualification as well as the involvement of students is recommended.