Dataset Information

Health data collection methods and procedures across EU member states: findings from the InfAct Joint Action on health information.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Health-related data are collected from a variety of sources for different purposes, including secondary use for population health monitoring (HM) and health system performance assessment (HSPA). Most of these data sources are not included in databases of international organizations (e.g., WHO, OECD, Eurostat), limiting their use for research activities and policy making. This study aims at identifying and describing collection methods, quality assessment procedures, availability and accessibility of health data across EU Member States (MS) for HM and HSPA.

Methods

A structured questionnaire was developed and administered through an online platform to partners of the InfAct consortium form EU MS to investigate data collections applied in HM and HSPA projects, as well as their methods and procedures. A descriptive analysis of the questionnaire results was performed.

Results

Information on 91 projects from 18 EU MS was collected. In these projects, data were mainly collected through administrative sources, population health interview or health examination surveys and from electronic medical records. Tools and methods used for data collection were mostly mandatory reports, self-administered questionnaires, or record linkage of various data sources. One-third of the projects shared data with EU research networks and less than one-third performed quality assessment of their data collection procedures using international standardized criteria. Macrodata were accessible via open access and reusable in 22 projects. Microdata were accessible upon specific request and reusable in 15 projects based on data usage licenses. Metadata was available for the majority of the projects, but followed reporting standards only in 29 projects. Overall, compliance to FAIR Data principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) was not optimal across the EU projects.

Conclusions

Data collection and exchange procedures differ across EU MS and research data are not always available, accessible, comparable or reusable for further research and evidence-based policy making. There is a need for an EU-level health information infrastructure and governance to promote and facilitate sharing and dissemination of standardized and comparable health data, following FAIR Data principles, across the EU.

SUBMITTER: Unim B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8728985 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe InfAct (Information for Action) is a Joint Action of the European Commission's 3rd Health Programme with the main goal to build an infrastructure of a health information system for a stronger European Union and to strengthen its core elements. The InfAct Joint Action was developed along 36 months and structured in 10 work packages. Portugal co-led the Work Package 6 (WP6) of this project, which included the development of the proposal of a flagship capacity building programme - the European Health Information Training Programme - and its evaluation. The evaluation objectives included: to evaluate the adequacy of the training programme to the health information needs in the European Member States; to identify possible changes regarding the participants selection process, the training activities and the pedagogical project; and to contribute to the understanding of the potential of the programme to add to available offers in learning on the topics of Public Health information, on the capacity building and behavioural changes in Public Health activities which can be attributed to the course, and of the potential of the programme to contribute to the alignment of health information criteria and procedures between the European Member States.MethodsThe evaluation process was developed using an observational descriptive study design using a mixed methodological approach with both document analysis and primary data collected by questionnaires and interviews analysis. Mixed quantitative and qualitative data collection methods and analysis were used.ResultsThe proposal of the European Health Information Training Programme seemed adequate to the formative needs and capacities in line with the work performed by the InfAct project. In what concerns about its main thematic areas, it was also aligned with the areas identified in the previous formative needs and capacities mapping. The participants selection process proposed seemed, in general, adequate. The potential of the European Health Information Training Programme proposal to learning, capacity building and behavioral changes at work attributable to the course was considered positive, as well as the potential to the alignment of health information criteria and procedures between European Union Member States.DiscussionIn general, we found high consistency between the results obtained from data collected by the techniques used. However, different suggestions for improvement were outlined by the evaluation study population.ConclusionsThe proposed European Health Information Training Programme was a dynamic, flexible, sustainable formative programme in health information and focused on reducing inequalities.

Project description:BackgroundThe European Commission supports the initiation of health information related projects and networks serving comparative population health monitoring and health system performance assessment. Many of these projects and networks have produced relevant data, standards, methods, indicators and knowledge that may be lost as these networks become inactive. The aim of this project retrieval and review was to identify health information projects and networks and their produced output; and subsequently facilitate systematic access to this information for policy makers, researchers and interested others via a web-based repository.MethodsThe scope of this article covers 1. population health oriented topics and 2. health system/health services oriented topics. Out of scope are specific infectious diseases; individual rare diseases; and the occurrence and effects of specific medical treatments, interventions and diagnostics; cohort studies; or studies focusing on research methods. We searched bibliographic databases and EU project databases for policy supporting projects and networks and selected those fulfilling our inclusion criteria after more in-depth inspection. We searched for their outputs. In addition, we reviewed country participation in these projects and networks.ResultsWe identified 36 projects and networks, 16 of which are population health oriented, 6 are health systems and services oriented and 14 cover both. Their total volume of output is not easily retrievable, as many project websites have been discontinued. Some networks and/or their outputs have found continuance within European agencies and/or national institutions. Others are struggling or have gone lost, despite their policy relevance. Participation in the projects was not evenly distributed across Europe. Project information was made available through the Health Information Portal.ConclusionsEU funded projects and networks have contributed greatly to the evidence-base for policy by providing comparative health information. However, more action is needed to evaluate and conserve their outputs and facilitate continued contribution to the field after project funding stops. The realization of a sustainable infrastructure for these projects and networks is urgent. The Health Information Portal can play an important role in conserving and reusing health information. Information inequalities may exist across Europe but need further investigating.

Project description:Physical interaction with a partner plays an essential role in our life experience and is the basis of many daily activities. When two physically coupled humans have different and partly conflicting goals, they face the challenge of negotiating some type of collaboration. This requires that both participants understand their partner's state and current actions. But, how would the collaboration be affected if information about their partner were unreliable or incomplete? We designed an experiment in which two players (a dyad) are mechanically connected through a virtual spring, but cannot see each other. They were instructed to perform reaching movements with the same start and end position, but through different via-points. In different groups of dyads we varied the amount of information provided to each player about his/her partner: haptic only (the interaction force perceived through the virtual spring), visuo-haptic (the interaction force is also displayed on the screen), and partner visible (in addition to interaction force, partner position is continuously displayed on the screen). We found that incomplete information about the partner affects not only the speed at which collaboration is achieved (less information, slower learning), but also the actual collaboration strategy. In particular, incomplete or unreliable information leads to an interaction strategy characterized by alternating leader-follower roles. Conversely, more reliable information leads to more synchronous behaviors, in which no specific roles can be identified. Simulations based on a combination of game theory and Bayesian estimation suggested that synchronous behaviors correspond to optimal interaction (Nash equilibrium). Roles emerge as sub-optimal forms of interaction, which minimize the need to account for the partner. These findings suggest that collaborative strategies in joint action are shaped by the trade-off between the task requirements and the uncertainty of the information available about the partner.

Project description:UnlabelledBackgroundHealth Examination Surveys (HESs) can provide essential information on the health and health determinants of a population, which is not available from other data sources. Nevertheless, only some European countries have systems of national HESs. A study conducted in 2006-2008 concluded that it is feasible to organize national HESs using standardized measurement procedures in nearly all EU countries. The feasibility study also outlined a structure for a European Health Examination Survey (EHES), which is a collaboration to organize standardized HESs in countries across Europe.To facilitate setting up national surveys and to gain experience in applying the EHES methods in different cultures, EHES Joint Action (2010-2011) planned and piloted standardized HESs in the working age population in 12 countries. This included countries with earlier national HESs and countries which were planning their first national HES. The core measurements included in all surveys were weight, height, waist circumference and blood pressure, and blood samples were taken to measure lipid profiles and glucose or glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c). These are modifiable determinants of major chronic diseases not identified in health interview surveys. There was a questionnaire to complement the data on the examination measurements.MethodsEvaluation of the pilot surveys was based on review of national manuals and evaluation reports of survey organizers; observations and discussions of survey procedures during site visits and training seminars; and other communication with the survey organizers.ResultsDespite unavoidable differences in the ways HESs are organized in the various countries, high quality and comparability of the data seems achievable. The biggest challenge in each country was obtaining high participation rate. Most of the pilot countries are now ready to start their full-size national HES, and six of them have already started.ConclusionsThe EHES Pilot Project has set up the structure for obtaining comparable high quality health indicators on health and important modifiable risk factors of major non-communicable diseases from the European countries. The European Union is now in a key position to make this structure sustainable. The EHES core survey can be expanded to cover other measurements.