The methodology is described in two sections corresponding to the two components of the research activities: The web-based desk research to provide an overview of health reporting practices in EU MS and associated countries, and the development of quality criteria for public health reports based on the results of earlier projects and exchange with experts.
Web-based desk research on national health reporting in the EU
A web-based desk research was conducted among EU MS and associated countries on national health reporting formats and their respective target groups. A detailed description of the methodology has been published on the InfAct website (1). In this article, we will therefore limit ourselves to a brief summary of the most relevant aspects.
A method paper for an explorative search strategy on the status of health reporting in the EU MS and associated countries was drafted and circulated among experts from the InfAct consortium for review and approval. A pre-test of the search strategy was conducted in the federal states of Germany as well as in selected EU MS, and an analysis plan was drafted. Potential sources for national health reporting, including Public Health Institutes, Ministries of Health and Statistical Institutes were identified using the list of members of the International Association of National Public Health Institutes (IANPHI). In case of missing information from IANPHI countries or for countries that are not members of the IANPHI, a Google search for potential sources was carried out. On the websites of these institutes and ministries, an explorative search was executed manually for relevant health reporting formats and their target groups. Since not all countries provide an English translation of national health reports or national-language websites of their Public Health Institutes, Ministries of Health or Statistical Institutes, the reports and websites were translated into English using the Google Translate tool. Subsequently, a Google keyword search was conducted with various combinations of search terms, followed by a search on Google scholar and an exploratory literature review on PubMed/ Embase using the same keywords to close further possible gaps:
-
‘Health reporting‘ OR ‘health reports’ OR ‘healthcare‘ + [country]
-
‘Public health reporting‘ OR ‘public health reports’ + [country]
-
‘Health reporting‘ OR ‘health reports’ OR ‘healthcare‘ + ‘strategy‘ + [country]
-
‘Health reporting‘ OR ‘health reports’ OR ‘healthcare‘ + ‘formats‘ + [country]
-
‘Health reporting‘ OR ‘health reports’ OR ‘healthcare‘ + ‘indicators‘ + [country]
-
‘Health reporting‘ OR ‘health reports’ OR ‘healthcare‘ + ‘target group‘ + [country]
-
‘Health reporting‘ OR ‘health reports’ OR ‘healthcare‘ + ‘good practice‘ + [country]
-
‘Health reporting‘ OR ‘health reports’ OR ‘healthcare‘ + ‘recommendations‘ + [country]
-
‘Health reporting‘ OR ‘health reports’ OR ‘healthcare‘ + ‘guidelines‘ + [country]
To categorise the findings of the web-based desk research, a list of health reporting formats including their description was established on the basis of the exploratory literature review on PubMed/ Embase and input of experts from the InfAct consortium. Table 1 shows the twelve formats that were considered in the analysis.
Table 1
Format
|
Description
|
Pages
|
Public Health Report
|
Comprehensive and detailed description of a variety of topics
|
~ 50–200
|
Health System Performance Assessment (HSPA) Report
|
Country-specific process of monitoring, evaluating, communicating and reviewing the achievement of high-level health system goals based on health system strategies
|
~ 50–200
|
Short Report
|
Topic-specific presentation of results and interpretation
|
~ 10–30
|
Fact Sheet
|
Standardised presentation of circumscribed analyses
|
~ 1–10
|
Scientific Publication
|
Publication of specific topics relevant to science
|
~ 2–10
|
Scientific Journal
|
Publisher of his own scientific journal
|
~ 20–100
|
Flyer/ Brochure/
Leaflet
|
Compressed and simplified display of summarised public health information
|
~ 2–3
|
Website
|
All websites that provide health information
|
-
|
Statistical online-database
|
Provision of collected data for own analyses
|
-
|
Video
|
Visualised simplified and comprehensible dissemination of health information
|
-
|
Social Media
|
Dissemination of health information via Facebook, Twitter, Instagram
|
-
|
Workshop/ Seminar
|
Face-to-face communication; documentation of workshop or seminar
|
-
|
For the analysis, eight categories of target groups were defined and were regarded as relevant addressees of health reporting according to the experts’ assessment. The categorization builds upon the four central addressees named in the World Health Organization’s (WHO) framework for the implementation of surveillance of non-communicable diseases: health care providers, politicians, decision-makers in the health care system and the general public (11). For the purpose of this research, they were regrouped and supplemented by results from other sources (2, 5–7, 9, 12, 13) as well as input of the experts in the field:
The findings of the web-based desk research were analysed according to a qualitative content analysis, described by Mayring (14), to assign the results to the formats and target groups. In a further step, the univariate analysis of the research results followed, before cross-comparisons between the categories were carried out to identify which target groups are addressed by the different health reporting formats (1).
Development of quality criteria for public health reports
An exploratory literature review on PubMed/ Embase and exchange with experts in the field showed that there is only a limited number of publications touching on quality criteria for public health reports. However, two earlier projects have provided valuable information – the project ‘Evaluation of National and Regional Public Health Reports’ (Eva PHR) (9) and the German guideline ‘Good Practice in Health Reporting‘ (10). The quality criteria for preparing public health reports could therefore mainly be identified on the basis of these two sources, supplemented by findings from the literature (2, 4, 6, 7, 15–27) in the field of public health and in general research communication (Table 2).
Table 2
Authors
|
Year
|
Title
|
Bernhardt JM (15)
|
2004
|
Communication at the core of effective public health
|
Bou-Karroum L, El-Jardali F, Hemadi N et al. (16)
|
2017
|
Using media to impact health policy-making: an integrative systematic review
|
Brownson RC, Eyler AA, Harris JK et al. (7)
|
2018
|
Getting the Word Out: New Approaches for Disseminating Public Health Science
|
Brownson RC, Fielding JE, Maylahn CM (17)
|
2009
|
Evidence-based public health: a fundamental concept for public health practice
|
Carroll LN, Au AP, Detwiler LT et al. (18)
|
2014
|
Visualization and analytics tools for infectious disease epidemiology: a systematic review
|
Clar C, Dyakova M, Curtis K et al. (19)
|
2014
|
Just telling and selling: current limitations in the use of digital media in public health: a scoping review
|
Dobbins M, Jack S, Thomas H et al. (20)
|
2007
|
Public health decision-makers' informational needs and preferences for receiving research evidence
|
Fung IC-H, Tse ZTH, Fu K-W (21)
|
2015
|
The use of social media in public health surveillance
|
Green LW, Ottoson JM, Garcia C et al. (2)
|
2009
|
Diffusion theory and knowledge dissemination, utilization, and integration in public health
|
Nelson DE, Hesse BW, Croyle RT (22)
|
2009
|
Making data talk: communicating public health data to the public, policy makers, and the press
|
Ohlmeier C, Frick J, Prütz F et al. (23)
|
2014
|
Nutzungsmöglichkeiten von Routinedaten der Gesetzlichen Krankenversicherung in der Gesundheitsberichterstattung des Bundes
|
Owen N, Glanz K, Sallis JF et al. (24)
|
2006
|
Evidence-based approaches to dissemination and diffusion of physical activity interventions
|
Richards CL, Iademarco MF, Atkinson D et al. (6)
|
2017
|
Advances in Public Health Surveillance and Information Dissemination at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
|
Valdiserri RO, Sullivan PS (25)
|
2018
|
Data Visualization Promotes Sound Public Health Practice: The AIDSvu Example
|
Van Bon-Martens MJH, Achterberg PW, van de Goor IAM et al. (26)
|
2012
|
Towards quality criteria for regional public health reporting: concept mapping with Dutch experts
|
Welch V, Petkovic J, Pardo Pardo J et al. (27)
|
2016
|
Interactive social media interventions to promote health equity: an overview of reviews
|
Wilson PM, Petticrew M, Calnan MW et al. (4)
|
2010
|
Disseminating research findings: what should researchers do? A systematic scoping review of conceptual frameworks
|
The research project ‘Evaluation of National and Regional Public Health Reports’ was conducted within the Health Monitoring Programme of the European Union in 2003. With the aim of identifying quality criteria and best practice models of effective health reporting, national and regional public health reports were collected and analysed. A major conclusion of the project was that it would be beneficial to put more effort in the development of a common methodology for health reporting that provides guidelines at international, national and regional level (9).
The guideline ‘Good Practice in Health Reporting’ has been developed by a working group consisting of representatives from all levels of health reporting in Germany, with the aim of strengthening the field at local, state and national level. The document contains guidelines and recommendations to answer to the need for continual development in health reporting as well as a list of quality criteria that are intended to serve as technical guidance for the preparation of public health reports (10).
These two sources, Eva PHR and the German Good Practice guideline, were studied in depth and analysed for overlaps. Based on the results, categories for quality criteria for public health reports were established, to which the criteria derived from these two sources and from the literature review were assigned. The experts from the InfAct consortium were involved at various stages of the criteria development through informal feedback rounds and discussions: in identifying relevant literature, selecting the criteria, forming the categories, and presenting the results.