Ten years onwards: Comparison of the South Eastern European regional public health strategy 2004 and the South Eastern European 2020 strategy

Aim: Regional collaboration has continuously contributed to the development of public health in the South Eastern Europe (SEE) region since 2000 when the Public Health Collaboration in SEE (PH-SEE) was initiated. This article looks into two frameworks for regional collaboration in the area of public health: a framework developed in 2004 by a network of public health professionals and academics, and another one developed by the SEE Health Network as integral part of the SEE 2020 strategy on Jobs and Prosperity in a European Perspective, adopted in 2013. It compares the commonalities and differences of the two frameworks; considers what is still valid and relevant after ten years and which new features have emerged in the new strategy. Methods: A literature review was carried out and a qualitative analysis was applied for the comparison of the two frameworks. Results: Notwithstanding the time gap of nearly ten years, the commonalities between the two regional health strategies are significant. Major consistent goals include: improving equity in health; strengthening human resources for health; improving intersectoral cooperation and governance. The differences between the two regional strategies, including issues around social participation and regional health information systems, are partially due to their different development context. Cross-border policies and quality management have emerged as new or more pronounced topics in the SEE 2020 strategy’s health dimension. Conclusions: Many aspects addressed in the 2004 framework are pertinent with regard to the SEE 2020 health dimension and remain relevant in the current context. The integration of health as part of the economic SEE 2020 strategy reflects a significant paradigm shift and important step forward for public healt

Progress on quality management in the German health system – a long and winding road

Breckenkamp J, Wiskow C, Laaser U. Progress on quality management in the German health system – a long and winding road. Health Research Policy and Systems. 2007;5(1): 7.The interest in quality management in health care has increased in the last decades as the financial crises in most health systems generated the need for solutions to contain costs while maintaining quality of care. In Germany the development of quality management procedures has been closely linked with health care reforms. Starting in the early nineties quality management issues gained momentum in reform legislation only 10 years later. This review summarizes recent developments in medical quality management as related to the federal reform legislation in Germany. It provides an overview on the infrastructure, actors and on the current discussion concerning quality management in medical care. Germany had to catch up on implementing quality management in the health system compared to other countries. Considerable progress has been made, however, it is recognized that the full integration of quality management will require long-term commitment in developing methods, instruments and communication procedures. The most ambitious project at present is the development of a comprehensive comparative quality management system for hospitals at national level, including public reporting. For the time being medical quality management in Germany is dealt with as a technical and professional issue while the aspects of patient orientation and transparency need further advancement

Ten years onwards: Comparison of the South Eastern European regional public health strategy 2004 and the South Eastern European 2020 strategy

Aim: Regional collaboration has continuously contributed to the development of public health in the South Eastern Europe (SEE) region since 2000 when the Public Health Collaboration in SEE (PH-SEE) was initiated. This article looks into two frameworks for regional collaboration in the area of public health: a framework developed in 2004 by a network of public health professionals and academics, and another one developed by the SEE Health Network as integral part of the SEE 2020 strategy on Jobs and Prosperity in a European Perspective, adopted in 2013. It compares the commonalities and differences of the two frameworks; considers what is still valid and relevant after ten years and which new features have emerged in the new strategy.Methods: A literature review was carried out and a qualitative analysis was applied for the comparison of the two frameworks.Results: Notwithstanding the time gap of nearly ten years, the commonalities between the two regional health strategies are significant. Major consistent goals include: improving equity in health; strengthening human resources for health; improving intersectoral cooperation and governance. The differences between the two regional strategies, including issues around social participation and regional health information systems, are partially due to their different development context. Cross-border policies and quality management have emerged as new or more pronounced topics in the SEE 2020 strategy’s health dimension. Conclusions: Many aspects addressed in the 2004 framework are pertinent with regard to the SEE 2020 health dimension and remain relevant in the current context. The integration of health as part of the economic SEE 2020 strategy reflects a significant paradigm shift and important step forward for public health

The Challenges of Developing an Instrument to Assess Health Provider Motivation at Primary Care Level in Rural Burkina Faso, Ghana and Tanzania.

The quality of health care depends on the competence and motivation of the health workers that provide it. In the West, several tools exist to measure worker motivation, and some have been applied to the health sector. However, none have been validated for use in sub-Saharan Africa. The complexity of such tools has also led to concerns about their application at primary care level. To develop a common instrument to monitor any changes in maternal and neonatal health (MNH) care provider motivation resulting from the introduction of pilot interventions in rural, primary level facilities in Ghana, Burkina Faso, and Tanzania. Initially, a conceptual framework was developed. Based upon this, a literature review and preliminary qualitative research, an English-language instrument was developed and validated in an iterative process with experts from the three countries involved. The instrument was then piloted in Ghana. Reliability testing and exploratory factor analysis were used to produce a final, parsimonious version. This paper describes the actual process of developing the instrument. Consequently, the concepts and items that did not perform well psychometrically at pre-test are first presented and discussed. The final version of the instrument, which comprises 42 items for self-assessment and eight for peer-assessment, is then shown. This is followed by a presentation and discussion of the findings from first use of the instrument with MNH providers from 12 rural, primary level facilities in each of the three countries. It is possible to undertake work of this nature at primary health care level, particularly if the instruments are kept as straightforward as possible and well introduced. However, their development requires very lengthy preparatory periods. The effort needed to adapt such instruments for use in different countries within the region of sub-Saharan Africa should not be underestimated

International Migration of Health Personnel: Challenges and Opportunities for North- and West-African Countries

Euro-Mediterranean Consortium for Applied Research on International Migration (CARIM