Capacity building in European health information systems:The InfAct peer assessment methodology

Background A Health Information System (HIS) assessment is an evaluation of the functioning of the main elements that compose a national HIS. Assessors from nine countries performed peer assessments of each other’s national HIS in the Joint Action on Health Information (InfAct). The aim of this study is to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of the InfAct peer assessment methodology as well as the different steps involved in this assessment process. Methods Each peer assessment included a preparatory desk report, a country visit with semi-structured interviews with local stakeholders, a final report and a follow-up stakeholder meeting. A qualitative content analysis of the peer HIS assessment was performed based on 12 semi-structured interviews. Results The main advantage of the assessments is its informal atmosphere, high degree of objectiveness and its networking opportunities. Disadvantages are its informal request format and setting for recommendation uptake. The peer assessment helped the assessors to broaden their understanding of the assessed and their own HISs, to gain knowledge on how to carry out an HIS assessment and to practice their organization, communication, reporting and negotiation skills. All steps of the HIS assessment are essential and each contributes to the enriching experience of the participants. Conclusion The InfAct peer HIS assessment methodology strengthened capacity in national HISs by building up the knowledge and expertise in participating countries and as such addressed health information inequalities. This study confirms the value and relatively easy to implement methodology, and therefore recommends its wide and more systematic application across Europe

Identifying common enablers and barriers in European health information systems

European countries possess unique health information systems (HISs) and face similar health system challenges. Investigating common enablers and barriers across Europe pinpoint where HISs need improvements to address these challenges. This study aims to identify common enablers and barriers for optimal functioning of HISs across the European Union and associated countries, and to interpret what this means for the further development of HISs in Europe. A qualitative thematic analysis was carried out based on nine countries HISs assessments. Two main observations are made. Firstly, regardless of the differences between HISs, each HIS had its strengths and weaknesses and often the same barriers and enablers arose. Secondly, barriers were identified in all HIS areas. The five most important barriers are (i) fragmentation of data sources, limited accessibility, use and re-use of data, (ii) barriers in the implementation of EHR-systems, (iii) governance issues related to unclear responsibilities, discontinuous financing and weak intra-and inter-sectorial collaboration, (iv) legal gaps and General Data Protection Regulation (mis)interpretation, and (v) limited skilled staff. The enablers identified in this study lead to potential solutions to address these. Solutions can be implemented by national initiatives, but there is considerable added value in a joint European approach. Several international initiatives provide opportunities to improve HISs, but these need to be strengthened and better geared towards tackling the identified barriers. (C) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V

Intersectoral collaboration at a decentralized level:Information flows in child welfare and healthcare networks

BACKGROUND: As needs of families with social and behavioral health problems often exceed the expertise and possibilities of a single professional, service or organization, cross-service collaboration is indispensable to adequately meeting those needs. Despite the progressive focus on organizing integrated care, service fragmentation and service duplication remain persistent problems in child welfare and healthcare service delivery systems. A crucial factor to overcome these problems is information exchange between organizations. This study explores and compares the development over time of structures of information exchange in networks, concerning both material and knowledge-based information. METHODS: A comparative case study and social network analysis of three inter-organizational networks of child welfare and healthcare services in different-sized municipalities in the Netherlands. The research population consisted of organizations from various sectors participating in the networks. Data were collected at two moments in time with a mixed method: semi-structured interviews with network managers and an online questionnaire for all network members. Density and degree centralization were used to examine the information exchange structures. Ucinet was used to analyze the data, with use of the statistical tests: Compare Density Procedure and Quadratic Assignment Procedure. RESULTS: This study shows that different structures of information exchange can be distinguished, concerning both material and knowledge-based information. The overall connectedness of the studied structures of the networks are quite similar, but the way in which the involvement is structured turns out to be different between the networks. Over time, the overall connectedness of those structures appears to be stable, but the internal dynamics reveals a major change in relationships between organizations in the networks. CONCLUSIONS: Our study yields empirical evidence for the existence of and the differences between structures and dynamics of both material and knowledge-based information exchange relationships. With a loss of more than a half of the relations in a year, the relationships between the organizations in the network are not very stable over time. The contrast between major internal dynamics and the stable overall connectedness is an important point of concern for network managers and public officials, since this impermanence of relations means that long-term integrated care cannot be guaranteed

Cross-sectoral collaboration:Comparing complex child service delivery systems

Purpose To help ensure that children with social and behavioral health problems get the support services they need, organizations collaborate in cross-sectoral networks. In this article, the authors explore and compare the structure of these complex child service delivery networks in terms of differentiation (composition) and integration (interconnection). In particular, the authors investigate the structure of client referral and identify which organizations are most prominent within that network structure and could therefore fulfill a coordinating role. Design/methodology/approach The authors used a comparative case study approach and social network analysis on three interorganizational networks consisting of 65 to 135 organizations within the Dutch child service delivery system. Semi-structured interviews with the network managers were conducted, and an online questionnaire was sent out to the representatives of all network members. Findings The networks are similarly differentiated into 11 sectors with various tasks. Remarkably, network members have contact with an average of 20–26 organizations, which is a fairly high number to be handled successfully. In terms of integration, the authors found a striking diversity in the structures of client referral and not all organizations with a gatekeeper task hold central positions. Originality/value Due to the scarcity of comparative whole network research in the field, the strength of this study is a deeper understanding of the differentiation and integration of complex child service delivery systems. These insights are crucial in order to deliver needed services and to minimize service silos and fragmentation

The relative effects of self-reported noise and odour annoyance on psychological distress::Different effects across sociodemographic groups?

In earlier research, both higher levels of noise and odour annoyance have been associated with decreased mental health. Presumably, these perceptions can trigger feelings of threat and stress reactions and in turn evoke psychological distress. There are two important lacunas in the research on this topic: most studies only consider either noise or odour annoyance and not their relative effect on psychological distress and there is scarce evidence about whether different sociodemographic groups experience more psychological distress due to noise and odour annoyance. Starting from the diversity in the available coping resources and in their daily life patterns, we distinguish gender, age and educational level as relevant sociodemographic variables. Using data from the Health Monitor (n = 25236) in Noord-Brabant, we found using Ordinary Least Squares Regression that individuals that reported higher levels of noise and odour annoyance reported higher levels of psychological distress. Furthermore, the effect of noise annoyance was relatively stronger compared to that of odour annoyance. Regarding the interaction effects, we found that younger adults’ psychological distress was more strongly affected by noise annoyance compared to older adults, but not by odour annoyance. The psychological distress of individuals with no or primary education was more strongly affected by both noise and odour annoyance compared those with tertiary education, but not when compared to those who completed lower or higher secondary education. Contrary to our expectations, we did not find different effects between men and women. Though the evidence for the interactions was mixed, classic health inequalities along age and education lines are reinforced when considering the relationship between noise and odour annoyance and psychological distress

Psychometric properties of the QoL-ME:A visual and personalized quality of life assessment app for people with severe mental health problems

Background: Quality of Life (QoL) assessment in people with severe mental health problems may benefit from improved personalization and accessibility. Therefore, an innovative, digital, visual, and personalized QoL assessment app for people with severe mental health problems was recently developed: the QoL-ME. The aim of this study was to evaluate the psychometric quality of the QoL-ME by assessing its reliability, validity, and responsiveness. Methods: To examine the reliability of the QoL-ME, the internal consistency of its subscales was assessed using Cronbach's Alpha. Correlations between the QoL-ME and the MANSA were computed to appraise the construct validity of the QoL-ME. Internal responsiveness was evaluated using the standardized response mean and external responsiveness was investigated using hierarchical regression. Results: Cronbach's Alpha's of the subscales of the QoL-ME ranged between 0.5 and 0.84. In accordance with expectations, the language-based core version of the QoL-ME correlated strongly (r = between 0.55 and 0.76) with the MANSA, whilst the picture-based additional modules of the QoL-ME correlated moderately (r = 0.3) with the MANSA. The standardized response mean was 0.23 and the regression model revealed a coefficient β of −0.01. Conclusions: The QoL-ME has adequate psychometric properties. In comparison with similar pictorial instruments, both the QoL-ME's reliability and validity can be considered as sufficient. The results indicate that the responsiveness of the QoL-ME is insufficient. Additional research is needed to evaluate and potentially modify the instrument to improve its responsiveness

Analyzing the contributions of a government-commissioned research project: a case study

Background: It often remains unclear to investigators how their research contributes to the work of the commissioner. We initiated the 'Risk Model' case study to gain insight into how a Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) project and its knowledge products contribute to the commissioner's work, the commissioner being the Health Care Inspectorate. We aimed to identify the alignment efforts that influenced the research project contributions. Based on the literature, we expected interaction between investigators and key users to be the most determining factor for the contributions of a research project.Methods: In this qualitative case study, we analyzed the alignment efforts and contributions in the Risk Model project by means of document analysis and interviews according to the evaluation method Contribution Mapping. Furthermore, a map of the research process was drafted and a feedback session was organized. After the feedback session with stakeholders discussing the findings, we completed the case study report.Results: Both organizations had divergent views on the ownership of the research product and the relationship between RIVM and the Inspectorate, which resulted in different expectations. The RIVM considered the use of the risk models to be problematic, but the inspectors had a positive opinion about its contributions. Investigators, inspectors, and managers were not aware of these remarkably different perceptions. In this research project, we identified six relevant categories of both horizontal alignment efforts (between investigators and key users) as well as vertical alignment efforts (within own organization) that influenced the contributions to the Inspectorate's work.Conclusions: Relevant alignment efforts influencing the contributions of the project became manifest at three levels: the first level directly relates to the project, the second to the organizational environment, and the third to the formal and historical relationship between the organizations. Both external and internal alignments influence the contributions of a research project. Based on the findings, we recommend that research institutes invest in a reflective attitude towards the social aspects of research projects at all levels of the organization and develop alignment strategies to enhance the contributions of research. © 2014 Hegger et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd

Research for Policy (R4P): development of a reflection tool for researchers to improve knowledge utilization

Background: To improve knowledge utilization in policymaking, alignment between researchers and policymakers during knowledge production is essential, but difficult to maintain. In three previously reported case studies, we extensively evaluated complex research projects commissioned by policymakers to investigate how alignment is achieved in a research process and to discover ways to enhance knowledge contributions to health policy. In the present study, we investigated how the findings of these three research projects could be integrated into a practical tool for researchers to enhance their contribution to evidence-based policy. Methods: A cross-case analysis was conducted to integrate the findings of the evaluation of the three research projects and to identify important alignment areas in these projects. By means of an iterative process, we prepared a tool that includes reflection questions for researchers. The "Research for Policy" tool was tested with input from the project managers of three new research projects. Based on the findings, the final version of the Research for Policy tool was prepared. Results: By cross-case analysis of the three case studies, the following important alignment areas were identified: the goal, quality, relevance, timing, and presentation of research, the tasks and authorities of actors, the consultative structure and vertical alignment within organizations, and the organizational environment. The project managers regarded the Research for Policy tool as a useful checklist for addressing the important alignment areas in a research project. Based on their feedback, the illustrative examples from the case studies were added to the reflection questions. The project managers suggested making the tool accessible not only to researchers but also to policymakers. The format of the Research for Policy tool was further adjusted to users' needs by adding clickable links. Conclusions: Alignment between research and policymaking requires continuous efforts and a clear understanding of process issues in the research project. The Research for Policy tool offers practical alignment guidance and facilitates reflection on process issues, which supports researchers in aligning with policymakers and in acting in a context-sensitive way. © 2016 The Author(s)

Kennisagenda samen gezond leven:Hoe dan?

In het begin van 2020 heeft staatssecretaris Paul Blokhuis het Kennisplatform Preventie in het leven geroepen. Dit platform bestaat uit experts uit de wetenschap, het beleid en de praktijk van preventie. Het doel is om tot meer samenhang te komen in de programmering en het gebruik van kennis over preventie, aan de hand van een dynamische kennisagenda. In haar meest recente agenda (Kennisagenda preventie 2021: mentale gezondheid op de agenda – ZonMw) stelt het kennisplatform dat hoe-vragen meer prioriteit verdienen dan wat-vragen, als het gaat om leefstijl en mentale gezondheid. Dit artikel licht de aanleiding en inhoud van de kennisagenda en het kennisplatform toe, en roept lezers op om mee te denken via [email protected]