scholarly journals Overview of National Health Reporting in the EU and Quality Criteria for Public Health Reports – Results of the Joint Action InfAct

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Thissen ◽  
Stefanie Seeling ◽  
Peter Achterberg ◽  
Angela Fehr ◽  
Luigi Palmieri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
Health Reporting ◽  
Target Groups ◽  
Member States ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Reporting Practices ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Desk Research ◽  
The Eu

Abstract Background: Health reporting shall provide up-to-date health-related data to inform policy-makers, researchers and the public. To this end, health reporting formats should be tailored to the needs and competencies of the target groups and provide comparable and high-quality information. Within the Joint Action on Health Information ‘InfAct’, we aimed at gaining an overview of health reporting practices in the EU Member States and associated countries, and developed quality criteria for the preparation of public health reports. The results are intended to facilitate making health information adequately available while reducing inequalities in health reporting across the EU.Methods: A web-based desk research was conducted among EU Member States and associated countries to generate an overview of different formats of national health reporting and their respective target groups. To identify possible quality criteria for public health reports, an exploratory literature review was performed and earlier projects were analysed. The final set of criteria was developed in exchange with experts from the InfAct consortium. Results: The web-based desk research showed that public health reports are the most frequently used format across countries (94%), most often addressed to scientists and researchers (51%), politicians and decision-makers (41%). However, across all reporting formats, the general public is the most frequently addressed target group. With regards to quality criteria for public health reports, the literature review has yielded few results. Therefore, two earlier projects served as main sources: the ‘Evaluation of National and Regional Public Health Reports’ and the guideline ‘Good Practice in Health Reporting‘ from Germany. In collaboration with experts, quality criteria were identified and grouped into eight categories, ranging from topic selection to presentation of results, and compiled in a checklist for easy reference.Conclusion: Health reporting practices in the EU are heterogeneous across Member States. The assembled quality criteria are intended to facilitate the preparation, dissemination and access to better comparable high-quality public health reports as a basis for evidence-based decision-making. A comprehensive conceptual and integrative approach that incorporates the policy perspective would be useful to investigate which dissemination strategies are the most suitable for specific requirements of the targeted groups.

scholarly journals Overview of national health reporting in the EU and quality criteria for public health reports – results of the Joint Action InfAct

2021 ◽  
Vol 79 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Thissen ◽  
Stefanie Seeling ◽  
Peter Achterberg ◽  
Angela Fehr ◽  
Luigi Palmieri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
Health Reporting ◽  
Target Groups ◽  
Member States ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Reporting Practices ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Desk Research ◽  
The Eu

Abstract Background Health reporting shall provide up-to-date health-related data to inform policy-makers, researchers and the public. To this end, health reporting formats should be tailored to the needs and competencies of the target groups and provide comparable and high-quality information. Within the Joint Action on Health Information ‘InfAct’, we aimed at gaining an overview of health reporting practices in the EU Member States and associated countries, and developed quality criteria for the preparation of public health reports. The results are intended to facilitate making health information adequately available while reducing inequalities in health reporting across the EU. Methods A web-based desk research was conducted among EU Member States and associated countries to generate an overview of different formats of national health reporting and their respective target groups. To identify possible quality criteria for public health reports, an exploratory literature review was performed and earlier projects were analysed. The final set of criteria was developed in exchange with experts from the InfAct consortium. Results The web-based desk research showed that public health reports are the most frequently used format across countries (94%), most often addressed to scientists and researchers (51%), politicians and decision-makers (41%). However, across all reporting formats, the general public is the most frequently addressed target group. With regards to quality criteria for public health reports, the literature review has yielded few results. Therefore, two earlier projects served as main sources: the ‘Evaluation of National and Regional Public Health Reports’ and the guideline ‘Good Practice in Health Reporting‘from Germany. In collaboration with experts, quality criteria were identified and grouped into eight categories, ranging from topic selection to presentation of results, and compiled in a checklist for easy reference. Conclusion Health reporting practices in the EU are heterogeneous across Member States. The assembled quality criteria are intended to facilitate the preparation, dissemination and access to better comparable high-quality public health reports as a basis for evidence-based decision-making. A comprehensive conceptual and integrative approach that incorporates the policy perspective would be useful to investigate which dissemination strategies are the most suitable for specific requirements of the targeted groups.

scholarly journals Developing recommendations for good practice in national health reporting

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Thißen ◽  
S Seeling ◽  
P Achterberg ◽  
A Fehr ◽  
R Haneef ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Information ◽  
Good Practice ◽  
Guidance Document ◽  
Health Reporting ◽  
Target Groups ◽  
Member States ◽  
Reporting Practices ◽  
Desk Research ◽  
The Eu

Abstract Background Health reporting should deliver up-to-date data and information on the population's health status, its determinants and on national (or regional) healthcare services. Establishing an information or discussion base for health policy is an important objective ('data for action'), but health reporting also addresses other target groups like scientists, the media or the general public. Depending on the needs and competencies of the respective target groups, requirements for health reporting formats will differ. At the same time, heterogeneity of health reporting practices in Member States causes, next to occasional language barriers, difficulties in facilitating access to EU-comparable information. To allow for alignment and identification of good practices, our study aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the health reporting formats in the EU. Methods A web-based desk research of health reporting formats and their target groups was conducted among EU Member States and associated InfAct partner countries. Good practice examples were identified on the basis of quality criteria derived from 'Good Practice in Health Reporting' for Germany and the Eva PHR (Evaluation of National and Regional Public Health Reports) project. Based on the findings of the desk research, a guidance document for health reports will be drafted in close cooperation with InfAct partner countries. Results The guidance should accommodate the heterogeneity of reporting practices at EU level while defining desirable and feasible good practice standards. Although the focus is on public health reports, recommendations for other formats of health reporting will also be included. It will facilitate the preparation, dissemination and access to EU-comparable and high-quality health information. Conclusions The guidance is expected to be a useful tool for making health information adequately available to the targeted groups while reducing inequalities in health reporting across the EU.

European Union Rights and Values in Human Health

2019 ◽  
pp. 16-51
Author(s):  
Anniek de Ruijter
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
European Union ◽  
National Policy ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Eu Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Eu

This book looks at the impact of the expanding power of the EU in terms of fundamental rights and values. The current chapter lays down the framework for this analysis. Law did not always have a central role to play in the context of medicine and health. The role of law grew after the Second Word War and the Nuremberg Doctors Trials (1947), in which preventing the repetition of atrocities that were committed in the name of medicine became a guidepost for future law regarding patients’ rights and bioethics. In the period after the War, across the EU Member States, health law developed as a legal discipline in which a balance was struck in medicine and public health between law, bioethics, and fundamental rights. The role of EU fundamental rights protections in the context of public health and health care developed in relation with the growth of multilevel governance and litigation (national, international, Council of Europe, and European Union). For the analysis here, this chapter develops an EU rights and values framework that goes beyond the strictly legal and allows for a ‘normative language’ that takes into consideration fundamental rights as an expression of important shared values in the context of the European Union. The perspective of EU fundamental rights and values can demonstrate possible tensions caused by EU health policy: implications in terms of fundamental rights can show how highly sensitive national policy issues may be affected by the Member States’ participation in EU policymaking activities.

scholarly journals EU ASYLUM SYSTEM IN AND AFTER THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC: DISCLOSING THE WEAKNESSES OF THE CURRENT RULES AND ASSESSING THE PROSPECTS OF THE NEW PACT ON MIGRATION AND ASYLUM

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bojana Čučković
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Asylum Seekers ◽  
Current Phase ◽  
Member States ◽  
International Protection ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Emergency Situations ◽  
Human Rights Standards ◽  
The Eu

The paper analyses the influence that the Covid-19 pandemic has had on the functioning of the European asylum system. The analysis is divided into three parts and addresses problematic issues associated with different stages of the pandemic. In the first part of the paper, the author outlines the asylum practices of EU Member States in the initial stage of the Covid-19 pandemic during which the pandemic was perceived as a state of emergency. By exploring the legal possibilities to derogate both from the EU asylum rules and international human rights standards, the author offers conclusions as regards limits of derogations and the legality of Member States’ practices, especially their failure to differentiate between rules that are susceptive of being derogated in emergency situations and those that are not. The second part of the paper analyses the current phase of the pandemic in which it is perceived as a 'new normal' and focuses on making the EU asylum system immune to Covid-19 influence to the greatest extent possible and in line with relevant EU and human rights rules. The author insists on the vulnerability as an inherent feature of persons in need of international protection and researches upon the relationship between the two competing interests involved – protection of asylum seekers and ensuring public health as a legitimate reason for restricting certain asylum seekers’ rights. The final part of the paper analyses the prospects of the future EU asylum system, as announced by the New Pact on Migration and Asylum in September 2020, to adapt to the exigencies of both the current Covid-19 crisis and pandemics that are yet to come. With an exclusive focus on referral to Covid-19 and provisions relevant for the current and future pandemics, the author criticizes several solutions included in the instruments that make up the Pact. It is concluded that the Pact failed to offer solutions for problems experienced during the Covid-19 pandemic and that, under the pretext of public health, it prioritizes the interests of Member States over the interests of applicants for international protection.

Balkan public distrust will endanger vaccine take-up

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Survey Data ◽  
Member States ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Relative Safety ◽  
Balkan Countries ◽  
To Come ◽  
Clear Majority ◽  
The Eu

Significance Non-EU Balkan countries are lagging behind EU member states in securing access to vaccines. However, survey data show that a clear majority of citizens would refuse to accept a government-sanctioned vaccine, representing a possible risk to public health for years to come. Impacts Russia and China will try to boost their influence by offering their own vaccines more quickly and in quantity. The relative safety of Russian and Western vaccines will be an issue in Russian disinformation campaigns. The EU will lose ground in the geopolitical contest, with doses not available via the WHO-GAVI COVAX scheme until April.

Environmental Reporting by the EU Member States and the Commission – Current Practices, Legislative Action and a Way Forward

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 189-228
Author(s):  
Anna Vanhellemont
Keyword(s):  
Action Plan ◽  
Environmental Legislation ◽  
Environmental Reporting ◽  
Member States ◽  
Reporting Practices ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Legislative Action ◽  
Eu Legislation ◽  
Reporting Requirements ◽  
The Eu

Literature on environmental reporting by Member States and the Commission is scarce. Furthermore, the way in which environmental reporting is construed in EU legislation and takes place in practice in the Member States, has only recently been subject to a comprehensive review. Following the 2017 Fitness Check of environmental reporting and subsequent action plan, on which a progress report was published in June 2019, it is high time to look at the state of environmental reporting in the EU. This article looks into several provisions and practices of environmental reporting from the perspective of legal certainty, transparency and, more specifically, access to environmental information. Environmental monitoring and reporting are essential to ensure proper implementation of and compliance with EU environmental legislation. However, discrepancies in legislation and issues in reporting practices can be noted. The Commission has taken several initiatives to streamline and improve environmental reporting, the most significant example being the adoption of Regulation 2019/1010 to align the reporting obligations in the field of environmental policy. Nevertheless, it seems there is still room for improvement. The article concludes with a look into the future of environmental reporting requirements, asking the question what more can be done.

scholarly journals THE IMPACT OF COVID-19 ON THE FREE MOVEMENT OF PERSONS IN THE EU

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dunja Duić ◽  
Veronika Sudar
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Political Legitimacy ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Freedom Of Movement ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu

The impact of the COVID-19 outbreak is being endured throughout the world, and the European Union (EU) is no exception. The rapid spreading of the virus effected, among other things, restriction on the freedom of movement. The EU member states introduced national response measures to contain the pandemic and protect public health. While broadly similar, the measures differ with regard to strictness and the manner of introduction, reflecting the political legitimacy of the respective country. With the ‘Guidelines concerning the exercise of the free movement of workers during COVID-19 outbreak’ – its first COVID-19-related Communication – the European Commission (EC) attempted to curb differing practices of the EU member states and ensure a coordinated approach. Ultimately, this action was aimed at upholding of fundamental rights as guaranteed to EU citizens, one such being the freedom of movement. Thus, from the very start of the pandemic, the coordinated actions of EU institutions sought to contain the spread of COVID-19 infections with the support and cooperation of EU member states. This is confirmed by the most recent Council of the EU (Council) recommendation on a coordinated approach to restrictions to freedom of movement within the EU of October 2020. While they did prevent the spread of infection and save countless lives, the movement restriction measures and the resulting uncertainty have greatly affected the people, the society, and the economy, thereby demonstrating that they cannot remain in force for an extended period. This paper examines the measures introduced by EU member states and analyses the legal basis for introducing therewith limitations on human rights and market freedoms. To what extent are the EU and member states authorized to introduce restrictions on the freedom of movement in the interest of public health? Have the EU and member states breached their obligations regarding market freedoms and fundamental rights under the Treaty? And most importantly: have they endangered the fundamental rights of the citizens of the EU?

scholarly journals Prioritizing health information for national health reporting - a Delphi study of the Joint Action on Health Information (InfAct)

2022 ◽  
Vol 80 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Angela Fehr ◽  
Stefanie Seeling ◽  
Anselm Hornbacher ◽  
Martin Thißen ◽  
Petronille Bogaert ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Information ◽  
National Health ◽  
Delphi Study ◽  
Joint Action ◽  
Good Practice ◽  
Health Reporting ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
National Public Health

Abstract Background Health information (HI) strategies exist in several EU Member States, however, they mainly focus on technical issues and improving governance rather than on content-related priority setting. There is also little research available about national prioritization processes underlying HI development for policy support in the EU. The aim of this study was to broaden the knowledge base on HI prioritization strategies and to encourage expert exchange towards good practice models. A specific focus was put on HI produced for national health reporting, this being a crucial tool for policy advice. Methods We conducted a literature search to identify published and grey literature on national HI prioritization. This was followed by a two-round Policy Delphi study, where we explored which processes and methods exist in EU Member States and associated countries for the prioritization of HI collection. In the first round, information about these processes was gathered in semi-structured questions; in the second round, participants were asked to rank the identified approaches for desirability and feasibility. The survey was conducted online; participants were recruited from the membership of the Joint Action on Health Information (InfAct – Information for Action). Results 119 experts were contacted, representing 40 InfAct partner institutions in 28 EU Member States and associated countries. Of these, 28 experts responded fully or partially to the first round, and six to the second round. In the first round, more than half of the respondents reported the existence of structured HI prioritization processes in their countries. To prioritize HI, a clear preference was given in the second round for a formal, horizontal process which includes different experts and stakeholders. National public health institutes were named desirable key stakeholders in this process, and also desirable and feasible coordinators for stakeholder coordination. Conclusion Health information prioritization methods and procedures reflect the heterogeneity of national public health systems in European countries. Mapping, sharing and ranking prioritization methods and procedures for “good practices” provides a meaningful basis for expert knowledge exchange on HI development. We recommend to make this process part of a future sustainable EU health information system and to use the information gathered in this project to initiate the development of a guidance “Good Practice HI Prioritization” among EU Member States and associated countries.

BIOECONOMY DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL BASED ON MORE EFFICIENT LAND USE IN THE EU

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irina PILVERE ◽  
Aleksejs NIPERS ◽  
Bartosz MICKIEWICZ
Keyword(s):  
Green Growth ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Growing Stock ◽  
Europe 2020 ◽  
Europe 2020 Strategy ◽  
Analysis And Synthesis ◽  
Key Industries ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Production Resource

Europe 2020 Strategy highlights bioeconomy as a key element for smart and green growth in Europe. Bioeconomy in this case includes agriculture, forestry, fisheries, food and pulp and paper production, parts of chemical, biotechnological and energy industries and plays an important role in the EU’s economy. The growth of key industries of bioeconomy – agriculture and forestry – highly depends on an efficient and productive use of land as a production resource. The overall aim of this paper is to evaluate opportunities for development of the main sectors of bioeconomy (agriculture and forestry) in the EU based on the available resources of land. To achieve this aim, several methods were used – monographic, analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, statistical analysis methods. The findings show that it is possible to improve the use of land in the EU Member States. If all the Member States reached the average EU level, agricultural products worth EUR 77 bln would be annually additionally produced, which is 19 % more than in 2014, and an extra 5 billion m3 volume of forest growing stock would be gained, which is 20 % more than in 2010.

THE STANDARD OF LIVING OF HOUSEHOLDS IN POLAND COMPARED TO OTHER EU MEMBER STATES

2015 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 634-638
Author(s):  
Joanna Szwacka Mokrzycka
Keyword(s):  
Economic Development ◽  
Economic Condition ◽  
Standard Of Living ◽  
Consumption Expenditure ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Financial Condition ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Structure Of Consumption ◽  
The Eu

The objective of this article is to present the standard of living of households in Poland in comparison with other EU member states. The starting point for analysis was the economic condition of Poland against the background of other EU member states. The next step consisted of assessment of the standard of living of inhabitants of individual EU member states on the basis of financial condition of households and the structure of consumption expenditure. It was found that the differences within the EU in terms of economic development and the standard of living of households still remain substantial.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document