<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Petronille Bogaert</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Marieke Verschuuren</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Herman Van Oyen</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hans van Oers</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Capacity building in European health information systems: the InfAct peer assessment methodology.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Eur J Public Health</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">capacity building</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Communication</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Europe</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Health Information Systems</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Humans</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">peer group</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2022</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2022 Jun 01</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">32</style></volume><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;BACKGROUND: &lt;/b&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;METHODS: &lt;/b&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;RESULTS: &lt;/b&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;CONCLUSION: &lt;/b&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">3</style></issue></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Rodrigo Sarmiento-Suárez</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Alicia Padron-Monedero</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Petronille Bogaert</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">L A Abboud</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Herman Van Oyen</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hanna Tolonen</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mariken Tijhuis</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Stefanie Seeling</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Romana Haneef</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Metka Zaletel</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Luigi Palmieri</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Anne Gallay</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Luís Velez Lapão</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Paulo Nogueira</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ziese, Thomas</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jakov Vuković</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">André Beja</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Miriam Saso</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Isabel Noguer-Zambrano</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">The InfAct proposal for a sustainable European health information infrastructure on population health: the Distributed Infrastructure on Population Health (DIPoH).</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Arch Public Health</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2022</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2022 May 17</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">80</style></volume><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;BACKGROUND: &lt;/b&gt;In Europe, data on population health is fragmented, difficult to access, project-based and prone to health information inequalities in terms of availability, accessibility and especially in quality between and within countries. This situation is further exacerbated and exposed by the recent COVID-19 pandemic. The Joint Action on Health Information (InfAct) that builds on previous works of the BRIDGE Health project, carried out collaborative action to set up a sustainable infrastructure for health information in the European Union (EU). The aim of this paper is to present InfAct's proposal for a sustainable research infrastructure, the Distributed Infrastructure on Population Health (DIPoH), which includes the setup of a Health Information Portal on population health to be maintained beyond InfAct's time span.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;METHODS: &lt;/b&gt;The strategy for the proposal was based on three components: scientific initiatives and proposals to improve Health Information Systems (HIS), exploration of technical acceptability and feasibility, and finally obtaining high-level political support.. The technical exploration (Technical Dialogues-TD) was assumed by technical experts proposed by the countries, and political guidance was provided by the Assembly of Members (AoM), which gathered representatives from Ministries of Health and Science of EU/EEA countries. The results from the AoM and the TD were integrated in the sustainability plan compiling all the major outputs of InfAct.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;RESULTS: &lt;/b&gt;The InfAct sustainability plan was organized in three main sections: a proposal of a new research infrastructure on population health (the DIPoH), new health information tools and innovative proposals for HIS, and a comprehensive capacity building programme. These activities were carried out in InfAct and are being further developed in the Population Health Information Research Infrastructure (PHIRI). PHIRI is a practical rollout of DIPoH facilitating and generating the best available evidence for research on health and wellbeing of populations as impacted by COVID-19.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;CONCLUSIONS: &lt;/b&gt;The sustainability plan received wide support from Member States and was recognized to have an added value at EU level. Nevertheless, there were several aspects which still need to be considered for the near future such as: (i) a commitment of stable financial and political support by Member States (MSs), (ii) the availability of resources at regional, national and European level to deal with innovations, and (iii) a more direct involvement from EU and international institutions such as the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development OECD for providing support and sustainable contributions.&lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></issue></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Alicia Padron-Monedero</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Suárez, Rodrigo Sarmiento</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Petronille Bogaert</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">L A Abboud</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Herman Van Oyen</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hanna Tolonen</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mariken J Tijhuis</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Luigi Palmieri</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Romana Haneef</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Anne Gallay</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Luis Lapao</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Paulo Jorge Nogueira</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ziese, Thomas</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Stefanie Seeling</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Jakov Vuković</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Isabel Noguer-Zambrano</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Integrating technical and political views for a sustainable European Distributed Infrastructure on Population Health.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Arch Public Health</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">population health</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">research infrastructure</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2022</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2022 Jan 17</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">80</style></volume><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;BACKGROUND: &lt;/b&gt;Non-Communicable diseases (NCD) are the main contributors to mortality and burden of disease. There is no infrastructure in Europe that could provide health information (HI) on Public Health monitoring and Health Systems Performance (HSP) for research and evidence-informed decision-making. Moreover, there was no EU and European Economic Area Member States (EU/EEA MSs) general consensus, on developing this initiative and guarantee its sustainability. The aim of this study is to analyze the integration of technical and political views made by the Joint Action on Health Information (InfAct; Information for Action) and the results obtained from those activities, in terms of advice and national and institutional support to develop an integrated and sustainable European Distributed Infrastructure on Population Health (DIPoH) for research and evidence-informed policy-making.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;METHODS: &lt;/b&gt;InfAct established two main boards, the Technical Dialogues (TDs) and the Assembly of Members (AoM), to provide a platform for discussion with EU/EEA MSs to establish a sustainable infrastructure for HI: 1) The TDs were composed by national technical experts (NTE) with the aim to discuss and provide feedback about scientific aspects, feasibility and EU-added value of the infrastructure proposed by InfAct. 2) The AoM gathered country representatives from Ministries of Health and Research at the highest political level, with the aim of providing policy-oriented advice for the future political acceptance, support, implementation, and development of InfAct's outcomes including DIPoH. The documentation provided for the meetings consisted in Fact-Sheets, where the main results, new methods and proposals were clearly exposed for discussion and assessment; altogether with more extended information of the DIPoH. The documentation was provided to national representatives within one more before each TD and AoM meeting. The Agenda and methodological approaches for each TD and AoM meeting consisted in the presentations of the InfAct outcomes extending the information provided in the Fact-Sheets; followed by a non-structured interaction, exchange of information, discussion and suggestions by the MSs representatives. The outcomes of the non-structured discussions were collected in Minutes of the TD and AoM meetings, and the final version was obtained with the consensus of all participants. Additionally, structured letters of political support were provided to the AoM representatives, for them to consider providing their MS written support for DIPoH.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;RESULTS: &lt;/b&gt;NTE, within the TDs, considered that DIPoH was useful for technical mutual learning and cooperation among and within countries; although they considered that the technical feasibility to uptake InfAct deliverables at the national and EU level was complex. The AoM focused on political support, resources, and expected MSs returns. The AoM representatives agreed in the interest of setting up an integrated and sustainable HI infrastructure and they considered DIPoH to be well-articulated and defined; although, some of them, expressed some barriers for providing DIPoH political support. The AoM representatives stated that the AoM is the most suitable way to inform EU MSs/ACs about future advances of DIPoH. Both boards provided valuable feedback to develop this infrastructure. Eleven countries and sixteen institutions supported the proposal, either by letters of political support or by signing the Memorandum of Understandings (MoU) and three countries, additionally, provided expression of financial commitment, for DIPoH to be added to the ESFRI 2021 roadmap.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;CONCLUSIONS: &lt;/b&gt;TDs and AoM were key forums to develop, advise, advocate and provide support for a sustainable European research infrastructure for Population Health.&lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></issue></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Brigid Unim</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Elsi Haverinen</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Eugenio Mattei</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Flavia Carle</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Andrea Faragalli</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Rosaria Gesuita</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Martin Thissen</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">L A Abboud</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Tiziana Grisetti</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Petronille Bogaert</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Luigi Palmieri</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mapping European research networks providing health data: results from the InfAct Joint Action on health information.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Arch Public Health</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2022</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2022 Jan 10</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">80</style></volume><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;BACKGROUND: &lt;/b&gt;Research networks offer multidisciplinary expertise and promote information exchange between researchers across Europe. They are essential for the European Union's (EU) health information system as providers of health information and data. The aim of this mapping exercise was to identify and analyze EU research networks in terms of health data collection methods, quality assessment, availability and accessibility procedures.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;METHODS: &lt;/b&gt;A web-based search was performed to identify EU research networks that are not part of international organizations (e.g., WHO-Europe, OECD) and are involved in collection of data for health monitoring or health system performance assessment. General characteristics of the research networks (e.g., data sources, representativeness), quality assessment procedures, availability and accessibility of health data were collected through an ad hoc extraction form.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;RESULTS: &lt;/b&gt;Fifty-seven research networks, representative at national, international or regional level, were identified. In these networks, data are mainly collected through administrative sources, health surveys and cohort studies. Over 70% of networks provide information on quality assessment of their data collection procedures. Most networks share macrodata through articles and reports, while microdata are available from ten networks. A request for data access is required by 14 networks, of which three apply a financial charge. Few networks share data with other research networks (8/49) or specify the metadata-reporting standards used for data description (9/49).&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;CONCLUSIONS: &lt;/b&gt;Improving health information and availability of high quality data is a priority in Europe. Research networks could play a major role in tackling health data and information inequalities by enhancing quality, availability, and accessibility of health data and data sharing across European networks.&lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></issue></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Angela Fehr</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Stefanie Seeling</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Anselm Hornbacher</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Martin Thißen</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Petronille Bogaert</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Marie Delnord</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ronan A. Lyons</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Mariken J Tijhuis</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Peter Achterberg</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Ziese, Thomas</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Prioritizing health information for national health reporting - a Delphi study of the Joint Action on Health Information (InfAct).</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Arch Public Health</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2022</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2022 Jan 11</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">80</style></volume><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;BACKGROUND: &lt;/b&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;METHODS: &lt;/b&gt;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).&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;RESULTS: &lt;/b&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;CONCLUSION: &lt;/b&gt;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 &quot;good practices&quot; 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 &quot;Good Practice HI Prioritization&quot; among EU Member States and associated countries.&lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">1</style></issue></record><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Petronille Bogaert</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Marieke Verschuuren</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Herman Van Oyen</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Hans van Oers</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Identifying common enablers and barriers in European health information systems.</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Health Policy</style></secondary-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Europe</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Health Information Systems</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Humans</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Qualitative Research</style></keyword></keywords><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2021</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2021 Dec</style></date></pub-dates></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">125</style></volume><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">12</style></issue></record></records></xml>