Rainer Fehr1, Kristina Alexanderson2, Carlo Favaretti3, Judith de Jong4, Giuseppe La Torre5, Tek-Ang Lim6, Piedad Martin-Olmedo7, Odile C L Mekel8, Kai Michelsen9, Nicole Rosenkötter8, Marieke Verschuuren10, Chiara de Waure3, Dineke Zeegers Paget11. 1. Fakultät für Gesundheitswissenschaften, Universität Bielefeld, Bielefeld, Germany. 2. Division of Insurance Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. 3. Istituto di Sanità Pubblica, Sezione di Igiene, Centro di Ricerca e Studi sulla Leadership in Medicina, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Roma, Italy. 4. Health Care System and Governance, Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research (NIVEL), Utrecht, The Netherlands. 5. Dipartimento di Sanità Pubblica e Malattie Infettive, Sapienza Università di Roma, Roma, Italy. 6. Office for Scientific and International Affairs, Santé publique France, Saint-Maurice, France. 7. Health Service Management Research, Escuela Andaluza de Salud Pública, Granada, Spain. 8. Division of Health Data and Assessments, Health Care System, NRW Centre for Health (LZG.NRW), Bielefeld, Germany. 9. Department of International Health, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 10. Centre for Health Knowledge Integration, Centre for Health and Society, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, The Netherlands. 11. European Public Health Association, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Abstract
Background: For better supporting the science-governance interface, the potential of health assessments appears underrated. Aims: To identify what various types of health assessment have in common; how they differ; which assessment(s) to apply for which purpose; and what needs and options there are for future joint development. Methods: This review is based on five types of health assessment: monitoring/surveillance/reporting, assessment of health impact, of health technology, of health systems performance, health-related economic assessment. The approach is exploratory and includes: applying an agreed set of comparative criteria; circulating and supplementing synoptic tables; and interpreting the results. Results: Two of the assessments deal with the question 'Where do we stand?', two others with variants of 'What if' questions. Economic Assessment can take place in combination with any of the others. The assessments involve both overall 'procedures' and a variety of 'methods' which inescapably reflect some subjective assumptions and decisions, e.g. on issue framing. Resources and assistance exist for all these assessments. The paper indicates which type of assessment is appropriate for what purpose. Conclusions: Although scientific soundness of health assessments is not trivial to secure, existing types of health assessment can be interpreted as a useful 'toolkit' for supporting governance. If current traces of 'silo' thinking can be overcome, the attainability of a more unified culture of health assessments increases and such assessments might more widely be recognized as a prime, 'tried and tested' way to voice Public Health knowledge and to support rational governance and policy-making.
Background: For better supporting the science-governance interface, the potential of health assessments appears underrated. Aims: To identify what various types of health assessment have in common; how they differ; which assessment(s) to apply for which purpose; and what needs and options there are for future joint development. Methods: This review is based on five types of health assessment: monitoring/surveillance/reporting, assessment of health impact, of health technology, of health systems performance, health-related economic assessment. The approach is exploratory and includes: applying an agreed set of comparative criteria; circulating and supplementing synoptic tables; and interpreting the results. Results: Two of the assessments deal with the question 'Where do we stand?', two others with variants of 'What if' questions. Economic Assessment can take place in combination with any of the others. The assessments involve both overall 'procedures' and a variety of 'methods' which inescapably reflect some subjective assumptions and decisions, e.g. on issue framing. Resources and assistance exist for all these assessments. The paper indicates which type of assessment is appropriate for what purpose. Conclusions: Although scientific soundness of health assessments is not trivial to secure, existing types of health assessment can be interpreted as a useful 'toolkit' for supporting governance. If current traces of 'silo' thinking can be overcome, the attainability of a more unified culture of health assessments increases and such assessments might more widely be recognized as a prime, 'tried and tested' way to voice Public Health knowledge and to support rational governance and policy-making.
Authors: Françoise Jabot; Emile Tremblay; Ana Rivadeneyra; Thierno Amadou Diallo; Geneviève Lapointe Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-09-09 Impact factor: 3.390