Suchergebnisse

Background: The World Economic Forum (2011) concluded that the economic impact of mental illness is the single most important contributor among all non-communicable diseases to loss of productivity. The 21 economies represented by Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) responded to that information with efforts to address mental health as an integral component of economic development. Aim: In order to help assess the progress of APEC region compared to other regions of the world, the World Health Organization (WHO) granted us access to a subset of the 2014 Mental Health Atlas database containing health indicators from all 21 APEC economies. Methods: APEC-specific data were extracted using the same format used by WHO in its Mental Health Atlas to compare/contrast data in APEC versus the six WHO regions of the world. Results: It was observed that mental health workforces in APEC include a higher number of psychiatrist providers compared with WHO regions. Suicide rates reported in three APEC economies are among the highest in the world. All APEC economies continue their individual and coordinated efforts to support their ' APEC Roadmap to Promote Mental Wellness in a Healthy Asia Pacific (2014–2020)'. Conclusion: Significant challenges for APEC members exist to coordinate regional efforts to improve mental health due to highly variable income levels, existing health infrastructures and social preferences. The findings in this report may serve as a helpful baseline for measuring success within the APEC region by 2020, the year in which progress in support of economic development will be reassessed.

The search for health indicators is based on a logical desire to provide the best health care, distribution, & social planning by determining the health condition of a population. Indicators would allow for a historical assessment, monitoring of a present trend, & planning for the future. However, a clear-cut definition of each particular indicator is problematic. Each indicator may vary with individuals & institutions. Health is largely subjective; this makes objective analysis difficult & interpretive. Further complications arise from who is best equipped to provide the data, how descriptions are to be translated into indicators, how to compose an effective indicator scale for a state of health, & the search for a singular method or solution to solve the problem. 2 Tables, 5 Figures. A. Rothman.

Demographic change, new health threats and inequalities in health and healthcare provision in and between European Union (EU) member states pose a great challenge to European health care systems. Not only for these reasons does it make sense to collect comparable European health data. Such information provides insights on the distribution of risk and protection factors, the prevalence of chronic diseases and the levels of care provided in the member states and supports the planning and implementation of (health) policy measures. Since 2013, in the context of the European Health Interview Survey (EHIS), all EU member states are obliged to collect data on the health status, the provision of healthcare, health determinants and socio-economic conditions of their populations. In Germany, the EHIS is integrated into health monitoring at the Robert Koch Institute (RKI). The RKI is thus Germany's interface to the European health monitoring presented here. European health monitoring relies on different indicator systems such as the European Core Health Indicators (ECHI), EU social indicators and the health indicators of the European Sustainable Development Strategy. These are based on administrative and survey data, which stem for example from the EHIS or the European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC) survey. Comparative data analyses must take into account the differences between health care systems, socioeconomic conditions and the age structures of societies. Variances in the prevalence of allergies for example are also due to differences in the available diagnostic tools. Significant differences in the prevalence of hypertension in Europe (with a range of 20% for women and 17% for men) are also related to different levels of awareness of hypertension. Comparative analyses can support the planning of and provide information for policy measures, and enhance the sharing of experiences between EU member states. A forthcoming EU regulation aims to harmonise the content of and intervals between ...

The possibility of using microbiological indicators of soil «health» to assess the soils. Th e fundamental possibility of quantitative characterization of the functional potential of the microbial system with the assessment of «ecological services» is shown. Thermodynamic criteria of natural microbial system (exergy and specific exergy) allow to carry out diagnostics of soil condition with direct estimation of degradation and damage. System characteristics of soil microbiota allow to approach the solution of many topical problems of functional soil science.

The process for identifying candidate leading health indicators -- Details of the top-down procedure -- Results of the bottom-up procedure : gaps in the draft objectives -- Appendixes. A. Committee member biosketches -- B. Public information-gathering meeting agendas -- C. Two social determinants of health frameworks -- D. Leading health indicator of contender form -- E. Department of Health and Human Services proposed objectives for inclusion in Healthy People 2030.

Introduction. In the European Union three different health systems could be defined according to service delivery, financing, and economic policies: Beveridge, Bismarck and Mixed system. Although health systems are hardly to compare, various organizations are developing methods assessing performance. In the present work we evaluated the performance of the three systems using European Community Health Indicators according to Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Methods. We conducted our study among the 28 states of the European Union using the following indicators: Standardized death rate for diseases of the circulatory system, standardized death rate for malignant neoplasms, road traffic accidents with injury, life expectancy at birth, incidence of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), infant deaths, pure alcohol consumption, infants vaccinated against Diphtheria Tetanus Pertussis (DTP), public and total expenditure on health over the period 2001-2010. Results. The variation of health indicators shows similar trend of circulatory system diseases and malignant neoplasms death rates, road accidents with injury, infant deaths, life expectancy at birth, public and total health expenditure. Some differences in the trend of HIV incidence, alcohol intake and DTP vaccination rates arise among systems. Grouping countries by health system paradigm and geographical area, resulted in a relevant heterogeneity (I2≥90%, Pvalue<0.0001). No clear superiority of a given health delivery system was found with respect to other paradigms. Conclusion. In accordance with the evidence of our study, we can suppose that best performances are more likely to be linked to country specific economic factors. In conclusion, it was not possible to identify the best health system model

Background: The European Core Health Indicators (ECHI) are a key source of comparable health information for the European Union (EU) and its Member States (MS). The ECHI shortlist contains 88 indicators which were developed by experts from MS and international organisations. Most indicators are derived from data sources at the EU's statistical office (Eurostat), the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and are available for most MS. The remaining indicators on the shortlist are at different stages of conceptual and/or methodological development. The indicators have been reviewed in the past against scientific developments, changes in data collections and emerging policy needs, yet not as part of a systematic and sustainable procedure. There is also no regular inventory of problems met by the MS in collecting the necessary data. Work package 4 of the BRIDGE Health project aimed at updating and improving the existing ECHI-indicator knowledge and expertise and at strengthening the scientific base that supports the effective development and use of health indicators for health policy evaluation and prioritization by the EU and its MS. The aim of this paper is to present a first overview of its outcomes and to explore issues concerning the ECHI data availability, content and policy relevance, update process and accessibility to stakeholders, in light of working towards a sustainable future. Methods: Two surveys were conducted within the framework of the BRIDGE Health project to reassess the status of the ECHI shortlist. The first survey focused on data availability in EU MS, candidate countries and European Free Trade Association (EFTA) countries. The second survey evaluated current needs and criteria with respect to content and policy relevance of the ECHI shortlist. Exploring potential new indicator topics was part of both surveys. All evaluations were supported by an advisory network of national and international experts. Results: Of the 36 countries ...

The European Core Health Indicators (ECHI) are a key source of comparable health information for the European Union (EU) and its Member States (MS). The ECHI shortlist contains 88 indicators which were developed by experts from MS and international organisations. Most indicators are derived from data sources at the EU's statistical office (Eurostat), the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and are available for most MS. The remaining indicators on the shortlist are at different stages of conceptual and/or methodological development. The indicators have been reviewed in the past against scientific developments, changes in data collections and emerging policy needs, yet not as part of a systematic and sustainable procedure. There is also no regular inventory of problems met by the MS in collecting the necessary data. Work package 4 of the BRIDGE Health project aimed at updating and improving the existing ECHI-indicator knowledge and expertise and at strengthening the scientific base that supports the effective development and use of health indicators for health policy evaluation and prioritization by the EU and its MS. The aim of this paper is to present a first overview of its outcomes and to explore issues concerning the ECHI data availability, content and policy relevance, update process and accessibility to stakeholders, in light of working towards a sustainable future.

Cover -- Half Title -- Series Page -- Title -- Copyright -- Contents -- Foreword -- About the Editors -- About the Authors -- Introduction -- 1 Health Planning in the United States: Where We Stand Today -- Health Planning in the United States: Where We Stand Today -- The State Health Planning and Development Agency -- Some Persistent Policy Problems -- References -- 2 National Health Data for Policy and Planning -- Organization of Federal Health Statistics -- Examples -- Conclusions -- References -- 3 Unmet Health Care Needs and Health Care Policy -- Introduction -- Measurement of Unmet Needs for Health Care -- Unmet Needs Measures, The National Center for Health Statistics and Health Systems Agencies -- Unmet Needs And Health Care policy -- Summary and Concluding Note -- Acknowledgments -- References and Notes -- 4 Future Directions in National Health Policy -- The National Health Policy Tower of Babel -- Let Heaven Wait -- Whose Utopia -- Countries Predetermine National Health Insurance Outcomes -- References -- 5 Readiness of Sociomedical Sciences to Measure Health Status -- Introduction -- Development of Health Status Measures in the Twentieth Century -- Health Status Indicator Strategies -- Towards an Epidemiology of Health -- Summary -- Acknowledgments -- References -- 6 The Measurement of Psychological Well-Being -- 7 Measurement of Oral Health Status -- Introduction -- Specific Dental Disease Indices -- Multidimensional Oral Status Indices or Profiles -- Indices of Oral Health Needs -- Conclusions -- Acknowledgments -- References -- 8 Methodological Perspectives on Health Status Indexes -- Introduction -- Uses of Health Status Data in Health Planning -- Criteria for Evaluating Health Status Indexes -- Types of Health Status Indexes -- Conclusions -- References and Notes -- 9 Health Status Indicators as Tools for Health Planning.