Dineke Zeegers Paget

The Vienna Declaration on Public Health

In 1986 participants at the First International Conference on Health Promotion agreed the landmark Ottawa Charter. The Charter was a powerful response to calls for a new public health movement, setting out a vision and framework for actions to achieve the World Health Organization’s ‘Health for All’ targets by the year 2000 and beyond. It provided the foundation for many subsequent developments, including health in all policies, action on the built environment, community action and empowerment, an emphasis on prevention, and a focus on health equity. Today the principles of the Ottawa Charter remain as important as ever. Yet the world in 2016 is very different from that in 1986, and so too have the risks and opportunities for public health. In recognition of these changes, and taking account of other developments such as the 2016 World Federation of Public Health Association’s Global Charter on the Public’s Health,1 the European Public Health Association and its partners have examined how the principles set out in the Ottawa Charter apply …

National action for European public health research

INTRODUCTION Research and innovation are the basis for improving health and health services. The European Union (EU) supports research through multi-annual programmes. Public Health Innovation and Research in Europe (PHIRE) investigated how European countries cooperate for action in public health research. METHODS In PHIRE, following stakeholder workshops and consultations, a national report on public health research was created for 24 of 30 European countries. The report template asked five questions, on national links to European public health research and on national research through the Structural Funds and Ministry of Health. The national reports were assessed with framework analysis, and the country actions were classified strong/partial/weak or none. There were responses to the five questions sufficient for this analysis for between 14 and 20 countries RESULTS Six countries had public health research aligned with the EU, while three (large) countries were reported not aligned. Only two countries expressed strong engagement in developing public health research within Horizon 2020: most Ministries of Health had no position and only had contact with EU health research through other ministries. Only two countries reported use of the 2007-13 Structural Funds for public health research. While seven Ministries of Health led research from their own funds, or linked with Ministries of Science in six, the Ministries of Health of seven countries were reported not to be involved in public health research. CONCLUSIONS Ministries of Health and stakeholders are poorly engaged in developing public health research, with the Horizon 2020 research programme, or the Structural Funds. The European Commission should give more attention to coordination of public health research with member states if it is to give best value to European citizens.

A social way to experience a scientific event: Twitter use at the 7th European Public Health Conference.

Aims: Many studies have analysed Twitter’s use by attendees of scientific meetings and the characteristics of conference-related messages and most active attendees. Despite these previous reports, to date no studies have described the use of Twitter during Public Health conferences. For this reason, we decided to perform an analysis of Twitter’s use during the 7th European Public Health (EPH) Conference (Glasgow, November 2014). Methods: All the tweets published from 21 July to 2 December 2014 and including the hashtag #ephglasgow were retrieved and much information (author, date, retweets, favourites, mentions, presence of pictures and/or external links, content type and topics) was analysed. Results: A total of 1066 tweets with the hashtag #ephglasgow were retrieved; 86.3% of these were tweeted during the conference. A total of 209 single accounts tweeted, pictures were present in 29.7% tweets while external links were published in 13.8%. Conference speakers were mentioned in around 30% of tweets. Almost 60% of the tweets had a session-related content. Considering only the session-related tweets, one-third had as the main topic ‘Health inequalities and migrant and ethnic minority health’, while 20% were ‘Health policy and health economics’ oriented. Conclusions: The results of this study have demonstrated a massive use of Twitter by conference attendees during the 7th EPH conference, and that conference attendees are willing to share quotes and impressions particularly about conference-related topics. It is mandatory for conference organisers to promote online discussion and knowledge dissemination during conferences, especially in the public health field.

Civil society engagement in innovation and research through the European Public Health Association.

BACKGROUND The European Public Health Association (EUPHA) proposed and led PHIRE (Public Health Innovation and Research in Europe), with co-financing by the European Commission, to assess public health innovation and research at national level in Europe. PHIRE was also designed to promote organizational development and capacity building of EUPHA. We assess the success and limitations of using EUPHAs participative structures. METHODS In total, 30 European countries were included-27 EU countries, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland. EUPHA thematic section presidents were asked to identify country informants to report, through a web-based questionnaire, on eight public health innovations. National public health associations (EUPHA member organizations) were requested to identify their national public health research programmes and calls, review the health research system, coordinate a stakeholder workshop and provide a national report. The section and national reports were assessed for responses and completeness. RESULTS Half of the final responding CIs were members of EUPHA sections and the other half gained from other sources. Experts declined to respond for reasons including lack of time, knowledge of the innovation or funding. National public health associations held PHIRE workshops with Ministries of Health in 14 countries; information for 10 countries was gained through discussions within the national association, or country visits by PHIRE partners. Six countries provided no response. Some national associations had too weak organizational structures for the work or insufficient financial resources or criticism of the project. CONCLUSION EUPHA is the leading civil society organization giving support to public health research in Europe. PHIRE created new knowledge and supported organizational development. EUPHA sections gained expert reports on public health innovations in European countries and national public health associations reported on national public health research systems. Significant advances could be made if the European Commission worked more directly with EUPHAs expert members and with the national public health associations.

What is and what is not Health Impact Assessment.

Health Impact Assessment (HIA) is a broad methodology widely used in Europe since at least 20 years. However, it is often considered abstract, especially by policy makers and practitioners. One of the main reasons is that there is an ongoing confusion about what is and what is not HIA in practice, even among public health professionals. In order for HIA to reach its full potential, it would be useful to know what people consider being a HIA. There are two key definitions that clearly outline the boundaries of HIA. The first comes from the Gothenburg consensus paper1 where a HIA is described as ‘a combination of procedures, methods and tools by which a policy, program or project may be judged as to its potential effects on the health of a population and the distribution of those effects within the population’. The second comes from Elliot et al .2 and defines HIA as ‘Health impact assessment is a Process through which evidence (of different kinds), interests …

The role of non-governmental organisations in European Public Health: 'yes we can'.

On the eve of celebrating European Public Health Association’s (EUPHA’s) 20th anniversary, it is a good moment to reflect on the use, misuse and especially underuse of non-governmental organisations (NGO) in European public health policy and planning. There are numerous NGOs in Europe, supporting, promoting and disseminating public health in Europe. Some are aimed at specific professionals, such as the European Health Management Association (EHMA, health managers) and the European Federation of Nurses (the nursing profession). Others represent certain institutions and universities, such as the Association of Schools of public health in the European Region and EuroHealthNet (representing national institutes of public health). The European Public Health Alliance (EPHA) is representing the consumers, and a large number of NGOs represent specific public health issues or diseases. Without doubt, all these European NGOs have an added value in European public health. Representing public health professionals in the largest sense as well as consumers, these NGOs can assist in setting up and disseminating European public health policy. But the question remains whether this added value is used and exploited to the maximum. European institutions have significantly increased their work with NGOs in the past …

What role can civil society organizations have in European health policy

Over the years, the main European institutions active in health [European Union, and the Regional Office for Europe of the World Health Organization (WHO)] have played active roles in policy for public health in Europe. Yet, more recent developments have called into question the place of public health on the European political agenda. In this article, we reflect on how European health policy is set and what the role of civil society organizations (CSOs) can or should be, by showcasing two European associations as examples of how to influence European health policy development and implementation.

European Public Health NewsPresident's ColumnEUPHA office columnMessage from the WHO regional director for EuropeThe Ebola outbreak: 1 year on8th EPH Conference—‘Health in Europe—from global to local policies, methods and practices’

In this main European public health (EPH) news, there is a clear call for the public health community to unite (Andriukaitis), combine efforts (McKee, Zeegers Paget) and to work intersectoral (Jakab). We need all of this to make the voice of the public health community visible and loud. # Presidents Column {#article-title-2} One of the most important roles of the public health community is to make the invisible visible. Frequently we find ourselves giving voice to the unheard, the many marginalized and often vulnerable groups whose needs remain unseen by our political leaders. We use our epidemiological skills to detect otherwise invisible associations, shedding light on previously unknown risk factors for disease and detecting patterns in complex data. However, increasingly we find ourselves shedding light on those powerful vested interests that threaten population health. The work of tobacco-control researchers exemplifies this, dredging through thousands of industry documents to reveal behaviour that is almost always immoral and sometimes illegal. More recently, researchers seeking to understand policy on food and alcohol have had to resort to the same tactics to understand how those industries operate, showing that they have frequently adopted the same methods as the tobacco industry. This body of work has led to the increasing use of the term ‘commercial determinants of health’, with its focus on how large corporations frame the prevailing narrative, defining what is considered possible and what is not, capture the regulators and in some cases, write the laws in ways that will advantage them. In recent months, EUPHA has sought to make two of these processes more visible. Attracting little public attention, the European Commission has been promoting a Trade Secrets Directive that would give large corporations an exceptional degree of protection from public scrutiny.1 Along with many other organizations concerned about health, the environment and transparency, we …

European Public Health NewsEUPHA President's columnEUPHA office newsMessage from the Regional Director (January 2013)—A Historical Turning Point to Fight Antibiotic ResistanceIncreasing Efforts on Vaccine Preventable Diseases in the EUThree Priorities of the 2013 Work Plan of ECDC6TH European Public Health Conference—Health in Europe: Are we there Yet? Learning from the Past, Building the Future

In this European Public Health News, we have a newcomer: the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control has joined our efforts with a column on sustainable European collaboration. The Regional Director of World Health Organization (WHO) Europe announces the setting up of collaboration on antibiotic resistance. The European Commission emphasizes the need for a continuous commitment (on vaccine preventable diseases). The two EUPHA columns not only fully support the European collaboration, continuous commitment and use of networks but also look more critically at the sustainability of these initiatives. Of course the 6th European Public Health Conference offers an excellent opportunity to address continuous European commitment towards public health in Europe. # EUPHA Presidents column {#article-title-2} On 5 December 2012, Marieke Verschuuren, President of the EUPHA section on Public Health Monitoring and Reporting, and I sent a letter to European Union (EU) Health Commissioner Borg on behalf of EUPHA. In this letter, EUPHA expressed its concerns related to the lack of sustainability of health information activities at the EU level. The main messages in this letter are in line with the letter that was sent to former Commissioner Dalli by 13 Directors of national public health institutes in EU Member States in April 2012. It is widely acknowledged that public health monitoring and reporting are essential elements of an evidence-based public health policy cycle. At EU level, the European Commission has been actively engaged in stimulating the development of a public health monitoring and reporting system since the 1990s, when the Health Monitoring Programme was launched. Since then, a multitude of EU-funded projects, networks and Joint Actions have been and are working on specific elements of that monitoring and reporting system, such as indicators, data and measuring instruments. Many of these projects have made a real difference to the development of health policy and understanding …

European Public Health NewsEUPHA Presidentrs ColumnEUPHA Office ColumnEUPHA section column: nothing about me without mema need for a new migrant health agendaMessage from the WHO Regional Director for Europe: European Member States agree to develop a roadmap to implement the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable DevelopmentMessage from the EU Commissioner for Health and Food Safety: EU action to support refugeesr and migrantsr healthFrom Vienna 2016 to Stockholm 2017

In this last European public health news of 2016, we see a change in EUPHA presidency. Muscat introduces herself by highlighting the importance of a united public health workforce in Europe. Zeegers adds to this by announcing the 25th anniversary of EUPHA next year. In our EUPHA section column, Kumar and Krasnik reflect on the successful satellite conference organised in June 2016 in Oslo, Norway, where solutions on the migrant and refugee problems were discussed. Again, a unified and strong public health workforce is necessary. Jakab emphasizes that working towards health (leaving no one behind) also includes an intersectoral approach to health. Andriukaitis specifically looks at the challenges of the migrants and refugees problem and reminds us that ensuring integration and protecting against stigma and health inequalities remain our long-term priorities. Zeegers showcases the strong voice of public health by reflecting on the Vienna Declaration, signed by many of our partners and members. # EUPHA President’s Column {#article-title-2} Sitting to write the first of my contributions as the President of EUPHA has provided an opportunity for me to reflect upon my relationship with EUPHA and public health over a couple of decades. I first came into contact with EUPHA in 1999, when as a young and an inexperienced public health doctor I sought out membership for the newly established Malta Association of Public Health Medicine. I arrived in Prague not knowing anyone other than my former professor Martin McKee who had encouraged me to write up a paper for presentation. It was then I met Dineke Zeegers Paget. Dineke has been a constant, unassuming, but ever present motor behind this organisation. Emboldened by the fact that I could speak Italian, I plucked up courage and introduced myself to Walter Ricciardi. I relate this starting point in my journey with EUPHA since it may resonate … Correspondence : Allan Krasnik, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Oster Farimagsgade 5, 1014 Copenhagen, Denmark, Tel: p4523321145, e-mail: alk{at}sund.ku.dk