Indicators for evaluating European population health: a Delphi selection process

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Freitas, Ângela
Data de Publicação: 2018
Outros Autores: Santana, Paula, Oliveira, Mónica D., Almendra, Ricardo, Bana E Costa, João C., Bana E Costa, Carlos A.
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/10316/107520
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5463-0
Resumo: Background: Indicators are essential instruments for monitoring and evaluating population health. The selection of a multidimensional set of indicators should not only reflect the scientific evidence on health outcomes and health determinants, but also the views of health experts and stakeholders. The aim of this study is to describe the Delphi selection process designed to promote agreement on indicators considered relevant to evaluate population health at the European regional level. Methods: Indicators were selected in a Delphi survey conducted using a web-platform designed to implement and monitor participatory processes. It involved a panel of 51 experts and 30 stakeholders from different areas of knowledge and geographies. In three consecutive rounds the panel indicated their level of agreement or disagreement with indicator’s relevance for evaluating population health in Europe. Inferential statistics were applied to draw conclusions on observed level of agreement (Scott’s Pi interrater reliability coefficient) and opinion change (McNemar Chi-square test). Multivariate analysis of variance was conducted to check if the field of expertise influenced the panellist responses (Wilk’s Lambda test). Results: The panel participated extensively in the study (overall response rate: 80%). Eighty indicators reached group agreement for selection in the areas of: economic and social environment (12); demographic change (5); lifestyle and health behaviours (8); physical environment (6); built environment (12); healthcare services (11) and health outcomes (26). Higher convergence of group opinion towards agreement on the relevance of indicators was seen for lifestyle and health behaviours, healthcare services, and health outcomes. The panellists’ field of expertise influenced responses: statistically significant differences were found for economic and social environment (p < 0.05 in round 1 and 2), physical environment (p < 0.01 in round 1) and health outcomes (p < 0.01 in round 3). Conclusions: The high levels of participation observed in this study, by involving experts and stakeholders and ascertaining their views, underpinned the added value of using a transparent Web-Delphi process to promote agreement on what indicators are relevant to appraise population health.
id RCAP_5987fd33753dbf9a3749a872f7c07efd
oai_identifier_str oai:estudogeral.uc.pt:10316/107520
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository_id_str 7160
spelling Indicators for evaluating European population health: a Delphi selection processPopulation healthEuropean regionsIndicatorsParticipatory approachWeb DelphiExpert opinionGroup agreementDelphi TechniqueEuropeFemaleHumansMaleSurveys and QuestionnairesConsensusHealth Status IndicatorsPopulation HealthBackground: Indicators are essential instruments for monitoring and evaluating population health. The selection of a multidimensional set of indicators should not only reflect the scientific evidence on health outcomes and health determinants, but also the views of health experts and stakeholders. The aim of this study is to describe the Delphi selection process designed to promote agreement on indicators considered relevant to evaluate population health at the European regional level. Methods: Indicators were selected in a Delphi survey conducted using a web-platform designed to implement and monitor participatory processes. It involved a panel of 51 experts and 30 stakeholders from different areas of knowledge and geographies. In three consecutive rounds the panel indicated their level of agreement or disagreement with indicator’s relevance for evaluating population health in Europe. Inferential statistics were applied to draw conclusions on observed level of agreement (Scott’s Pi interrater reliability coefficient) and opinion change (McNemar Chi-square test). Multivariate analysis of variance was conducted to check if the field of expertise influenced the panellist responses (Wilk’s Lambda test). Results: The panel participated extensively in the study (overall response rate: 80%). Eighty indicators reached group agreement for selection in the areas of: economic and social environment (12); demographic change (5); lifestyle and health behaviours (8); physical environment (6); built environment (12); healthcare services (11) and health outcomes (26). Higher convergence of group opinion towards agreement on the relevance of indicators was seen for lifestyle and health behaviours, healthcare services, and health outcomes. The panellists’ field of expertise influenced responses: statistically significant differences were found for economic and social environment (p < 0.05 in round 1 and 2), physical environment (p < 0.01 in round 1) and health outcomes (p < 0.01 in round 3). Conclusions: The high levels of participation observed in this study, by involving experts and stakeholders and ascertaining their views, underpinned the added value of using a transparent Web-Delphi process to promote agreement on what indicators are relevant to appraise population health.Springer Nature2018-04-27info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlehttp://hdl.handle.net/10316/107520http://hdl.handle.net/10316/107520https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5463-0eng1471-2458Freitas, ÂngelaSantana, PaulaOliveira, Mónica D.Almendra, RicardoBana E Costa, João C.Bana E Costa, Carlos A.info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2023-07-18T11:00:30Zoai:estudogeral.uc.pt:10316/107520Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T21:23:52.041164Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Indicators for evaluating European population health: a Delphi selection process
title Indicators for evaluating European population health: a Delphi selection process
spellingShingle Indicators for evaluating European population health: a Delphi selection process
Freitas, Ângela
Population health
European regions
Indicators
Participatory approach
Web Delphi
Expert opinion
Group agreement
Delphi Technique
Europe
Female
Humans
Male
Surveys and Questionnaires
Consensus
Health Status Indicators
Population Health
title_short Indicators for evaluating European population health: a Delphi selection process
title_full Indicators for evaluating European population health: a Delphi selection process
title_fullStr Indicators for evaluating European population health: a Delphi selection process
title_full_unstemmed Indicators for evaluating European population health: a Delphi selection process
title_sort Indicators for evaluating European population health: a Delphi selection process
author Freitas, Ângela
author_facet Freitas, Ângela
Santana, Paula
Oliveira, Mónica D.
Almendra, Ricardo
Bana E Costa, João C.
Bana E Costa, Carlos A.
author_role author
author2 Santana, Paula
Oliveira, Mónica D.
Almendra, Ricardo
Bana E Costa, João C.
Bana E Costa, Carlos A.
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Freitas, Ângela
Santana, Paula
Oliveira, Mónica D.
Almendra, Ricardo
Bana E Costa, João C.
Bana E Costa, Carlos A.
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Population health
European regions
Indicators
Participatory approach
Web Delphi
Expert opinion
Group agreement
Delphi Technique
Europe
Female
Humans
Male
Surveys and Questionnaires
Consensus
Health Status Indicators
Population Health
topic Population health
European regions
Indicators
Participatory approach
Web Delphi
Expert opinion
Group agreement
Delphi Technique
Europe
Female
Humans
Male
Surveys and Questionnaires
Consensus
Health Status Indicators
Population Health
description Background: Indicators are essential instruments for monitoring and evaluating population health. The selection of a multidimensional set of indicators should not only reflect the scientific evidence on health outcomes and health determinants, but also the views of health experts and stakeholders. The aim of this study is to describe the Delphi selection process designed to promote agreement on indicators considered relevant to evaluate population health at the European regional level. Methods: Indicators were selected in a Delphi survey conducted using a web-platform designed to implement and monitor participatory processes. It involved a panel of 51 experts and 30 stakeholders from different areas of knowledge and geographies. In three consecutive rounds the panel indicated their level of agreement or disagreement with indicator’s relevance for evaluating population health in Europe. Inferential statistics were applied to draw conclusions on observed level of agreement (Scott’s Pi interrater reliability coefficient) and opinion change (McNemar Chi-square test). Multivariate analysis of variance was conducted to check if the field of expertise influenced the panellist responses (Wilk’s Lambda test). Results: The panel participated extensively in the study (overall response rate: 80%). Eighty indicators reached group agreement for selection in the areas of: economic and social environment (12); demographic change (5); lifestyle and health behaviours (8); physical environment (6); built environment (12); healthcare services (11) and health outcomes (26). Higher convergence of group opinion towards agreement on the relevance of indicators was seen for lifestyle and health behaviours, healthcare services, and health outcomes. The panellists’ field of expertise influenced responses: statistically significant differences were found for economic and social environment (p < 0.05 in round 1 and 2), physical environment (p < 0.01 in round 1) and health outcomes (p < 0.01 in round 3). Conclusions: The high levels of participation observed in this study, by involving experts and stakeholders and ascertaining their views, underpinned the added value of using a transparent Web-Delphi process to promote agreement on what indicators are relevant to appraise population health.
publishDate 2018
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2018-04-27
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/10316/107520
http://hdl.handle.net/10316/107520
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5463-0
url http://hdl.handle.net/10316/107520
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5463-0
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 1471-2458
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Springer Nature
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Springer Nature
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
collection Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1799134124553797632