The Public Health Status and Foresight report 2014: Four normative perspectives on a healthier Netherlands in 2040

Schoemaker, Casper; Loon, Jeanne van; Achterberg, Peter; Berg, Matthijs van den; Harbers, Maartje Marloes; Hertog, F.R.J. den; Hilderink, Henk; Kommer, Geertjan; Melse, Johan; Oers, Hans van; Plasmans, Marjanne H.D.; Vonk, Robert; Hoeymans, Nancy

doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2018.10.014

Cited by 16 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The trend scenario of the PHSF 2014 was based on analysis of historical trends and on a combination of demographic and epidemiological projections (assuming 'business-as-usual'). Ageing was found to be a key factor in the trend scenario of the PHSF 2014 [22]. By 2030, Dutch life expectancy would increase by a further 2-3 years.…”

Section: Framing Public Health In Four Perspectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this paper, we will illustrate how policy frames in public health may favour the use of specific bodies of evidence. This is based on the study of the sixth Dutch Public Health Status and Foresight (PHSF 2014) report [22], in which future trends in population health and healthcare expenditure were used to formulate the most important societal challenges with stakeholders. In a deliberative dialogue, these societal challenges were expanded into four normative perspectives on public health.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In other words, they serve as policy frames [15,25]. To identify potential interrelationships between the perspectives, we organised 4 expert sessions (on life expectancy and burden of disease, participation and exclusion, autonomy of civilians and patients, and health budget and economy) with more than 50 experts to explore how engagement based on each particular perspective would affect all societal challenges [22]. This approach clarified areas in which positive spin-offs could occur and win-win strategies could be created (opportunities).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This approach clarified areas in which positive spin-offs could occur and win-win strategies could be created (opportunities). To give an example, promoting health may improve participation in vulnerable social groups and, as a result, the overall burden of disease could lighten [22]. The PHSF 2014 report also identified areas in which negative side effects could arise and where political choices would be necessary (options or dilemmas).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The PHSF 2014 report also identified areas in which negative side effects could arise and where political choices would be necessary (options or dilemmas). For instance, if more room is created for diversity and freedom of choice, there will be some vulnerable groups that are insufficiently equipped to cope with it [22].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Four normative perspectives on public health policy-making and their preferences for bodies of evidence

Schoemaker

Loon

Achterberg

et al. 2020

Health Res Policy Sys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Calls for evidence-informed public health policy-making often ignore that there are multiple, and often competing, bodies of potentially relevant evidence to which policy-makers have recourse in identifying policy priorities and taking decisions. In this paper, we illustrate how policy frames may favour the use of specific bodies of evidence. For the sixth Dutch Public Health Status and Foresight report (2014), possible future trends in population health and healthcare expenditure were used as a starting point for a deliberative dialogue with stakeholders to identify and formulate the most important societal challenges for the Dutch health system. Working with these stakeholders, we expanded these societal challenges into four normative perspectives on public health. These perspectives can be regarded as policy frames. In each of the perspectives, a specific body of evidence is favoured and other types of evidence are neglected. Crucial outcomes in one body may be regarded as irrelevant from other perspectives. Consequently, the results of research from a single body of evidence may not be helpful in the policymaking processes because policy-makers need to account for trade-offs between all competing interests and values. To support these policy processes, researchers need to combine qualitative and quantitative methodologies to address different outcomes from the start of their studies. We feel it is time for the research community to repoliticise the idea of evidence use and for policy-makers to demand research that helps them to account for all health-related policy goals. This is a prerequisite for real evidence-informed policy-making.

show abstract

Section: Framing Public Health In Four Perspectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Four normative perspectives on public health policy-making and their preferences for bodies of evidence

Schoemaker

Loon

Achterberg

et al. 2020

Health Res Policy Sys

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Clinical Work-Integrating Care in Current Practice: A Scoping Review

Kluit,

van Bennekom,

Beumer

et al. 2023

J Occup Rehabil

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Clinical work-integrating care (CWIC) refers to paying attention to work participation in a clinical setting. Working patients may benefit from CWIC. The purpose of this study is to explore the extent and nature to which medical specialists provide CWIC and what policies and guidelines oblige or recommend specialists to do. Methods A scoping review was conducted. The databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, Psychinfo, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched for studies on the extent and nature of CWIC and supplemented by gray literature on policies and guidelines. Six main categories were defined a priori. Applying a meta-aggregative approach, subcategories were subsequently defined using qualitative data. Next, quantitative findings were integrated into these subcategories. A separate narrative of policies and guidelines using the same main categories was constructed. Results In total, 70 studies and 55 gray literature documents were included. The main findings per category were as follows: (1) collecting data on the occupation of patients varied widely; (2) most specialists did not routinely discuss work, but recent studies showed an increasing tendency to do so, which corresponds to recent policies and guidelines; (3) work-related advice ranged from general advice to patient–physician collaboration about work-related decisions; (4) CWIC was driven by legislation in many countries; (5) specialists sometimes collaborated in multidisciplinary teams to provide CWIC; and (6) medical guidelines regarding CWIC were generally not available. Conclusion Medical specialists provide a wide variety of CWIC ranging from assessing a patient’s occupation to extensive collaboration with patients and other professionals to support work participation. Lack of medical guidelines could explain the variety of these practices.

show abstract

The Dutch health system in 2019: Many major reforms, but still work in progress

Jeurissen

Ginneken²

2019

Health Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Public Health Status and Foresight report 2014: Four normative perspectives on a healthier Netherlands in 2040

Cited by 16 publications

References 41 publications

Four normative perspectives on public health policy-making and their preferences for bodies of evidence

Four normative perspectives on public health policy-making and their preferences for bodies of evidence

Clinical Work-Integrating Care in Current Practice: A Scoping Review

The Dutch health system in 2019: Many major reforms, but still work in progress

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About