Unlocking data: Decision-maker perspectives on cross-sectoral data sharing and linkage as part of a whole-systems approach to public health policy and practice.

Emily Tweed, Kristina Cimova, Peter Craig, Mirjam Allik, Denise Brown, Mhairi Campbell, David Henderson, Charlie Mayor, Petra Meier, Nick Watson
{"title":"Unlocking data: Decision-maker perspectives on cross-sectoral data sharing and linkage as part of a whole-systems approach to public health policy and practice.","authors":"Emily Tweed, Kristina Cimova, Peter Craig, Mirjam Allik, Denise Brown, Mhairi Campbell, David Henderson, Charlie Mayor, Petra Meier, Nick Watson","doi":"10.3310/KYTW2173","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Secondary data from different policy sectors can provide unique insights into the social, environmental, economic and political determinants of health. This is especially pertinent in the context of whole-systems approaches to healthy public policy, which typically combine cross-sectoral collaboration with the application of theoretical insights from systems science. However, the sharing and linkage of data between different sectors are still relatively rare. Previous research has documented the perspectives of researchers and members of the public on data sharing, especially healthcare data, but has not engaged with relevant policy and practice decision-makers.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>We sought to work collaboratively with decision-makers relevant to healthy public policy and practice in Scotland to identify practical ways that cross-sectoral data sharing and linkage could be used to best effect to improve health and reduce health inequalities.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We facilitated three sequential stakeholder workshops with 20 participants from local and central government, public health teams, Health and Social Care Partnerships, the third sector, organisations which support data-intensive research and public representatives from across Scotland. Workshops were informed by two scoping reviews (carried out in June 2021) and three case studies of existing cross-sectoral linkage projects. Workshop activities included brainstorming of factors that would help participants make better decisions in their current role; reflective questions on lessons learnt from the case studies; and identifying and prioritising recommendations for change. Findings were synthesised using thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Setting and scope: </strong>Scotland; public and third sector data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Based on the workshops, and supported by the reviews and case studies, we created a visual representation of the use of evidence, and secondary data in particular, in decision-making for healthy public policy and practice. This covered three key overarching themes: differing understandings of evidence; diverse functions of evidence; and factors affecting use (such as technical, political and institutional, workforce and governance). Building on this, workshop participants identified six guiding principles for cross-sectoral data sharing and linkage: it should be pragmatic; participatory; ambitious; fair; iterative; with holistic and proportionate governance. Participants proposed 21 practical actions to this end, including: a strategic approach to identifying and sharing key data sets; streamlining governance processes (e.g. through standardised data sharing agreements; central data repositories; and a focus on reusable data resources) and building workforce capacity. To make these possible, participants identified a need for strong political and organisational leadership as well as a transparent and inclusive public conversation.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>Participation from some stakeholders was limited by workload pressures associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. No consensus was reached on the impact, effort, and/or timing of some recommendations. Findings were closely informed by the Scottish context but are nonetheless likely to be relevant to other jurisdictions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is broad consensus among key stakeholders that linked cross-sectoral data can be used far more extensively for public health decision-making than it is at present. No single change will lead to improved use of such data: a range of technical, organisational and political constraints must be addressed.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme as award number NIHR133585.</p>","PeriodicalId":74615,"journal":{"name":"Public health research (Southampton, England)","volume":" ","pages":"1-30"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public health research (Southampton, England)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/KYTW2173","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Secondary data from different policy sectors can provide unique insights into the social, environmental, economic and political determinants of health. This is especially pertinent in the context of whole-systems approaches to healthy public policy, which typically combine cross-sectoral collaboration with the application of theoretical insights from systems science. However, the sharing and linkage of data between different sectors are still relatively rare. Previous research has documented the perspectives of researchers and members of the public on data sharing, especially healthcare data, but has not engaged with relevant policy and practice decision-makers.

Aim: We sought to work collaboratively with decision-makers relevant to healthy public policy and practice in Scotland to identify practical ways that cross-sectoral data sharing and linkage could be used to best effect to improve health and reduce health inequalities.

Methods: We facilitated three sequential stakeholder workshops with 20 participants from local and central government, public health teams, Health and Social Care Partnerships, the third sector, organisations which support data-intensive research and public representatives from across Scotland. Workshops were informed by two scoping reviews (carried out in June 2021) and three case studies of existing cross-sectoral linkage projects. Workshop activities included brainstorming of factors that would help participants make better decisions in their current role; reflective questions on lessons learnt from the case studies; and identifying and prioritising recommendations for change. Findings were synthesised using thematic analysis.

Setting and scope: Scotland; public and third sector data.

Results: Based on the workshops, and supported by the reviews and case studies, we created a visual representation of the use of evidence, and secondary data in particular, in decision-making for healthy public policy and practice. This covered three key overarching themes: differing understandings of evidence; diverse functions of evidence; and factors affecting use (such as technical, political and institutional, workforce and governance). Building on this, workshop participants identified six guiding principles for cross-sectoral data sharing and linkage: it should be pragmatic; participatory; ambitious; fair; iterative; with holistic and proportionate governance. Participants proposed 21 practical actions to this end, including: a strategic approach to identifying and sharing key data sets; streamlining governance processes (e.g. through standardised data sharing agreements; central data repositories; and a focus on reusable data resources) and building workforce capacity. To make these possible, participants identified a need for strong political and organisational leadership as well as a transparent and inclusive public conversation.

Limitations: Participation from some stakeholders was limited by workload pressures associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. No consensus was reached on the impact, effort, and/or timing of some recommendations. Findings were closely informed by the Scottish context but are nonetheless likely to be relevant to other jurisdictions.

Conclusions: There is broad consensus among key stakeholders that linked cross-sectoral data can be used far more extensively for public health decision-making than it is at present. No single change will lead to improved use of such data: a range of technical, organisational and political constraints must be addressed.

Funding: This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme as award number NIHR133585.

释放数据:决策者对作为公共卫生政策和实践全系统方法一部分的跨部门数据共享和联系的看法。
背景:来自不同政策部门的二手数据可以提供对健康的社会、环境、经济和政治决定因素的独特见解。这一点对于以全系统方法制定健康的公共政策尤为重要,因为这种方法通常将跨部门合作与系统科学的理论见解相结合。然而,不同部门之间的数据共享和联系仍然相对罕见。以前的研究记录了研究人员和公众对数据共享,尤其是医疗保健数据共享的看法,但还没有与相关政策和实践决策者接触过。目的:我们试图与苏格兰健康公共政策和实践的相关决策者合作,确定跨部门数据共享和链接的实用方法,以达到改善健康和减少健康不平等的最佳效果:我们连续举办了三场利益相关者研讨会,共有 20 人参加,他们分别来自苏格兰各地的地方和中央政府、公共卫生团队、卫生和社会护理合作机构、第三部门、支持数据密集型研究的组织以及公众代表。研讨会参考了两份范围界定审查(2021 年 6 月开展)和三份现有跨部门联系项目的案例研究。研讨会的活动包括:集思广益,找出有助于与会者在其当前角色中做出更好决策的因素;就从案例研究中吸取的经验教训提出反思性问题;以及确定变革建议并排定优先次序。采用专题分析法对研究结果进行综合:苏格兰;公共部门和第三部门数据:结果:在研讨会的基础上,并在评论和案例研究的支持下,我们创建了一个可视化表达方式,说明在健康公共政策和实践的决策中如何使用证据,尤其是二手数据。这包括三个关键的首要主题:对证据的不同理解;证据的不同功能;以及影响使用的因素(如技术、政治和制度、劳动力和管理)。在此基础上,研讨会与会者确定了跨部门数据共享和联系的六项指导原则:应当务实;参与性;雄心勃勃;公平;迭代;全面和适度的管理。为此,与会者提出了 21 项切实可行的行动,包括:确定和共享关键数据集的战略方法;简化管理程序(例如,通过标准化数据共享协议;中央数据储存库;以及重点关注可重复使用的数据资源)和建设劳动力能力。为了实现这些目标,与会者认为需要强有力的政治和组织领导以及透明、包容的公共对话:局限性:由于 COVID-19 大流行带来的工作量压力,一些利益相关者的参与受到了限制。对于某些建议的影响、力度和/或时间安排没有达成共识。研究结果与苏格兰的情况密切相关,但也可能与其他地区相关:主要利益相关者已达成广泛共识,即跨部门的关联数据可以比现在更广泛地用于公共卫生决策。任何单一的改变都无法改善此类数据的使用:必须解决一系列技术、组织和政治方面的制约因素:本文是由美国国家健康与护理研究所(NIHR)公共卫生研究项目资助的独立研究,获奖编号为 NIHR133585。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信